John Anthony Gentry v. Katherine Wise Gentry
M2016-01765-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Wife filed for divorce on April 9, 2014; Husband (John A. Gentry) contested various rulings and sought recusal of the trial judge and appellate panel.
- Trial judge denied Husband’s motion to recuse on September 9, 2015; final divorce judgment entered July 14, 2016; Husband’s Rule 59 motion denied August 12, 2016.
- Husband filed a Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B petition for recusal with the Court of Appeals on August 22, 2016 (filed after final judgment) and also filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 3 appeal of the final judgment.
- A prior 10B accelerated-interlocutory petition was dismissed by an appellate panel (Clement, Frierson, Armstrong) as inappropriate because the Rule 10B interlocutory procedure must be filed before final judgment.
- Husband additionally sought permission to exceed the 50-page argument limit for his appellate brief and moved to recuse the appellate panel; the panel denied both the page-extension and the recusal motions.
- Husband moved for court review of the panel’s denial of recusal; the Court of Appeals (Bennett, J.) reviewed de novo and denied the motion to recuse, finding no bias or legal error in the panel’s orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 10B interlocutory appeal | Gentry: his 10B petition was timely (claims tied to Rule 59 ruling) | Wife/Court: Rule 10B interlocutory appeals must be filed within 15 days of the trial judge’s denial; after final judgment the remedy is a Rule 3 appeal | Held: 10B petition was untimely as interlocutory appeal; after final judgment the recusal issue must be raised on the Rule 3 appeal |
| Recusal of appellate panel | Gentry: prior orders and rulings show bias warranting recusal | Appellate court: adverse rulings alone (even if erroneous) do not prove bias; Gentry offered no objective evidence of partiality | Held: Denied — no reasonable basis to question impartiality; orders and rulings not evidence of bias |
| Request to exceed 50‑page argument limit (Tenn. R. App. P. 27) | Gentry: needs extra pages to raise ~35 issues and extensive facts on recusal | Court: pro se status does not excuse rule compliance; 50‑page argument limit serves to focus issues; fact section may be longer | Held: Denied — insufficient need shown for extra argument pages; no bias in denial |
| Due process claim | Gentry: denial of hearings/decisions violated his due process rights | Court: Gentry received procedures required by rules; his claim lacked legal citation and support | Held: Denied — no due process violation shown; platitudes without authority insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (adverse rulings alone do not establish bias)
- Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (judge should recuse when impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
- State v. Alley, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (erroneous or continuous rulings alone do not require disqualification)
- Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (pro se litigants entitled to fair treatment but must follow procedural rules)
- Pierce v. Visteon Corp., 791 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2015) (briefing many issues dilutes appellate argument strength)