Impatience Not Enough to Recuse Judge
Shelby County Courthouse
Tennessee case summary on divorce and judicial recusal.
Claudette Gilley Sanford v. Phillip Howard Sanford
The husband and wife in this hotly litigated divorce case were married in 2013 when the husband was 54 and the wife 48. They had met through work, since the wife was an attorney in the Shelby County, Tennessee, county attorney’s office, and the husband was a detective in the Memphis Police Department. The wife filed for divorce in 2018.
In 2019, the wife made a social media post critical of the husband and the Memphis Police Department. The wife was ordered to remove the post, and this ultimately led to a first appeal in the case, in which the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s order. The wife unsuccessfully asked both the Tennessee Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to review that order. She also filed a motion to have the trial judge recused, which was denied. The husband ultimately obtained a restraining order against the wife.
Trial was held on the case, which included the wife’s tort claims against the husband, in 2020. The trial court found fault on both sides and divorced the parties. It dismissed the wife’s tort claims for battery and infliction of emotional distress. The wife then brought a second appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. She also filed a second recusal motion, which was denied.
After reciting the lengthy procedural history of the case, which involved both state and federal courts, the Court of Appeals turned to the issue of the trial court’s property division. The wife first argued that the marital residence was her separate property, and the trial court had erred in classifying it as marital property. The court agreed with the wife, since the property had been hers prior to the marriage, and the husband had failed to prove that the property had been transmuted. It also reviewed various valuation rulings of the lower court. It also reversed an award of attorney’s fees to the husband. It affirmed, however, the overall division of the marital property.
Having addressed these issues, the appeals court then turned to the issue of recusal. The wife argued that “the black robe is not a magic cape that removes the frailties of human nature.” But the appeals court did not see matters in those same terms. The wife alleged that the judge’s rulings denied her a neutral tribunal. But the appeals court carefully examined them and disagreed.
Among other things, the wife argued that the COVID rules in effect left her alone in the courtroom in a hostile environment. But other than a few unfavorable comments, the Court of Appeals was able to find nothing in the record that would demonstrate bias on the part of the judge. The appeals court pointed out that occasional impatience and irritation is not enough, since these are within the normal bounds of what imperfect men and women sometimes display. Overall, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence did not warrant recusal.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s rulings, but with some modifications. It also denied the husband’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.
No. W2020–01692-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2022).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
