What exactly was going on in Lazenby v. Lazenby over recent months? We will examine that question closely in upcoming posts. But a few key issues are clear:
* Settlement Dispute--Blake Lazenby was trying to enforce a settlement agreement that his wife claimed was invalid.
* Subpoena Power--Blake Lazenby's attorneys, specifically A. Joe Peddy, filed subpoenas seeking documents that seemed only tangential, at best, to issues in the divorce case. One of the subpoenas sought information about an individual who, on paper, appeared to have nothing to do with divorce matters. What was the purpose of these subpoenas?
* Recusal Rift--This was a dominant theme in the case. Based on the facts and law in the case, Judge Fannin almost certainly should have recused himself without being asked. Multiple lawyers for the plaintiff filed motions asking Fannin to step down and ask the Alabama Supreme Court to appoint a judge from outside Talladega County.
The Lazenby v. Lazenby file is filled with examples of curious timing. Consider this one: One of Fannin's most recent rulings involved three plaintiff motions, including a motion to recuse. Fannin denied all three motions, indicating that he intended to stay on the case for the foreseeable future--no matter what recusal law says.
Fannin's order was dated July 21, 2011. Six days later, Blake Lazenby was found dead.
(To be continued)
Below is a recusal motion filed by one of Geanne Lazenby's attorneys in January of this year.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
