ANDERSON LUMBER COMPANY, INC.
WILLIAM KINNEY, ET AL.
Assigned on Briefs August 12, 2019
from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. E-24747 David
Reed Duggan, Judge
an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of
the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by William
Kinney and Margaret Kinney ("Defendants"), seeking
to recuse the trial judge. The case arises out of the
indebtedness of Defendant's business, Kinney Custom
Interiors, to the plaintiff, Anderson Lumber Company, Inc.
("Plaintiff"). Having reviewed the petition for
recusal appeal filed by Defendants, and finding no error, we
Sup. Ct. R. 10B Interlocutory Appeal as of Right; Judgment of
the Circuit Court Affirmed
William F. Kinney, Maryville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.
Margaret E. Kinney, Maryville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.
T. McArthur, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Anderson
Lumber Company, Inc.
Richard H. Dinkins, J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., and ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J.,
RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE
the third motion for recusal appeal filed by the Defendants
in this suit. The procedural history of this case was set out
in this Court's Opinion affirming the Trial Court's
denial of Defendants' first motion for recusal, which was
filed in the proceedings below in 2016. See Anderson
Lumber Co., Inc. v. Kinney, No. E2016-01640-COA-T10B-CV,
2016 WL 6248597, **1-3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016).
we issued our Opinion in case No. E2016-01640-COA-T10B-CV,
Defendants filed a motion seeking to recuse the panel of
judges who had considered the case No.
E2016-01640-COA-T10B-CV. By Order entered on November 14,
2016, this Court denied the motion after finding that there
was no basis under the Tennessee Constitution or the
Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct that would require recusal
or disqualification of any of the panel members. Defendants
then filed a motion for court review, which this Court denied
by Order entered on December 9, 2016. Defendants then filed
an appeal of our December 9, 2016 Order to the Tennessee
Supreme Court, which was denied by Order entered on January
1l, 2017. The Supreme Court's January 11, 2017 Order
found that "Judges McClarty, Clement, and Armstrong did
not err in denying the motion for recusal as it pertained to
each of them and that the Court of Appeals, Eastern Section,
did not err in denying the appellants' motion for court
February of 2018, Defendants filed a second recusal appeal
again attempting to recuse the trial judge. In our Opinion
entered on March 12, 2018, in case No.
E2018-00322-COA-T10B-CV, this Court found no error in the
Trial Court's denial of Defendant's Second Motion for
Disqualification or Recusal.
filed the instant motion, their third Motion for
Disqualification or Recusal, in this Court on August 9, 2019,
again seeking recusal appeal pursuant to Rule 10B. In this
motion, Defendants allege among other things, "that the
defendants have experienced bias of an extreme and even
punishing nature throughout the proceedings," and
"have been denied our civil ...