The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently ruled on a divorce case involving Dana Denea Hickerson Page and Richard Charles Page, Jr. The court denied Richard Page's second request to recuse the trial judge, affirming a lower court's decision that deemed the motion repetitive and frivolous. This ruling has implications for how future recusal motions may be handled in similar cases.
The case, Dana Denea Hickerson Page v. Richard Charles Page, Jr., was filed under docket number M2026-00639-COA-T10B-CV. It centers around post-divorce civil contempt proceedings where Richard Page, who represented himself, sought the recusal of the judge overseeing the case. The court's decision on this matter is significant as it addresses the standards for filing recusal motions in Tennessee.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Dana Denea Hickerson Page (the Mother) and Richard Charles Page, Jr. (the Father). The dispute arose following their divorce, specifically regarding issues of civil contempt related to financial obligations. Richard Page filed an initial motion to recuse the trial judge on December 1, 2025, shortly after a hearing in which the judge made rulings unfavorable to him.
In his first motion, Richard Page cited a $500 campaign contribution made to the judge's campaign by the attorney representing Dana Page, as well as a perceived pattern of rulings that favored the Mother. The trial judge denied this motion on January 14, 2026, stating that Richard Page had failed to meet the necessary requirements for such a motion and that his request appeared to be an attempt to change the outcome of the case after the judge had already made a ruling.
The Ruling
On February 13, 2026, Richard Page filed a second motion, referred to as a “Renewed and Amended Motion for Order of Recusal.” The trial judge found this second motion to be repetitive of the first and thus denied it. The court ruled, “if a subsequent section 1.01 motion is filed in the same case but fails to state, with specificity, substantially different factual and legal grounds than those relied upon in support of a previous section 1.01 motion, the judge may act summarily by filing a written order denying the motion as repetitive.”
Judge Andy D. Bennett, along with judges Thomas R. Frierson II and Carma Dennis McGee, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The judges noted that Richard Page's second motion did not present new facts or legal grounds that warranted reconsideration of the initial denial. They emphasized that the second motion was an attempt to relitigate previously addressed issues.
Impact
This ruling sets a clear precedent regarding the handling of recusal motions in Tennessee courts. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when filing such motions. The court's decision indicates that repetitive motions without new grounds will not be entertained, which could discourage similar future attempts to delay proceedings through recusal requests.
Additionally, the court granted attorney's fees to Dana Page, stating that Richard Page's appeal was frivolous. The court defined a frivolous appeal as one that lacks merit or has no reasonable chance of succeeding. This aspect of the ruling may serve as a warning to other litigants about the potential financial consequences of filing motions deemed without merit.
What's Next
Richard Page may consider appealing this decision, although the court's ruling clearly outlines the deficiencies in his motions. There is no indication of any related cases pending at this time. The court has remanded the case for a determination of attorney’s fees, which Richard Page will be responsible for paying.