Boatwright v. Boatwright
Decision Date | 23 June 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2014–CA–00060–COA.,2014–CA–00060–COA. |
Citation | 184 So.3d 952 |
Parties | Toulman D. BOATWRIGHT, Jr., Appellant v. Grace Bonds BOATWRIGHT, Appellee. |
Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Helen Kennedy Robinson, Holly Springs, attorney for appellant.
Amanda Whaley Smith, Kent E. Smith, Holly Springs, attorneys for appellee.
EN BANC.
McGEHEE, S.J., for the Court:1
¶ 1. This domestic case was originally heard by Chancellor Edwin Roberts, who is now deceased. While presiding over the Boatwrights' case, Judge Roberts accepted an invitation from Grace Boatwright's attorney to participate in a turkey hunt. On the day of a scheduled hearing, Toulman Boatwright's attorney inquired about the hunt; Judge Roberts then continued the case. Thereafter Judge Roberts entered two orders relating to matters heard by him prior to the turkey hunt. Then Judge Roberts recused on his own motion. Toulman requested a new trial based on his allegation of bias by Judge Roberts; or, in the alternative, he requested an order altering or amending certain relief granted by Judge Roberts. Ultimately, Toulman's motion was heard by a special judge, who granted Toulman some relief but denied his motion for a new trial and all other relief. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 2. This Court recognizes the ultimate importance of the integrity of the judiciary. Judicial integrity is vitally important to the bench, the bar, our society as a whole, and especially to litigants. To that end, judges must always conduct themselves in ways that promote the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The high standards of judicial integrity and independence do not operate as a complete bar to a judge's acceptance of social invitations. Timing is critical. Clearly a judge may not accept an invitation of any kind that might call into question his independence or integrity in any matter over which the judge is presiding. An invitation to turkey hunt, or any other similar social invitation, extended by one of the attorneys who is then appearing in a contested matter, is one that must be refused. Judge Roberts's voluntary recusal on his own motion reflects his acknowledgment of this principle. The ideal course for a sitting judge is to avoid the potential conflict in the first place. There are occasions when a judge sees a conflict in retrospect, then recuses. Judge Roberts recused; nothing more was required.
¶ 3. Judge Roberts's entry of two orders after the turkey hunt and prior to recusal was not error. Judge Roberts's entry of these two orders, addressing issues heard prior to the turkey hunt, was not only proper, it was required as a part of the completion of his duties in this matter.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 4. This matter is before the Court a second time. Toulman's motion for a new trial was initially denied by Judge Glenn Alderson, who was appointed after Judge Roberts's recusal. Toulman appealed. Boatwright v. Boatwright, 155 So.3d 777 (Miss.Ct.App.2011). On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded because Judge Alderson admittedly had not reviewed the record, but simply deflected the matter to the appellate court to make a decision. Id. at 779–80 (¶ 13). The Court directed the chancellor to review the record and render a decision. Id. On remand, Judge Alderson immediately recused. Judge Robert L. Lancaster was appointed. He reviewed the record and denied Toulman's motion. Toulman now appeals a second time.
¶ 5. The facts and procedural history were set out in this Court's first opinion and are restated here.
Boatwright, 155 So.3d at 777–79 (¶¶ 2–10).
¶ 6. On remand, Judge Lancaster, the third judge in this matter, considered the issues raised in Toulman's motion for a new trial and/or to alter or amend orders entered by Judge Roberts. Toulman's motion argued that newly discovered evidence—the turkey hunt—revealed bias on the behalf of Judge Roberts and necessitated a new trial. The motion requested the two orders entered after the turkey hunt but prior to Judge Roberts's recusal be vacated. The two orders entered after the turkey hunt and prior to the recusal are: (1) the April 9, 2009 order finding Toulman in contempt and fining him $1,000; and (2) the April 14, 2009 order sanctioning Toulman and his attorney in the amount of $5,938.11 for filing the initial motion to recuse. Both orders were signed nunc pro tunc to March 10, 2009, the day the motions were heard. Toulman alternatively argued that if his motion for a new trial was denied, the following judgments against him should be altered or amended: the award of sanctions, the finding of willful...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
John Doe v. Jane Doe
...to award monetary sanctions is left to the discretion of the trial court,’ and is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Boatwright v. Boatwright , 184 So. 3d 952, 961 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Hampton v. Blackmon , 145 So. 3d 632, 634 (¶7) (Miss. 2014) ). Absent "a definite and firm......
-
Oliver v. Oliver (In re Estate of Oliver)
...to award monetary sanctions is left to the discretion of the trial court,' and is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Boatwright v. Boatwright, 184 So. 3d 952, 961 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Hampton v. Blackmon, 145 So.3d 632, 634 (¶7) (Miss. 2014)).¶95. Sandra contends that she ha......
-
Peterson v. State
... ... but rather the potential for such and the appearance of bias to the general public." Boatwright v. Boatwright , 184 So.3d 952, 966 ( 40) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) ; see generally Jenkins v. Forrest Cty. Gen. Hosp. , 542 So.2d 1180, 1181 (Miss ... ...