Clerk was properly ousted for rear-end dial to magistrate, other transgressions, court says
An ousted clerk “knowingly persisted in misconduct as she consistently acted beyond the scope of her authority as clerk,” the North Carolina Court of Appeals said in a June 20 opinion. Image from Shutterstock.
Updated: A state appeals court has upheld the permanent removal of an elected court clerk in Franklin County, North Carolina, partly for her use of the F-word during a call that she inadvertently made to a magistrate.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the ousted clerk, Patricia Chastain in a June 20 opinion. She had been removed from office under a state constitutional provision authorizing removal when a court clerk is “adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office.”
A trial judge properly disqualified Chastain from office, “as her conduct in office amounted to nothing less than corruption or malpractice,” the appeals court said.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals referred to a prior opinion that defined corruption or malpractice to include “acts of willful misconduct which are egregious in nature.”
A trial judge had made these findings of fact:
- Chastain had called Franklin County Chief Magistrate James Arnold in June 2020 when meeting with local citizens who had been unable to reach a magistrate. Arnold said he wouldn’t send a magistrate without knowing more information and asked to speak with the people. Chastain refused and threatened to put post either Arnold’s personal phone number or her number on the door to the magistrate’s office. Arnold suggested that Chastain call his supervisor, Chief District Judge John Davis. Chastain said she would not do so and hung up. About 30 to 45 seconds later, Arnold received another call from Chastain and could tell that it was an inadvertent dial. Arnold heard Chastain say she talked with the chief magistrate, and he’s not going to do a thing. Chastain also said she wasn’t going to call Davis, using words to the effect of : “F- - -, I’m not calling John Davis,” “F- - - John Davis” or “I don’t give a f- - - about John Davis.”
- Chastain visited the homes of feuding neighbors in an attempt to mediate their dispute. She asked a deputy to accompany her. A judge had entered a no-contact order against one of the neighbors, and Chastain was aware of it. She told the neighbor subject to the order that the second neighbor was abusing the system by calling 911, and he would face criminal charges if he continued to do so. She then told the second neighbor that she was obligated by law to mediate, and his calls to 911 were an abuse of the judicial process. She also said that, as far as she was concerned, the no-contact ordered applied to all parties. The neighbor protested that Chastain’s comments were contrary to what he had been told by the judge. Chastain allegedly responded, “I’m telling you the law.” The fight concerned a disputed easement. Chastain later directed a clerk to file a deed copy in two lawsuits between the neighbors that contained Chastain’s handwritten note that the first neighbor “has legal right of way to travel per easement to her property.”
- Chastain went to to the jail after a preliminary hearing to get a murder suspect to fill out the affidavit of indigency regarding appointed counsel. She did not speak with the judge first.
- Chastain was the subject of improvement recommendations in an audit report that focused on employee training and increased oversight.
Chastain “knowingly persisted in misconduct as she consistently acted beyond the scope of her authority as clerk,” the appeals court said. “Further, she acted in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice in continuing to undermine the authority of both [the chief district judge] and other judges within the district by questioning their judgment, condemning court orders, and in altering and filing deeds without authorization.”
A dissenting judge, Judge April Wood, argued that Chastain’s actions were not so egregious as to warrant permanent disqualification from office.
A lawyer for Chastain, Matthew D. Ballew, provided a comment to the ABA Journal.
“Ms. Chastain is encouraged by the lengthy and very well-reasoned dissenting opinion by Judge Wood,” Ballew said. “In that opinion, Judge Wood lays out an in-depth analysis in which she agrees with each of the arguments made by Ms. Chastain on appeal. This dissenting opinion vindicates the position that Ms. Chastain has taken from the outset and provides her an automatic right to have her case now heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court.”
Law360 had coverage of the opinion.
Updated June 26 at 11:55 a.m. to add the statement by Matthew D. Ballew, Patricia Chastain’s lawyer.
