Facts: Wife filed for divorce from Husband after a six-year marriage that produced one child. Early in the case, Wife obtained a temporary order of protection after accusing Husband of rape. A criminal charge for rape was later filed against Husband, and the divorce case was reassigned to a different judge while the original judge handled the criminal case.

The divorce trial occurred over three days. Both parties testified, along with several witnesses, including Wife’s mother and visitation supervisor.

The trial was contentious. The judge frequently admonished Husband for giving nonresponsive, lengthy answers and not following instructions. At one point, the judge urged Husband to “be a man” and behave appropriately during visitations, indicating frustration with Husband’s conduct. The judge also made comments suggesting he found some of Wife’s evidence credible—at one point calling a witness’s testimony “very reliable”—while questioning Husband’s credibility, noting that Husband denied most of Wife’s allegations. Husband did not object or move for the judge’s recusal at any time during the trial.

After taking the case under advisement, the trial court issued its ruling about eight months later. In the meantime, a jury had convicted Husband of rape in the criminal case.

The trial court granted Wife a divorce and found that Husband had raped Wife. Wife was named the primary residential parent of their child, and Husband received 104 days of parenting time. The trial court divided the marital estate and ordered Husband to pay Wife transitional alimony for two years. It also modified the parenting plan after Husband’s conviction (classifying him as a sex offender) and ultimately entered a lifetime order of protection in Wife’s favor.

Husband did not appeal any of these outcomes. The only issue he raised on appeal was whether the judge should have recused himself due to alleged bias.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Litigants in Tennessee are entitled to a fair and impartial judge. A judge must step aside “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Under Tennessee law, recusal is required if a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position, knowing all the facts, would have a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. Bias or prejudice sufficient for recusal generally must originate from an extrajudicial source, i.e., something outside the courtroom proceedings.

Criticism, impatience, or even anger that a judge exhibits during trial usually isn’t grounds for disqualification unless it is so extreme that it shows a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Importantly, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requires parties to raise recusal issues promptly. A party who waits too long, hoping for a favorable outcome and only complaining after losing, risks waiving the issue. In truly exceptional circumstances, a judge may be required to recuse on their own initiative if their conduct clearly undermines the perception of impartiality.

Husband argued the trial court judge’s comments and conduct during the trial showed bias against him and favoritism toward Wife, thereby requiring recusal even though Husband never filed a recusal motion.

The Court of Appeals was not persuaded:

To be grounds for disqualification, a trial judge’s bias or prejudice must come from an extra-judicial source and not result from the judge’s impressions during trial. The statements of the trial judge that Husband highlights indicate that, during the trial, the court became frustrated with Husband’s evasiveness and developed concerns about Husband’s credibility. However, an opinion formed on the basis of what a judge learns during judicial proceedings, and comments that reveal that opinion, are not disqualifying unless they are so extreme that they reflect an utter incapacity to be fair.

*     *     *     *     * 

[W]e conclude that the present case does not present the “unique circumstances” necessary to require the trial judge to recuse himself sua sponte. The trial judge did not “express[] disdain for the entire class of proceedings he was conducting.” Furthermore, there is no evidence that the trial judge reached a decision about the case prior to hearing all the evidence. Here, [] there is nothing to indicate that the trial judge prejudged the case, kept Husband from presenting his case, or otherwise denied Husband a fair trial. Moreover, Husband has not challenged the merits of the decision reached by the trial court.

Husband has presented no evidence of bias stemming from extrajudicial sources or any bias that was sufficiently pervasive so as to deny him a fair trial. Thus, even assuming Husband did not waive the recusal issue, we find no basis upon which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) This opinion’s reference to Cook v. State, 606 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2020) is worth unpacking. In Cook, the Tennessee Supreme Court found that a post-conviction judge should have recused himself even though no motion to recuse was filed. The judge had made sweeping statements during his ruling, praising the defense attorneys as “two of the best trial lawyers in the world” and dismissing the petitioner’s claims as “almost laughable.” He also expressed open disdain for Tennessee’s post-conviction process, calling it a “game” and favoring Texas’s approach instead. The Supreme Court held that these comments created a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality, triggering a duty to recuse under Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.11. That’s a rare outcome. The Court emphasized that judges must maintain an open mind and avoid even the appearance of bias. But as the Court of Appeals noted here, the facts in Cook were exceptional. The judge in this divorce case may have been firm and occasionally frustrated, but he didn’t express contempt for the legal process or show favoritism based on extrajudicial relationships. Cook sets a high bar for sua sponte recusal, and it’s not met by a judge simply doing the hard work of managing a contentious trial.

(2) It’s natural for litigants to feel a judge is against them when the judge scolds them or rules against them repeatedly. But the legal standard for judicial recusal is high. As this case illustrates, a judge can chastise a party’s behavior and even display visible frustration without being deemed biased. Here, the judge’s impatience with Husband’s evasive testimony and his pointed comments stemmed from what the judge saw and heard in court, not from an outside prejudice. Tennessee courts draw a clear line between a judge forming opinions based on evidence (which is expected) and a judge harboring extrinsic bias or pre-deciding the case (which would be improper). There was no sign of the latter in this trial.

Source: DiDomenico v. DiDomenico (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, November 7, 2025).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.