Court Opinion

ID: 9757904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:03:46.152504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:45.460528
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. This case troubles me because the underlying divorce decree between the divorcing parties, Cynthia M. Lavigne and Kenneth Lavigne, has not been appealed. This is true even though the allegations contained in Kenneth’s motion to recuse allege the misconduct of Circuit Court Judge Keith Rutledge. The motion further alleges that Judge Rutledge showed his appearance of impropriety or bias when rendering the Lavignes’ divorce. The allegations Kenneth’s attorney alleged as the basis of his recusal motion are as follows: a. That during the trial of this cause the Court fondly referred to counsel for the plaintiff as Jo Hart, Jr., the Judge’s former law partner, and now a Court of Appeals judge. b. That near the conclusion of the trial of this cause plaintiff s counsel commented to the Court that she had found a case wherein the amount of alimony to be determined by the trial court by accounting the parties seeking alimony as two (2) dependents under the Arkansas Family Support Chart to which the Judge commented that defendant’s counsel would probably be happy with that amount. c. The unconscionable amount of alimony awarded when coupled with the amount of child support awarded constitutes 56% of defendant’s take-home pay. d. The refusal of the Court to decide the custody issue on the best interest of the children having announced in the pre-trial conference immediately prior to the hearing that the Court would not place the children with the defendant while he was residing with another woman, thereby foregoing a decision based on the “best interest” of the children. e. The trial judge’s statement earher in the day in the Courtroom prior to hearing this case that “I can do anything I want to, I’m the judge.” f. The trial judge at the conclusion of the trial stated as follows: Okay, here’s what we’re going to do. In addition I think she’s entitled to alimony and I think he’s going to have to pay and — and unfortunately sometime you have to pay through the nose when you screw up, okay. I mean that’s just the way life is. When you •— if you want more than you’ve got sometimes you have to pay. (Emphasis added.) While counsel for Kenneth contends that it appears Judge Rutledge’s bias has affected his decision rendered in the parties’ divorce, Kenneth has not appealed the divorce decree. Rather, this court is given snips and pieces of the colloquy between Kenneth’s attorney, Tom Allen, and the judge. Obviously, without the record before us, it is impossible to determine whether the charges made by Kenneth are valid, warranted by law, or a good-faith argument. It is Kenneth’s and his counsel’s burden to show error on appeal, and, in my view, they have failed to provide a full record upon which this court can decide the validity of their allegations. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. I do wish to point out that I believe Mr. Allen and Judge Rutledge entered into a discourse that did not exemplify the appropriate conduct or demeanor established in either the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Arkansas Code ofjudicial Conduct. Perhaps the issues raised by counsel and the judge should be dealt with in those two venues.