Judge’s statements fell ‘woefully short’ of expected conduct, COA rules in ordering new judge

(IL file photo)

A Putman County judge’s comments that included profanity and negative connotations about women fell “woefully short” of the expected conduct for judicial officers, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled in reversing a denial to correct error. The appellate court also determined the plaintiff is entitled to a new judge in the case involving an implied contract to cohabitate.

Mallory Stout and Tanner Knotts are unmarried but chose to cohabitate in Roachdale. Stout selected the home, which Knotts then purchased for $69,900 in his name.

While they lived together, Stout and Knotts had an agreement that they would use their own assets to make improvements and increase the value of the home. Stout paid for utilities and a “large portion” of the renovations.

In July 2021, Knotts forced Stout the leave the home. He later sold the home for $149,000.

The following November, Stout filed a complaint against Knotts, alleging the two had an implied contract to cohabitate where she would contribute to the rehabilitation and maintenance of the home. She alleged her removal from the house and Knotts’ sale of the home without her being compensated resulted in Knotts’ unjust enrichment.

Stout also filed a temporary restraining order to prevent Knotts from spending the money he received from the sale before the matter was resolved. The temporary restraining order was granted.

Knotts filed a request for an extension of time to respond and a motion for a change of judge.

The motion for a change of judge was granted, and Judge Charles Bridges was selected in the Putnam Circuit Court.

In December 2021, Stout filed a motion requesting that the trial court order the proceeds from the sale of the home to be held by the Putnam County clerk while the matter was pending.

Knotts filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing Indiana did not recognize palimony and, because the parties were not married and the home was solely in Knotts’ name, Stout failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He also objected to the temporary restraining order and the transfer of the proceeds to the county clerk.

Before Stout filed a response, Judge Bridges granted Knotts’ motion to dismiss.

Stout then filed a motion to correct error, arguing she adequately stated a claim recognized under Indiana law.

The next day, before a response was filed, Judge Bridges granted Stout’s motion, vacating the order dismissing her complaint.

In January 2022, Stout filed a second motion requesting an order directing that the funds from the sale of the home be held by the Putnam County clerk. That order was granted the same day.

Knotts then filed a motion to correct error, arguing the court shouldn’t have granted Stout’s motion to correct error before he had an opportunity to respond. He also argued Stout didn’t follow the proper procedures for challenging the grant of a motion to dismiss.

Knotts also filed a motion requesting that the trial court release the funds from the sale of the home to him.

Before Stout could file a response, the court granted Knotts’ motion to correct error.

Five days later, Stout filed a response to Knotts’ motion to correct error.

Before Knotts filed a response, Judge Bridges issued an order acknowledging he had already granted Knotts’ motion and giving Knotts 15 days from the date of his order to file a response. In addition, Judge Bridges denied Knotts’ request to release the funds from the sale of the house to him.

Judge Bridges held a telephonic pretrial conference on March 8, 2022. A trial date of Sept. 22, 2022, was scheduled.

After the pretrial conference, Stout filed a motion requesting Judge Bridges recuse himself.

According to the motion, Bridges had told the parties that “regardless of what everyone else’s position is in Indianapolis, that if [the parties] weren’t married and [Stout] lived there and had the benefit of living there and now wants to claim what everyone calls ‘sweat equity’ . . . bullsh*t. There is no sweat equity in this Court.”

Further, according to the motion, Bridges also said he had never upheld the status of the law in Indiana regarding the equitable theory of unjust enrichment or implied contract, adding, “It does not sit well with me.” He then “elaborated and stated that (he) sees women do this all the time and it’s horsesh*t.

Judge Bridges took no action and didn’t make a ruling on the motion for recusal.

In March 2022, Knotts filed a motion asking the trial court to vacate the trial date, arguing that when the court granted his motion to correct error, it effectively returned the procedural posture of the case to the point when Stout’s complaint had been dismissed.

Knotts also acknowledged that he had yet to file an answer or counterclaim. As a result, Knotts asserted that with Stout’s case being dismissed, a trial date was unnecessary.

Stout filed an objection to Knotts’ motion to vacate the trial setting.

In April 2022, the trial court granted Knotts’ motion and vacated the trial setting. The court also found Stout’s complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.

Knotts then filed a motion for release of funds, which the trial court granted.

In May 2022, Stout filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

Stout then appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to correct error because her complaint adequately states a claim for relief under Indiana law.

The Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that in Indiana, “a party who cohabitates with another without subsequent marriage is entitled to relief upon a showing of an express contract or a viable equitable theory such as implied contract or unjust enrichment,” citing Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

Based upon Stout’s allegations, the Court of Appeals determined Stout stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

“We make no comment on whether Stout will produce sufficient evidence to be successful,” the opinion says, “but the allegations in her complaint are sufficient to warrant remand of this case for further proceedings.”

Stout also argued the trial court erred by failing to rule on her motion for recusal. Recusal is required, she argued, because Judge Bridges demonstrated his inability to be impartial.

Knotts did not dispute the accuracy of the statements outlined in Stout’s motion, nor did he address the trial court’s failure to rule on the motion. Knotts argued instead that a trial court’s adverse ruling is not a basis for recusal.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Stout, citing the Indiana Supreme Court’s expected conduct for judicial officers in Hollinsworth v. State, 928 N.E.2d (Ind. 2010).

“Here, Judge Bridges’ statements, as outlined in Stout’s recusal motion, fall woefully short of this standard,” the opinion says. “His statements go beyond merely expressing skepticism about Stout’s claims in her complaint. Judge Bridges clearly expressed disdain, not only for the type of relief Stout was seeking, but for the gender he believed most often sought this type of relief.”

The Court of Appeals reversed the order denying Stout’s motion to correct error and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court’s order releasing the funds from the sale of the home and ruled that, on remand, Stout is entitled to a new judge.

Judge Rudolph Pyle wrote the opinion. Judges Cale Bradford and Dana Kenworthy concurred.

The case is Mallory Stout v. Tanner Knotts, 22A-PL-1216.