PHYLLIS CAMPBELL v. WALLACE CAMPBELL JR (2010)

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

PHYLLIS CAMPBELL v. WALLACE CAMPBELL, JR.

NO. 2009-CA-001291-MR

Decided: July 23, 2010

The record in this case reveals that the trial court's Findings of Facts and Judgment was entered on June 9, 2009. Thereafter, on July 9, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal and listed the June 9, 2009, judgment as the judgment appealed. Even though the action was appealed to this Court, appellant, nonetheless, then filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59 on July 28, 2009. This motion challenged the trial judge's impartiality and sought recusal of the judge. By order entered August 7, 2009, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant did not file an appeal from the August 7, 2009, order.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Phyllis Campbell, Pro Se Catlettsburg, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: W. Jeffrey Scott Grayson, Kentucky

Phyllis Campbell brings this pro se appeal from a June 9, 2009, judgment of the Boyd Circuit Court after a bench trial in which the court concluded that an easement by necessity existed over Campbell's property. We affirm.

^Double was “not fair and impartial.” Also, in appellant's prehearing statement, she listed the issues on appeal to be:

CR 59.01(G) and (A). Transcription to be entered upon completion as evidence. A new trial granted on basis of testimony of Judge Hagerman indicating improper influence and also abuse of discretion. This information to be transcribed by court report[er] do not know.

As previously set forth, appellant did not appeal the August 7, 2009, order wherein the trial judge refused to recuse. In fact, this Court harbors grave doubt as to whether appellant's CR 59 motion for new trial was proper as an appeal was already pending and as the motion was filed more than ten days after entry of judgment. CR 59.04; Prichard v. Bank Josephine, 723 S.W.2d 883 (Ky.App.1987). In any event, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error as to any issue in either the June 9, 2009, judgment or the August 7, 2009, order. See Stuckert v. Keller, 430 S.W.2d 773 (Ky.1968).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Boyd Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

TAYLOR, CHIEF JUDGE:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network