Facts: Ten days before the divorce trial, Husband—who was represented by counsel— filed a pro se motion asking the trial judge to recuse. (!!!)

Husband claimed the judge failed to appreciate how difficult it was for him to hire “competent” local counsel to litigate against Wife, who was a local attorney. He alleged that Wife had a head start in contacting local attorneys and that local lawyers were reluctant to oppose another attorney. According to Husband, those circumstances gave Wife a structural advantage in the divorce litigation.

Husband had recently hired counsel, but that lawyer had a scheduling conflict with the trial date. Husband alleged that the trial court’s refusal to continue the trial caused his lawyer to seek permission to withdraw. He characterized this as the court “intentionally stripp[ing] [Husband] of legal representation while knowing that [Wife] is a local attorney holding an immense structural advantage in these proceedings.”

The trial judge found Husband’s description “wholly inaccurate.” Husband had previously been represented by and voluntarily terminated four attorneys. (!!!) When his previous attorney withdrew approximately 30 days before trial, the court warned Husband that the trial would not be continued and found that he had been given ample opportunity to retain counsel.

The trial judge also found that Husband’s current lawyer (#5!) had not requested a continuance, either formally or informally. Husband had filed his own motion to continue, but that motion had not been heard.

Husband’s affidavit raised numerous other complaints concerning rulings entered during the preceding two years. He challenged orders entered in 2024 and 2025, statements about the classification of premarital property, the bifurcation of the divorce, discovery rulings, contempt findings for nonpayment of child support, the sealing of Child’s therapy records, and an order requiring the sale of the marital residence.

Although Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B prohibits a represented party from filing a pro se recusal motion, the trial judge considered the motion because of the case’s unique procedural posture.

The trial judge also noted that many of Husband’s complaints concerned events occurring long before he moved for recusal. Rule 10B requires a party to file a recusal motion promptly after learning or reasonably being expected to learn of the facts establishing the grounds for recusal.

Even so, the trial judge addressed each complaint in a 21-page order supported by 101 pages of exhibits. (!!!) She found no reasonable basis to question her impartiality. She also found that Husband filed the motion for an improper purpose and as an apparent attempt to delay a trial that had been scheduled for more than four months.

Husband appealed.

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

An accelerated appeal under Rule 10B is limited to the denial of the motion to recuse. It does not allow the Court of Appeals to review the correctness of the trial court’s other rulings.

Tennessee litigants have a fundamental right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. A judge must disqualify himself or herself from any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The test is objective. Recusal is required when a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position, knowing all the facts known to the judge, would find a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.

The party seeking recusal bears the burden of proving grounds for disqualification. Bias or prejudice sufficient to require recusal generally must be personal, directed at the litigant, and based on an extrajudicial source instead of information the judge learned while participating in the case.

Husband’s proof concerned decisions the trial judge made during the litigation, including bifurcating the divorce, holding Husband in contempt, requiring the sale of the marital residence, limiting or compelling discovery, and leaving the trial date unchanged. Nothing in Husband’s affidavit suggested that those decisions arose from anything other than the judge’s participation in the case.

The Court explained:

While all those decisions might be adverse to [Husband], a “trial judge’s adverse rulings are not usually sufficient to establish bias.”

This remains true “even if [the adverse rulings are] erroneous, numerous and continuous.” Otherwise, recusal would be required routinely because courts necessarily rule against parties in every case.

The Court concluded:

Having considered [Husband’s] claims and the judge’s responses, we agree that a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position, knowing all of the facts known to the judge, would not find a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality. So [Husband’s] motion to recuse was properly denied.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Husband’s motion to recuse.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) Timing matters. Husband waited until ten days before trial to rely on events reaching back nearly two years. A party who becomes aware of a legitimate basis for recusal must act promptly. Waiting until trial is imminent or several rulings have gone badly invites the conclusion that the motion is strategic.

(2) Lawyers, if you are approached by someone looking for their fifth lawyer in their never-ending quest for “competent” counsel, proceed with caution. This guy was a walking red flag.

Source: Tahinci v. Tahinci (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, July 29, 2026).

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