Opinion ID: 1674535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: authority of the special judge to act

Text: Franklin first contends that Special Judge John Choate, though duly elected, committed reversible error in overruling his motion objecting to the special judge's authority to sit. At trial, the objection was couched in terms indicating that the regular probate judge, Lee Munson, had heard preliminary matters prior to the trial and, therefore, was familiar with the parties and their demeanor. On appeal, Franklin raises a second objection to the special judge's authority which he did not make on the second day of the trial on February 11, 1991. The objection is that the regular probate judge returned to the bench between November 26, 1990, and February 11, 1991, and the authority of the special judge to act was, therefore, truncated under Article 7, section 21 of the Arkansas Constitution. Thus, Franklin maintains that after Judge Munson reassumed the bench, he should have conducted the trial on February 11, 1991, and rendered the decision. The Arkansas Constitution provides for a procedure to elect special judges when the regular judge fails to attend: Whenever the office of judge of the circuit court of any county is vacant at the commencement of a term of such court, or the judge of said court shall fail to attend, the regular practicing attorneys in attendance on said court may meet at 10 o'clock a.m. on the second day of the term, and elect a judge to preside at such court, or until the regular judge shall appear; ... Ark. Const, art. 7, § 21. Section 21 then goes on to describe the election procedure for a judge who disqualifies which is not the situation in the case before us. Though the constitution speaks in terms of the circuit court, it is equally applicable to the election of special chancellors and special probate judges. See Ark.Code Ann. § 16-13-310 (1987) (special chancellors elected in the same manner as special circuit judges); Ark.Code Ann. § 28-l-105(a) (1987) (judges of equity matters are probate judges); see also Fortuna v. Achor, 254 Ark. 1035, 497 S.W.2d 251 (1973). Here, Judge Munson failed to appear on November 26, 1990, and Special Judge Choate was duly elected. There is no dispute about the legitimacy of his election. He refused to step down when his authority was disputed by Franklin on the basis that Judge Munson had heard preliminary matters, and he had engaged in a pre-trial conference with the attorneys on November 26, 1990, before Franklin objected. The record before us presents no basis for Franklin's assertion that Judge Munson was peculiarly qualified to hear the competency issue and that no special judge could assume that role. The previous hearings before Judge Munson were not recorded, and, by and large, the pleadings relevant to those prior matters were not abstracted. It was Franklin's duty to make a sufficient record evincing error. Johnson v. Lilly, 308 Ark. 201, 823 S.W.2d 883 (1992). This he failed to do. Special Judge Choate did not abuse his discretion in declining to step down at this juncture. Nor do we agree that the Arkansas Constitution required Judge Munson to hear the case on the second day of the trial on February 11, 1991, because he had reappeared and sat as probate judge subsequent to the first day of trial. No objection was made to the special judge's sitting on February 11, 1991, but we held early on that consent, either expressly or tacitly given, cannot impart judicial power to a special judge. Red Bud Realty Co. v. South, 145 Ark. 604, 224 S.W. 964 (1920); Hyllis v. State, 45 Ark. 478 (1885). However, we have also held that the elections of special judges, including the reasons for the regular judge's absence, are presumed to be valid. Titan Oil & Gas v. Shipley, 257 Ark. 278, 517 S.W.2d 210 (1974). What decides the matter is the fact that Special Judge Choate was duly elected a second time on February 11, 1991, to hear the matter because of Judge Munson's absence from the court. The record shows that Judge Munson's absence and Judge Choate's availability and election were prearranged, but this procedure does not run afoul of the constitution. Moreover, it would be nonsensical and at odds with judicial economy for the regular judge to rehear the first-day witnesses when the special judge was poised and ready to conclude the matter. In a case where the issue was whether a special circuit judge should rehear all of the testimony that preceded his assumption of the bench after the regular judge became ill, we said: It would be an unnecessary delay, expense and vexation to clients in such cases to impanel a new jury and recall witnesses. It is not demanded by the ordinary requirements of justice. The cause properly proceeded. Bullock v. Neal, 42 Ark. 278, 281 (1883); see also 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judges, § 256, p. 273. Because of judicial economy and because the judge was duly elected to hear the second day of the trial, we hold that his authority to hear and conclude this matter on February 11, 1991, remained intact. There is, finally, the fact that the special judge issued a letter opinion, and Judge Munson subsequently entered the order admitting the August 21, 1990 will to probate and appointing Marguerite as personal representative. Franklin advances the argument that this converted the special judge into a master and the special judge had no authority to act as one under Ark.R.Civ.P. 53. We do not agree. First, Franklin failed to raise this issue below, and, accordingly, has waived the argument for purposes of appeal. See McElroy v. Grisham, 306 Ark. 4, 810 S.W.2d 933 (1991). The special judge specifically informed the parties at close of trial that he would prepare a letter opinion with his findings and from that the prevailing party could prepare an order for Judge Munson's signature. Franklin did not object to this procedure. But, in addition, there was no fallacy in the procedure followed by the special judge. He made his findings on the day after the trial on February 12, 1990, when he was still sitting as special judge. Judge Munson then incorporated those findings into his order. We note in this regard that had the special judge signed an order after Judge Munson returned to the bench, the order would have been subject to challenge. See Cates v. Wunderlich, 210 Ark. 724, 197 S.W.2d 482 (1946). In Cates , we voided the decree of the special chancellor which was entered after he ceased to be chancellor and the regular chancellor had resumed his duties. In sum, the special judge was correct in hearing this matter to conclusion, and we hold that there was no error in the entry of the order by the regular probate judge incorporating the special judge's findings and admitting the will to probate.