The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving a family court dispute between Kaileigh Marie Dunn and Russell Allen Dunn, III. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Russell's motion for recusal against the presiding judge, which he claimed was necessary due to alleged bias. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for judicial recusal in Tennessee.
The case, titled Kaileigh Marie Dunn v. Russell Allen Dunn, III, was filed under docket number M2026-00614-COA-T10B-CV. The ruling was issued on June 8, 2026, by Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr., with the support of Judges J. Steven Stafford and John W. McClarty. Russell Dunn represented himself in the appeal, while Kaileigh Dunn was represented by Amanda Crowell.
Background
The dispute between Kaileigh and Russell Dunn revolves around their post-divorce proceedings. Russell filed a motion for recusal against Judge Ensley Hagan, who presided over their case in the General Sessions Court for Wilson County. Russell's motion was based on his claim that the judge's membership in the same local Rotary Club as Kaileigh created an appearance of impropriety.
In his motion, Russell alleged that Kaileigh had stated she would always receive favoritism in family court because of her relationship with Judge Hagan. He argued that this statement, combined with their shared Rotary Club membership, warranted the judge's recusal. The trial court, however, denied the motion, leading Russell to appeal the decision.
The Ruling
The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's denial of the recusal motion. The court noted that under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, a party can appeal an order denying a motion for recusal. The court conducted a de novo review, meaning they examined the case anew without relying on the lower court's conclusions.
In the opinion, Judge Clement stated, "The mere fact that the Court is a member of the same local chapter of Rotary International where [Respondent] serves on the Board of Directors does not objectively create an appearance of impropriety where the Court’s impartiality could be reasonably questioned." The court found that Russell's claims did not provide sufficient grounds to question Judge Hagan's impartiality.
Additionally, the court highlighted that Russell's motion was not timely filed. He had waited ten months after allegedly learning about the facts supporting his recusal claim before filing the motion. The court concluded that Russell failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay, which further justified the denial of his motion.
Impact
This ruling has implications for future cases involving motions for recusal in Tennessee. The court's decision reinforces the idea that mere acquaintance or shared membership in organizations does not automatically necessitate a judge's recusal. This sets a precedent that emphasizes the importance of substantial evidence when alleging bias against a judge.
The ruling also clarifies the procedural requirements for filing recusal motions, particularly the need for timely submissions. Parties seeking recusal must act promptly upon learning of any facts that may support their claims. This decision may deter frivolous recusal motions and encourage parties to present well-founded claims.
What's Next
Russell Dunn has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.