Summary:
The Debtor sought to have the bankruptcy judge recuse herself, based on an alleged financial interest held by the judge in JP Morgan Chase, a party in an adversary proceeding. The sole basis provided by the Debtor was an affidavit, which included a recusal by Judge Stephan Wilson, from the Central District of California, due to his financial interest in JP Morgan Chase.
The standard for determining whether a judge should be disqualified is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. U.S. v. DeTemple, 162 F. 3d 279, 286 (4th Cir. 1998). Finding that she had no interest in JP Morgan Chase and that, despite having ruled against the Debtor on previous occasions, such “[r]ulings against a debtor do not form a basis for disqualifying a judge for partiality. See Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1993).
Commentary:
This case is one of the increasingly large number of pro se Debtors that are raising half-understood (at best) arguments regarding the deficiencies mortgages and the foreclosure process. In addition to threatening to completely taint these arguments, even when raised in a competent and full manner by experienced attorneys, it highlights the difficulties the courts face dealing with desperate and irrational debtors.
For a copy of the opinion, please see:
Assasepa- Judicial Recusal.pdf
Blog comments