Tennessee case abstract on service of course of.
The events on this Williamson County, Tennessee, case have been divorced in 2005. The mom was named the first residential dad or mum, with the daddy being allowed visitation. In 2015, the daddy went again to courtroom to implement the parenting plan. The events have been in a position to comply with a modification, however the father alleged that the mom was misconstruing and violating the brand new agreed order. The daddy requested to have the mom held in contempt, the order put aside, and the kid help be recalculated.
The mom made a restricted look and moved to dismiss. She alleged that she had not been served with the petition. The trial courtroom agreed, and the daddy tried once more. The mom once more objected based mostly on lack of service.
The daddy employed an legal professional and made a 3rd try. He alleged lower in revenue and requested for a change of kid help. The mom filed a counter-petition alleging that the daddy voluntarily stop his job.
Extra motions have been filed, together with the withdrawal of two attorneys for the daddy. The final one indicated that the daddy was continuing professional se, and listed an e-mail handle. It failed, nevertheless, to record any bodily handle.
The daddy by no means answered one of many mom’s petitions, and she or he requested for a default judgment. She indicated that she had mailed the paperwork and despatched them to a different e-mail handle. The trial courtroom granted the default judgment.
The daddy moved to put aside the default. He acknowledged that he had notified the mom of his new handle in Missouri.
The daddy conceded that he had by no means formally up to date his mailing handle with the courtroom recordsdata. The trial courtroom, Choose James G. Martin, III, denied the movement and let the default judgment stand. The daddy then appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals, which determined the case in an opinion penned by Choose J. Steven Stafford.
The appeals courtroom first needed to decide what grounds for reduction the daddy was asserting. Although his argument modified barely on attraction, he had argued that the judgment was mainly procured by fraud, as a result of the mom despatched the papers to the fallacious handle.
The appeals courtroom famous that it’s incumbent upon professional se litigants to maintain their handle updated with the courtroom. It held that with out this rule, it could be unattainable for the courtroom to maintain in touch with litigants, and the daddy had failed to satisfy this obligation.
The daddy argued that he wasn’t conscious of any persevering with litigation, however the appeals courtroom rejected this argument.
After reviewing the proof, the appeals courtroom affirmed. It additionally awarded the mom her legal professional’s charges on attraction and remanded the case for a dedication of the quantity.
No. M2019-00978-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2020).
See authentic opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To study extra, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.