Christopher Allen Larkin Hill v. Julia Morgan Hill

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 30, 2021
DocketA21A0285
StatusPublished

This text of Christopher Allen Larkin Hill v. Julia Morgan Hill (Christopher Allen Larkin Hill v. Julia Morgan Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher Allen Larkin Hill v. Julia Morgan Hill, (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., REESE and BROWN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS COURT. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES.

June 29, 2021

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A21A0285. HILL v. HILL.

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

Christopher Allen Larkin Hill, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s

denial of his motion to recuse the Brunswick Judicial Circuit from presiding over a

contempt action filed against Hill by his ex-wife, Julia Morgan Hill. On August 10,

2020, this Court granted Christopher’s petition for interlocutory appeal of the order

denying his motion to recuse. Christopher asserts several enumerations of error as to

the denial of the recusal motion, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The record shows that on July 7, 2020, Julia filed a complaint for contempt in

the Superior Court of Camden County, alleging that Christopher had failed to pay

certain amounts of child support or pay a child support arrearage as ordered by the trial court in its February 28, 2020 final order of divorce.1 The complaint was signed

by attorneys Garnett Harrison and Jacqueline Fortier, both of whom represented Julia

during the divorce proceedings, including the two years from the time Julia filed for

divorce until the final order was entered, including at least one prior motion to recuse

filed by Christopher against Brunswick Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Stephen

G. Scarlett, who oversaw the divorce action. Although Christopher initially was

represented by counsel, his counsel eventually withdrew from the divorce action.

Immediately after Julia filed the contempt complaint, Christopher filed another

motion to recuse Judge Scarlett and the entire Brunswick Judicial Circuit based on

bias. Attached to the motion was a copy of an order of appointment stating that Judge

Jennifer Lewis was elected to serve as Chief Judge of the Magistrate Court of

Camden County for a period of four years beginning January 1, 2017, and ending on

December 31, 2020. Chief Magistrate Judge Lewis chose Fortier and others for

consideration as a part-time magistrate, and Fortier’s appointment was approved by

all the superior court judges on the Brunswick Circuit on December 12, 2016.

Christopher also attached orders appointing other part-time magistrates, whom he

1 Christopher has filed an appeal from various orders in that proceeding, which appeal remains pending in this Court. See Hill v. Hill, Case No. A21A0309.

2 contends appeared as witnesses on behalf of Fortier at other proceedings related to

his divorce.

Judge Scarlett denied Christopher’s motion to recuse, finding no merit to

Christopher’s assertion that all Brunswick Judicial Circuit judges were required to

recuse from the case based on Fortier’s status as a part-time magistrate in Camden

County and finding that the other allegations made by Christopher were specious and

had been dismissed in Christopher’s previous recusal motions. Christopher thereafter

moved for a certificate of immediate review of the denial of his motion to recuse,

which the trial court granted. This Court granted Christopher’s application for

interlocutory appeal, and this appeal followed.

1. As an initial matter, we address only the issue whether Judge Scarlett and the

Brunswick Judicial Circuit should have recused from hearing the contempt action

against Christopher on the basis of Fortier’s status as a part-time magistrate. All

Christopher’s other assertions in his motion were addressed in his prior motion to

recuse, and we will not review any of the enumerations of error related to those

contentions.

3 2. Additionally, Christopher’s argument that Fortier is a party to this

proceeding is without merit.2 To the extent that he previously filed a mandamus

petition against her or federal habeas corpus petitions against her concerning the

underlying divorce and custody determinations, those matters do not transform Fortier

into a party in this proceeding requiring recusal of Judge Scarlett or other members

of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit.3

3. Finally, we address whether the trial court erred by denying the motion to

recuse based on Fortier’s status as a part-time magistrate.

[Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”)] 25.3 directs that when the trial judge assigned to a case is presented with a recusal motion and an accompanying affidavit, the judge shall temporarily cease to act upon the merits of the matter and determine immediately: (1) whether the

2 Compare with Wilson v. McNeely, 295 Ga. App. 41, 42-43 (1) (670 SE2d 846) (2008) (holding that the superior court should have recused from a case in which a municipal court judge sitting in the same circuit appeared as a party). In fact, Judge Scarlett found that the Brunswick Judicial Circuit was recused as a matter of law from presiding over Christopher’s habeas petition filed in the circuit against a juvenile court judge who had presided over matters involving the Hills. 3 See Wright v. Wright, 222 Ga. 777, 782 (7) (152 SE2d 363) (1966) (“An application to hold a husband in contempt for failure to pay alimony is a separate proceeding, and an order entered in that proceeding must be reviewed, if review is desired, by appeal from the judgment in that proceeding.”).

4 motion is timely;4 (2) whether the affidavit is legally sufficient; and (3) whether the affidavit sets forth facts that, if proved, would warrant the assigned judge’s recusal from the case.5

The issue before us is whether Christopher’s motion to recuse on the basis of

Fortier’s status as a part-time magistrate in a county within a greater judicial circuit

constitutes a fact that “would warrant [the Brunswick Judicial Circuit’s] recusal from

the case.”6 The parties have cited to no case directly addressing this narrow issue.

The Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges must avoid all impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether the situation would create in

4 Christopher alleged that he timely filed the motion the day after Julia’s contempt complaint was filed, but within the motion and affidavit he only stated that he discovered that Fortier was a part-time magistrate in Camden County “in the last few days.” Fortier has served as a part-time magistrate since 2017, and she has served as Julia’s attorney for the past two years. Despite Christopher’s insistence otherwise, as the Georgia Supreme Court explained in GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. James, 298 Ga. 420, 422-423 (1) (782 SE2d 284) (2016), the five-day rule for filing a motion to recuse applies to all recusal cases, even those involving a judge appearing as a party in a case in the same circuit, which is the situation alleged by Christopher herein. While it is dubious that neither Christopher or his former counsel were aware of Fortier’s status prior to the filing of this motion for contempt, because the trial court determined that the motion was timely, we shall review it as such. 5 (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc., 303 Ga. 764, 766 (2) (815 SE2d 70) (2018). See also USCR 25.1. 6 See Mondy, 303 Ga. at 766 (2).

5 reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilson v. McNeely
670 S.E.2d 846 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Ward v. State
417 S.E.2d 130 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1992)
Wright v. Wright
152 S.E.2d 363 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Smith v. Guest Pond Club, Inc.
586 S.E.2d 623 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2003)
Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Dixon
600 S.E.2d 381 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. James
782 S.E.2d 284 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)
Porter v. Calhoun County Board of Commissioners
314 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984)
Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
815 S.E.2d 70 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)
MONDY v. MAGNOLIA ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC
303 Ga. 764 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Allen Larkin Hill v. Julia Morgan Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-allen-larkin-hill-v-julia-morgan-hill-gactapp-2021.