If for any reason, including resignation or removal from office, a judge before whom an action has been tried is unable to perform the duties to be performed by the court under these rules after a verdict is returned or findings of fact and conclusions of law are announced or filed, then any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court in which the action was tried may perform those duties; but, if such judge is satisfied that he cannot perform those duties because he did not preside at the trial or for any other reason, he may, in his discretion, grant a new trial.
Rule 63.Disability of a Judge
Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 63 lets another judge finish a case when the trial judge becomes unable to act after a verdict or findings are announced, but allows that successor judge to order a new trial instead if stepping into the case is not workable.
Full Text of Rule 63
Reporter's Notes
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 63: 1. Rule 63 is substantially identical to FRCP 63. The applicability of this rule is limited to those situations where a trial judge, for any reason, becomes unable to perform his duties under these rules during the period after a decision or verdict has been given and before the appellate court obtains jurisdiction. Although this rule gives the succeeding judge the authority to grant a new trial if he cannot satisfactorily perform the duties required of him, the decisions previously made by the former judge and the jury are presumed to be correct and the burden is on the moving party to show to the contrary. Miller v. Penn R. Co., 161 F. Supp. 633 (D.C, 1958).
2. Because of its limited applicability, FRCP 63 has caused little or no controversy since its adoption and it has never been amended. Accordingly, it is not believed that Rule 63 will have any significant impact upon Arkansas practice and procedure.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 63 covers a narrow but real problem: what happens when the judge who tried a case -- through resignation, removal, illness, or any other reason -- can no longer perform the duties the rules assign to the court after a verdict comes in or findings of fact and conclusions of law are announced or filed. Rather than leaving the case in limbo, the rule lets any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to that court step in and finish those remaining duties, such as ruling on post-trial motions or entering judgment.
The rule also builds in a release valve. If the substitute judge is not satisfied that the case can be handled properly -- because they did not preside at trial and lack the feel for the evidence and witnesses that the original judge had, or for any other reason -- the rule gives them discretion to order a new trial rather than force a decision on a record they did not build. This protects the parties from a decision made by a judge who is not in a fair position to make it, while still giving the court a way to keep the case moving when the original judge cannot finish the job.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does Rule 63 come into play?
Only after a verdict has been returned or findings of fact and conclusions of law have been announced or filed, and only when the judge who tried the case can no longer perform the remaining duties -- for example due to resignation or removal from office.
Can the new judge just decide post-trial motions without having heard the trial?
Yes, that is the point of the rule -- a successor judge can pick up where the original judge left off. But if the successor judge is not comfortable ruling on those matters without having presided at trial, the rule gives them the discretion to order a new trial instead.
Does a party have to prove the first judge's rulings were wrong to get a new trial under Rule 63?
The rule itself does not require that showing from a party; it is the successor judge's own assessment of whether they can competently perform the remaining duties that triggers a new trial. In practice, courts applying comparable federal case law have treated the prior judge's and jury's decisions as presumptively correct, putting the burden on a party who wants to challenge them.
Is Rule 63 commonly invoked in Arkansas practice?
No. It covers a narrow set of circumstances -- a judge becoming unable to finish a case at a specific late stage -- and has generated little litigation since Arkansas adopted it.
Source & verification. Rule text, Reporter's Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, prescribed by
the Arkansas Supreme Court. The plain-English summary is original and written by us.
Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: disability of a judge arkansasarkansas rule 63ar civ p 63successor judge arkansasjudge unable to perform duties arkansassubstitute judge civil case arkansas