BAIZE (MARK) VS. BAIZE (SHANNON)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 16, 2018; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2018-CA-000781-ME MARK BAIZE v. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE BRANDI D. ROGERS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-D-00037-002 SHANNON BAIZE APPELLEE OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: COMBS, D. LAMBERT, AND SMALLWOOD, JUDGES. COMBS, JUDGE: Mark Baize, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order entered by the Crittenden Circuit Court denying his motion for recusal pursuant to the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, which is set out in SCR1 4.300. Our review of the record, along with the applicable law, reveals that we lack jurisdiction to address the issue presented. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 1 Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court. After conducting hearings, the family court entered a domestic violence order (DVO) against Mark on two separate occasions: on December 3, 2013, and on August 23, 2016. The second DVO was amended to 500 feet on November 22, 2016. Mark then filed a motion to dismiss the DVO, and the court denied such motion. Subsequently, Mark moved for the family court judge to recuse from this case in accordance with SCR 4.300. On May 4, 2018, the court denied Mark’s motion, rejecting his contention that a conflict of interest was involved and stating unequivocally that she had no personal bias towards him. This appeal followed. Unfortunately, Mark has appealed from the court’s order denying his motion to recuse and not a final judgment. The order was also not designated as final and appealable. “[T]his court is required to raise a jurisdictional issue on its own motion if the underlying order lacks finality.” Tax Ease Lien Investments, LLC v. Brown, 340 S.W.3d 99, 101 (Ky. App. 2011) (citation omitted). An order denying recusal is an interlocutory order that only becomes appealable upon the entry of a final judgment “adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action[.]” CR2 54.01. Although a final judgment was entered in this case, in the 2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. -2- form of a DVO, and the issue of recusal has merged with that judgment, Mark did not appeal from the final judgment. Our procedural rules require the filed notice of appeal to identify the final order or judgment that is being appealed. CR 73.03(1). As stated by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, “[n]aming an order denying recusal, rather than the final judgment disposing of the case, is simply no compliance at all [with the procedural rules.]” Cassetty v. Commonweath, 495 S.W.3d 129, 134 (Ky. 2016). The notice of appeal in this case named only the order denying a motion to recuse, rather than the final judgment granting Shannon Baize’s petition for a DVO. Based on the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed as being taken from an interlocutory order. ALL CONCUR. ENTERED: _November 16, 2018 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: /s/ Sara Combs JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE. Mark Baize, pro se Fredonia, Kentucky -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
