Hill Boren Properties v. Ricky Lee Boren v. Tamara Hill

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2019-02128-COA-T10B-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; January 9, 2020; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed an expedited interlocutory appeal regarding the denial of a motion to disqualify Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies from a case involving Hill Boren Properties and Ricky Lee Boren. The third-party defendants, represented by Attorney Tamara Hill and her client T and T Home Rentals, L.L.C., argued for disqualification on two grounds: Judge Davies's status as a material witness due to his involvement in a prior Chancery Court case and allegations of bias against Ms. Hill stemming from comments made during that case. The court determined that the trial court's decision to deny the motion for recusal was appropriate, affirming the ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings. The underlying dispute involved claims about unpaid rent and property conditions related to Hill Boren, P.C., where Judge Davies had been invited to view the premises. The Chancery Court case, which prompted the motion to disqualify, involved disputes regarding ownership and valuation of the law firm as Mr. Hill approached retirement.

Defendants moved to recuse Judge Davies, citing alleged inappropriate ex parte communications with Chancellor Butler and bias against them. Judge Davies denied the motion, leading to a petition for recusal appeal, which the Court of Appeals affirmed on December 21, 2017. The trial proceeded, resulting in a jury verdict for the plaintiffs on June 28, 2019, with a judgment entered on August 12, 2019, presumed to adopt the jury's findings. Ms. Hill represented the defendants until May 16, 2019, when she withdrew, filing an affidavit related to the disqualification motion per Rule 10B. On November 14, 2019, the court denied the disqualification motion, prompting the appellants to file an accelerated interlocutory appeal on December 4, 2019, raising two issues: whether the trial court erred in denying the recusal and whether an impartial judge should decide recusal matters. The appellate court reviews such denials de novo, limited to whether the trial judge should have granted the recusal motion. In expedited appeals under Rule 10B, the record generally consists of documents provided by the appellant. The court requested a complete copy of the order denying the disqualification motion, which was initially not complied with but later rectified. The Rule 10B petition indicated that Boren had raised a third-party complaint regarding property damage, potentially implicating Tamara Hill, and argued that Judge Davies must recuse himself as he became a material witness after touring the property with Boren's counsel without Tamara Hill present.

Appellants argue that Judge Davies, having observed the condition of Hill Boren, P.C. during a hearing, is a material witness and should disqualify himself under the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rules 2.9(C) and 2.11(A)(1), (2)(d). However, the court disagrees, stating that the circumstances of Judge Davies' visit do not violate these rules. Judge Davies explained that his visit occurred after a hearing on July 31, 2019, at the request of Mr. Hill, who wanted to demonstrate the condition of his law office, including issues like leaks and mold. Mrs. Hill was not present during the visit, and no evidence suggests that Judge Davies' visit constituted an ex parte communication or an independent investigation as prohibited by Rule 2.9. The appellants did not contest the factual account provided by Judge Davies regarding the visit. Furthermore, the definition of a "material witness" from Black’s Law Dictionary indicates a person who can provide relevant testimony about consequential facts. The court will assess whether Judge Davies is indeed a material witness requiring recusal based on the allegations related to property damage and other claims in the pending litigation.

Judge Davies received a request from Mr. Hill to visit a law office, ostensibly to demonstrate the size of the firm and to highlight issues such as leaks and mold. The appellants argue that this visit made Judge Davies a material witness in a related Circuit Court suit; however, this assertion is rejected. The Chancery Court matter involved the dissolution of the law firm, and Judge Davies's visit, which occurred months before the third-party complaint was filed, did not provide relevant evidence for the case. The appellants failed to specify how Judge Davies's observations might pertain to the Circuit Court suit or fulfill the need for direct evidence. 

Additionally, the appellants claimed that Judge Davies's statements during the Chancery Court suit demonstrated bias against Ms. Hill, warranting his recusal under Rule 2.11(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Davies noted that these allegations had previously been raised and dismissed, with the dismissal upheld on appeal in 2017. As a result, the principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of these bias claims from before December 2017. Any recusal issues arising from events after that date should be addressed on appeal in the Chancery Court case, not in the current proceedings.

Judge Davies thoroughly examined the factual basis for the Appellants' claims of bias and prejudice. Upon reviewing the relevant materials, including court hearing transcripts, no evidence contradicting the court's statements was found. The Appellants argued that Judge Davies' perceived lack of impartiality toward Ms. Hill necessitated recusal by another judge, invoking Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, which outlines the procedure for seeking a judge's disqualification. Specifically, Section 1.01 mandates that a written motion with an affidavit must be filed, followed by a written order from the judge to grant or deny the motion. If denied, the Appellants can appeal the decision through an accelerated interlocutory appeal as per Section 2.01. The court confirmed that the proper procedures under Rule 10B were followed, and the Appellants did not challenge the factual statements or the adherence to the rule. Consequently, there is no basis to reject the established procedure. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.