In family law, courtroom procedure matters just as much as the facts. Custody, support, and property cases already carry high stakes, and a misstep by the court itself can derail years of litigation. The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Green v. Branch, COA24-183 (May 7, 2025), is a prime example.
The case didn’t turn on child custody schedules or support formulas. Instead, it focused on a narrower but critical question: what happens when a judge enters an order after he has already recused himself from the case?
The Court of Appeals’ answer was clear: once a judge recuses, he loses authority to act. Any orders entered thereafter are void.
Background of the Case
- The Parties: Marino Green and Felicia Branch married in 2003, separated in 2015, and shared three children. In 2016, Green filed claims for custody, support, alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney’s fees.
- Consent Order (2016): The parties reached a consent order that resolved temporary custody, property distribution, and support, while leaving permanent custody open for further hearing.
- Renewed Conflict (2018–2019): Green filed a motion alleging Branch had violated the consent order. Hearings on custody and support stretched across multiple years, with Judge Pat Evans beginning the custody trial in late 2018 and Judge Clayton Jones taking over in early 2019.
- Motion to Recuse (2021): Green moved for Judge Jones to step aside, alleging bias. Judge Jones granted the motion and entered a written Order of Recusal, assigning the case to Judge O. David Hall.
- The Problem (2023): Despite having recused himself two years earlier, Judge Jones entered a written order nunc pro tunc to 2019, addressing custody, child support, arrears, and contempt. Green appealed, arguing Judge Jones had no authority to act after recusal.
The Legal Issue
Does a judge have authority to enter an order in a case after formally recusing himself?
The Court of Appeals answered: No. Once recusal is entered, the judge is divested of authority, and any further orders are void.
The Court’s Analysis
- “Once Recused, Always Recused.”
Relying on Hudson v. Hudson, 293 N.C. App. 87 (2024), and persuasive federal authority, the Court adopted a bright-line rule: once a judge is recused, they cannot return to the case later, regardless of circumstances. - Written Order Controls.
Even though Judge Jones remarked in open court that he was stepping aside due to a heavy caseload, his written order of recusal stated plainly that he was granting the plaintiff’s motion. The written, filed order—not oral comments—controls. - No Such Thing as “Temporary Recusal.”
Judges may continue cases for scheduling conflicts, but they cannot use recusal as a time-management tool and then re-enter the case later. Recusal ends judicial authority in that case, full stop. - Remedy: Vacate and Remand.
Because Judge Jones lacked authority, the Court of Appeals vacated the 2023 order and sent the case back for a new hearing before a different judge.
Why This Case Matters
- For Litigants: If a judge recuses, any further orders signed by that judge are invalid. Parties should track recusal orders closely and raise objections if a recused judge takes further action.
- For Attorneys: Green v. Branch underscores the importance of preserving objections and distinguishing between continuances (scheduling) and recusal (impartiality).
- For the Court System: Recusal protects the appearance of impartiality and public trust. The “once recused, always recused” rule avoids confusion and reinforces confidence in the judiciary.
Key Takeaways
- Recusal = Final. Once a judge recuses, they cannot later rule in the same case.
- The Written Order Governs. Oral comments do not override a filed recusal order.
- No Authority After Recusal. Orders entered after recusal are void.
- Fresh Hearing Required. The proper remedy is a new hearing before a different judge.
Conclusion
Green v. Branch reminds us that procedure is not a technicality—it’s the backbone of justice. By holding that recusal strips a judge of all further authority, the Court of Appeals reinforced the principle that impartiality must not only exist, but must also be seen to exist.
For families caught in long, contentious litigation, this case is a reminder that both substance and procedure matter. The fairness of the process is as important as the outcome.
Adkins Law, PLLC — Huntersville, North Carolina
At Adkins Law, located in Huntersville NC and serving the greater Lake Norman area, we guide clients through the most complex family law matters—custody disputes, child support, equitable distribution, and appeals. If you are facing a custody trial or navigating judicial procedures, we are here to protect your rights and ensure the process is fair.
📞 Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
Leave a Reply