Background
Kevin and Jessica Woodruff were parties to a custody dispute in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The trial court entered a final order on January 22, 2026, and Jessica (Appellant) filed a Rule 3 appeal of that judgment. Following the appeal filing, disputes arose over record preparation, child support enforcement, and other post-judgment matters.
On or about April 17, 2026, Appellant filed a verified motion to recuse the trial court judge, alleging a “cumulative pattern of rulings, docket handling, record barriers, evidence restrictions, unequal enforcement, fee barriers, refusal to transfer venue, and post-judgment procedural rulings” that created an appearance of partiality. The trial court denied the motion on May 4, 2026, finding that the underlying case had been fully adjudicated, that record-preparation activities were purely administrative, and that the two post-judgment rulings at issue were entered without knowledge that a recusal motion had even been filed.
Appellant, proceeding pro se, then filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Her filing included numerous documents — petitions, a sworn affidavit, and exhibits — but did not include a copy of the actual recusal motion she had filed in the trial court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. Rule 10B, § 2.03 expressly requires that a petition for an accelerated interlocutory recusal appeal be accompanied by a copy of the motion to recuse filed in the trial court, the trial court’s ruling on that motion, and any other record portions necessary for determination of the appeal. The court found that Appellant’s record was deficient on its face: although one of her filings listed the April 17, 2026 recusal motion as “Exhibit B,” the actual exhibit attached under that label was a March 9, 2026 order on pro se motions — not the recusal motion itself.
Because the recusal motion was absent, the court had no way to evaluate what allegations Appellant had raised before the trial court, whether those allegations were legally sufficient to require disqualification, or whether the motion had been supported by the mandatory affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. Without those materials, the court could not fulfill its obligation to decide the appeal on the expedited basis Rule 10B demands.
The court declined to relax the requirements based on Appellant’s pro se status, reaffirming that pro se litigants must comply with both substantive and procedural law to the same degree as represented parties. The appeal was dismissed and the matter remanded, with costs taxed to Appellant. The court also noted that Appellant may still raise recusal-related issues in her pending Rule 3 appeal from the final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requires strict, meticulous compliance: a petition for accelerated interlocutory recusal appeal must include a copy of the actual recusal motion filed in the trial court, not merely a reference or index entry pointing to it.
- Without the recusal motion, the appellate court cannot assess the sufficiency of the grounds alleged or confirm that the mandatory supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury was included — either deficiency independently warrants dismissal.
- Pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with Rule 10B’s mandatory procedural requirements; the court balanced fairness to the pro se appellant against fairness to the opposing party.
- A dismissed Rule 10B interlocutory appeal does not necessarily foreclose relief — the appellant may still raise recusal issues as part of a Rule 3 appeal from the final judgment.
Why It Matters
This memorandum opinion reinforces the Tennessee Court of Appeals’ consistent position that the accelerated, self-contained nature of Rule 10B recusal appeals leaves no room for an incomplete record. Because the appellate court typically has only what the petitioner provides, omitting even a single required document — here, the foundational recusal motion itself — renders the entire petition unreviewable and compels dismissal without consideration of the underlying merits.
For practitioners, the case is a practical reminder to treat Rule 10B’s document checklist as a strict filing requirement rather than a formality. It is equally instructive for pro se litigants, who may believe that voluminous filings compensate for missing core documents; the court made clear they do not. Attorneys advising clients who have lost a recusal ruling should audit the record carefully before filing the 10B petition, and should confirm that every exhibit listed in an index is actually attached.