Case Title: In re Disqualification of Carnes

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1614

Docket Number: 13-AP-017

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Carnes, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-1614.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CARNES. 
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF BRAWLEY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Carnes, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-1614.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Dissatisfaction with judge’s 
rulings is improper basis for seeking disqualification—Mere speculation 
that judge’s actions are tainted by bias is insufficient to show actual 
bias—Affidavit denied. 
(No. 13-AP-017—Decided March 19, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Portage County Court of Common Pleas, 
Probate Division, Case No. 2012 GD 0059. 
__________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} John B. Ertle Jr., counsel for the mother of the proposed ward, has 
filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to 
disqualify Judge Thomas J. Carnes from presiding over any further proceedings in 
case No. 2012 GD 0059, a guardianship action in the Probate Division of the 
Court of Common Pleas of Portage County. 
{¶ 2} Ertle alleges that Judge Carnes has demonstrated a strong personal 
bias against him and his client, Oma Lee Brawley, because of “unfounded 
allegations” of sexual abuse by Brawley’s husband against their daughter, the 
proposed ward.  As evidence of the judge’s bias, Ertle points to the judge’s refusal 
to dismiss the Ohio guardianship case, despite Brawley’s prior guardianship 
proceeding in Texas, and the judge’s alleged prejudicial comments made 
throughout the underlying proceedings. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} Judge Carnes has responded in writing to the allegations in Ertle’s 
affidavit, offering a detailed account of his handling of the litigation.  Judge 
Carnes denies any bias or prejudice against Ertle or Brawley and states that his 
decisions were based on the law and facts of the case and in his capacity as the 
superior guardian of the proposed ward. 
{¶ 4} For the following reasons, no basis has been established to order 
the disqualification of Judge Carnes. 
{¶ 5} First, the gravamen of Ertle’s affidavit appears to be his 
dissatisfaction with Judge Carnes’s refusal to dismiss the Ohio guardianship case.  
An affidavit of disqualification, however, “is not a vehicle to contest matters of 
substantive or procedural law.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 
1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4.  Indeed, it is well settled that a party’s 
disagreement or dissatisfaction with a court’s legal rulings, even if those rulings 
may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or prejudice.  In re Disqualification of 
Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4.  Accordingly, 
Ertle’s disagreement with Judge Carnes’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over 
the Ohio guardianship case is not grounds for disqualification.  The remedy for 
this and other legal claims lies on appeal, which Ertle has already filed. 
{¶ 6} Second, most of Ertle’s allegations are based on speculation, which 
is insufficient to establish bias or prejudice.  “A judge is presumed to follow the 
law and not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be 
compelling to overcome these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 
100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Ertle has not set forth 
any compelling evidence here.  For example, he can only speculate that Judge 
Carnes requested him to read the guardian ad litem’s report so that Ertle “would 
be repulsed and would stop advocating for [his] client.”  Similarly, Ertle 
“believes” that Judge Carnes took the mother’s filing of a prohibition action 
against him as a “personal affront and an insult,” which led to him “retaliating” 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
against Ertle and Brawley.  In his response, however, Judge Carnes states that he 
provided the guardian ad litem report to make sure that all parties had the 
documents provided to him by the Texas court, and he flatly denies being insulted 
by the pending writ case or retaliating against Ertle.  On this record, Ertle’s 
speculative allegations—especially in the face of the clear denials by Judge 
Carnes—are insufficient to overcome the presumption that Judge Carnes is fair 
and impartial.  See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Flanagan, 127 Ohio St.3d 1236, 
2009-Ohio-7199, 937 N.E.2d 1023, ¶ 4 (“Allegations that are based solely on 
hearsay, innuendo, and speculation * * * are insufficient to establish bias or 
prejudice”); In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-
7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 8 (“In the wake of the conflicting stories presented by 
the various affiants, however, I cannot conclude that the judge is clearly biased 
and prejudiced * * *”). 
{¶ 7} Finally, Ertle failed to substantiate his allegations that Judge 
Carnes made prejudicial comments.  In affidavit-of-disqualification proceedings, 
the burden falls on the affiant to submit sufficient evidence demonstrating that 
disqualification is warranted.  See R.C. 2701.03(B)(1).  “Generally, an affiant is 
required to submit evidence beyond the affidavit of disqualification supporting the 
allegations contained therein.”  In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, ___ Ohio St.3d 
___, 2012-Ohio-6341, ___ N.E.2d ___, ¶ 6.  Here, Ertle claims that Judge Carnes 
“repeatedly made derogatory statements on the record” and  “repeatedly” stated 
his desire to protect the proposed ward, irrespective of the prior proceedings in 
Texas.  Further, Ertle claims that at the February 20 hearing, Judge Carnes did not 
give him an opportunity to be heard and also told Ertle to “stop being such a 
lawyer and do the right thing.” 
{¶ 8} While Judge Carnes’s response states that Ertle’s affidavit includes 
“misstatements of facts and law,” Judge Carnes has not specifically denied 
making any of these alleged comments.  If the comments were made, they were 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
unnecessary and ill-advised.  The Code of Judicial Conduct directs that judges 
should be “patient, dignified, and courteous” to litigants, lawyers, and others in an 
official capacity and should refrain from using words or conduct that might 
manifest bias or prejudice.  Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B) and 2.3(B). 
{¶ 9} However, Ertle did not submit a transcript or other evidence to 
substantiate any of these alleged “on the record” statements.  Because he failed to 
submit a transcript, there is no way to determine whether the comments were 
made, the specific word choice and context in which they were allegedly made, or 
whether the comments reflect judicial bias or prejudice against Ertle or Brawley.  
“The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an extraordinary remedy 
* * *.”  In re Disqualification of Hunter, 36 Ohio St.3d 607, 608, 522 N.E.2d 461 
(1988).  Because Ertle has not submitted any evidentiary support, he has not 
established that he is entitled to such a remedy.  His averments alone are 
insufficient to convey a conviction that Judge Carnes has developed a “hostile 
feeling or spirit of ill will” or reached a “fixed anticipatory judgment” that will 
prevent him from presiding over the remaining issues in the case with an “open 
state of mind * * * governed by the law and the facts.”  State ex rel. Pratt v. 
Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956). 
{¶ 10} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Carnes. 
______________________