Background - Husband (John Gentry) and Wife (Katherine Gentry) married in 2009; no children. Wife owned SweetWise, Inc., a cake business she founded before marriage; Husband later worked there. - Wife filed a patent application (fondant mat) during the marriage; the PTO ultimately issued a final rejection. - Parties separated and filed for divorce in 2014; protracted pretrial motion practice included Husband’s contempt, recusal, and discovery motions. - Trial court (after a two-day trial): dismissed Husband’s civil contempt and denied pendente lite support; found SweetWise remained Wife’s separate property, held the denied patent application was marital property but valued it at $0 and awarded it to Wife; awarded Wife attorney’s fees for defending certain repetitive pretrial motions. - On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed most rulings but reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees as sanctions for failure to follow Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 procedures. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether judge should have recused | Trial judge exhibited bias via adverse rulings and counsel’s suggestion of an email; recusal required. | Motion defective (no affidavit) and rulings don’t show bias; denial proper. | Denied: recusal motion procedurally deficient (no affidavit) and record does not show disqualifying bias. | | Whether trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees as sanctions for Husband’s pretrial motions | Fees unjustified; motions were proper. | Fees appropriate as sanctions for repetitive, harassing motions. | Reversed: trial court failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.03 (no show-cause order and orders did not describe violative conduct), so sanctions vacated. | | Whether SweetWise became marital property (gift, commingling, or appreciation) | Wife gifted 45% by signing a stock transfer; commingling/appreciation during marriage converted business to marital property. | No completed gift (no delivery); business was founded before marriage and remained separate; Husband was paid employee and failed to prove appreciation caused by his contributions. | Affirmed: no completed gift (no delivery), no commingling/transmutation shown, and Husband failed to prove appreciation or pre-marriage value baseline. | | Whether the patent application was misvalued or improperly awarded | Patent has potential value; appeal should not have been valued at $0 or awarded to Wife. | PTO issued final rejection; no credible evidence of value; awarding it to Wife fits §36-4-121(c) factors. | Affirmed: trial court’s $0 valuation and award to Wife supported by evidence and equitable factors. | ### Key Cases Cited Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (litigant’s right to an impartial judge; adverse rulings alone generally do not establish bias) State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (erroneous or numerous adverse rulings typically insufficient for disqualification) Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (same principle regarding erroneous rulings and recusal) Hansel v. Hansel, 939 S.W.2d 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (inter vivos gift requires present intent and delivery) Abernathy v. Adams, 218 S.W.2d 747 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948) (delivery and surrender of dominion required for completed gift of securities) Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (doctrine of commingling/transmutation of separate property) Cutsinger v. Cutsinger, 917 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (burden on non-owner spouse to prove appreciation of separate property during marriage) Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (valuation and equitable division of marital property) * Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2015) (trial court discretion in imposing discovery sanctions)