Judge Bough’s Recusal and Its Implications in Real Estate Lawsuits
Background of the Request for Recusal
In a significant legal development, Howard Hanna was the first party to request the recusal of Judge Bough from ongoing litigation. The motion was later joined by HomeServices of America, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, and the brokerage firm Crye-Leike. Their concern stems from contributions made by plaintiffs’ attorney, Matthew Dameron, to Judge Bough’s wife’s political campaign in 2019.
Previous Cases and Judicial Response
Judge Bough has previously recused himself from cases involving gun manufacturers and indicated a willingness to step aside in the Sitzer/Burnett commission lawsuit under similar circumstances. However, he chose not to extend that offer concerning the Gibson commission lawsuit, which was filed post-verdict of the Sitzer/Burnett case.
Judge’s Ruling and Reactions
In his ruling, Judge Bough dismissed claims of impropriety associated with Dameron’s campaign contribution. He pointed out that he had previously disclosed these donations well ahead of the Howard Hanna motion’s filing. During a hearing regarding the settlement approvals for Keller Williams, RE/MAX, and Anywhere in the Sitzer/Burnett suit, he acknowledged several attorneys present who had made similar contributions.
“As a result, the court, out of an abundance of caution asked, ‘Would anyone else like to be heard on this potential conflict?’ The court received no response,” Judge Bough stated.
Implications of the Decision
Judge Bough noted that the Hanna Holdings, which oversees Howard Hanna, had legal representatives at the aforementioned hearing who did not voice any objections at that time. He emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that not all campaign contributions are grounds for a judge’s disqualification.
Relocation Requests and Legal Progression
In addition to the request for recusal, both Howard Hanna and Berkshire Hathaway Energy are seeking to transfer the Gibson commission lawsuit out of Missouri. They aim to relocate the case to Pennsylvania and Iowa, respectively, as they navigate the evolving legal landscape surrounding these commission disputes.
