Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cisneros v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

January 6, 2017

ROBERT EMILIO CISNEROS
v.
LINDSEY DIANNA MILLER, ET AL.

          Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2016

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County No. C1100098 Franklin L. Russell, Judge

         This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right from the denial of a motion for recusal. Because the petition for recusal appeal fails to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

         Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal; Appeal Dismissed

          Robert Emilio Cisneros, Hazel Green, Alabama, pro se appellant.

          Glen A. Isbell, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lindsey Dianna Miller.

          Jonathan C. Brown, Fayetteville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Valerie Miller.

          W. Neal McBrayer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John W. McClarty and Brandon O. Gibson, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JUDGE.

         I.

         Robert Emilio Cisneros ("Father") and Lindsay Dianna Miller ("Mother") are the parents of two minor children. See Cisneros v. Cisneros, No. M2013-00213-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 7720274, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015). On December 12, 2012, the Circuit Court for Lincoln County, Tennessee, entered an order divorcing Father and Mother. Id. at *4. The court also named Mother the primary residential parent. Id. at *2.

         Shortly thereafter, Father filed petitions to modify child support and custody, and Mother filed a petition for contempt based on Father's failure to pay child support. Id. Mother's petition resulted in Father being jailed for a time until he paid his child support arrearage. Id. On Father's petitions, "the trial court ruled that Mother should remain the primary residential parent, established a permanent injunction prohibiting Father from having contact with Mother, imputed income to Father, and awarded Mother attorney's fees." Id. at *7.

         Father appealed from the judgments entered in connection with the divorce and the initial round of post-divorce litigation. Id. at *2-3. We consolidated the appeals, referring to the divorce as the "first case" and the initial round of post-divorce litigation as the "second case." Id. at *4. One of the issues raised by Father with respect to the first case was that the trial judge was biased against him. Id. However, we concluded that Father had waived the issue because he had not filed a motion for recusal in the trial court. Id. at *5.

         The post-divorce litigation between Father and Mother continued, and in what he describes as the third case, Father filed a motion for recusal of the same judge who heard the first and second "cases." On December 2, 2016, the trial court entered an "order dismissing motion to recuse" and a memorandum ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.