Background
Russell Allen Dunn, III (Petitioner) and Kaileigh Marie Dunn are parties to a post-divorce proceeding in the General Sessions Court for Wilson County, Tennessee, before Judge A. Ensley Hagan, Jr. Petitioner moved to recuse Judge Hagan on two grounds: (1) Respondent Kaileigh Dunn serves on the Board of Directors of the Lebanon Noon Rotary Club, of which Judge Hagan is also a member; and (2) Respondent allegedly told Petitioner in June 2025 that he would “never win in Family Court” because she and the judge saw each other every Tuesday at Rotary Club meetings and the judge would “always take her side.”
Judge Hagan denied the recusal motion, finding that shared membership in a local Rotary Club chapter — where his relationship with Respondent amounted to no more than an acquaintance — did not create an appearance of impropriety sufficient to require recusal. The court also noted that no recusal issue had been raised by either party during the earlier divorce proceedings, in which multiple hearings were held. Petitioner filed this accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition, determined that no answer or additional briefing was necessary, and acted summarily on the appeal under Rule 10B sections 2.05 and 2.06. The standard of review was de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion. Applying the objective standard under Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.11 — whether a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position, knowing all facts known to the judge, would find a reasonable basis for questioning impartiality — the court held that mere co-membership in a local Rotary Club chapter does not, without more, create an objectively reasonable appearance of impropriety. The court cited existing Tennessee precedent that a judge’s acquaintance with, or even friendship with, a party does not alone mandate recusal, particularly in smaller communities.
As to the alleged statement of favoritism attributed to Respondent, the court held that a party’s own boastful or self-serving statement expressing hope that a judge will rule in her favor does not establish actual bias by the judge. The court noted the statement could equally reflect an attempt to intimidate the opposing party into a favorable settlement. Standing alone, it did not objectively call the judge’s impartiality into reasonable question.
The court also affirmed on timeliness grounds. Petitioner learned of the alleged basis for recusal in June 2025 but did not file his motion until April 2026 — approximately ten months later — without demonstrating good cause for the delay. Rule 10B § 1.01 requires that a recusal motion be filed promptly after the moving party learns of the facts establishing the basis, and Petitioner failed to satisfy that requirement. New allegations of bias raised for the first time in the appellate petition, not presented to the trial court, were not considered.
Key Takeaways
- Shared membership in a civic organization such as a Rotary Club, without a closer personal relationship, does not by itself create a sufficient appearance of impropriety to require judicial recusal under Tennessee’s objective standard.
- A party’s own out-of-court statement expressing confidence or hope that a judge will favor her does not establish actual judicial bias and is insufficient to compel recusal.
- Tennessee Rule 10B requires recusal motions to be filed promptly after the moving party learns of the alleged basis; a ten-month unexplained delay renders the motion untimely and is an independent ground for denial.
- New bias allegations raised for the first time on Rule 10B appeal — without having been presented in the trial court motion — will not be considered by the appellate court.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Tennessee’s recusal standard is objective and demanding: a movant must produce evidence that would prompt a reasonable, disinterested person to question the judge’s impartiality, not merely point to incidental social overlap. For family law practitioners, the case illustrates that a judge’s casual civic acquaintance with a litigant — even one involving regular contact at community meetings — falls well short of the threshold for recusal, absent concrete evidence of an actual relationship that could compromise impartiality.
The ruling also serves as a practical reminder about procedural diligence. Even where colorable grounds for recusal exist, failure to act promptly after learning of those facts can be independently fatal to the motion. Attorneys advising clients who believe a judge may be biased should move without unnecessary delay and ensure that every ground is raised in the initial trial court motion, as new theories cannot be introduced for the first time on Rule 10B appeal.