Construction Expert and Judge Living in the Same Hood Is Not Grounds For Recusal

In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, Nowaczyk v. Daniels Construction (Nov. 4, 2025), a contractor tried to disqualify the trial judge because the judge happened to live in the same neighborhood as a potential expert witness for the homeowners. The court’s response? Proximity isn’t prejudice.

The dispute started when homeowners sued Daniels Construction for allegedly botched remodeling work. When the judge disclosed during a hearing that he lived near the plaintiffs’ proposed expert, the defense moved to have him recused from the case. They argued that prior cases involving the same expert had led to recusals. The trial judge, however, made clear there was no personal or professional relationship with the expert and denied the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed. Citing Tennessee’s long-standing rule that judges must step aside only when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the court found no basis for recusal. Living in the same neighborhood as a witness doesn’t automatically suggest bias. This is especially true when there’s no friendship, prior dealings, or other connection beyond geography.

As the Court of Appeals reasoned: “If a judge were required to recuse based on circumstances such as this, or other minor acquaintance with a witness that doesn’t affect a judge’s impartiality, they would be forced to recuse an inordinate number of times.” In other words, casual community ties aren’t enough to suggest bias. Judges are part of the same cities or counties in which they serve, and unless there’s proof of something more, living in the same hood isn’t grounds for stepping aside.