Derrick Hussey v. Michael Woods
538 S.W.3d 476
| Tenn. | 2017Background
- Derrick Hussey died in December 2008; his mother Mae Chearis (as next of kin) sued Family Dollar for wrongful death, settled, and the trial court entered a consent dismissal in March 2010.
- Hussey had an alleged minor child (born 2005) whose mother Sharondra Harris later produced a Mississippi acknowledgment and chancery court order (2008) establishing Hussey as the father.
- Harris initially retained counsel (Brannon) in Dec. 2008 but alleges she was unaware Brannon withdrew; she learned of Chearis’s suit and settlement in Nov. 2011.
- In Dec. 2011 (20 months after dismissal) Harris, on behalf of her son, moved under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to set aside the dismissal, substitute the child as real party in interest, and have the claim relate back.
- The trial court denied relief as untimely and inequitable; the Court of Appeals vacated, holding the 60.02 motion was not ripe until the trial court resolved paternity. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court limited review to whether denial of relief under Rule 60.02(3) or (5) was proper and restored the trial court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (Chearis/Family Dollar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment was void under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(3) | The dismissal is void because the child (real party/next of kin) was not before the court and his rights were waived without his consent | The trial court had jurisdiction; dismissal was within pleadings and parties before it; outcome not void simply because child was not named | Denied — judgment not void; 60.02(3) relief inappropriate (trial court had jurisdiction and judgment not facially void) |
| Whether 60.02(5) catch‑all relief should set aside dismissal for extraordinary circumstances | Delay was reasonable because Harris relied on retained counsel and did not learn of settlement until 2011; severe injustice to child who received no proceeds | Motion filed 20 months after dismissal was untimely; no extraordinary circumstances; Harris failed to follow up with counsel; other remedies (malpractice/fraud) available | Denied — 60.02(5) relief not warranted; motion untimely and circumstances not extraordinary |
| Whether Court of Appeals properly remanded because paternity unresolved | Harris: paternity proof (MS order/acknowledgement) entitles child to be real party, so motion should be considered | Chearis: Rule 60.02 timeliness and equities govern regardless of paternity; trial court correctly decided on 60.02 grounds | Court of Appeals erred by focusing on paternity; only timeliness/merits of 60.02 were determinative |
| Standard of review for 60.02(5) denial | N/A (argument centers on application) | N/A | Trial court’s denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; Supreme Court finds no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013) (explains finality, Rule 59 v. Rule 60 timing, and limits on Rule 60 relief)
- Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (defines when a judgment is void under Rule 60.02(3) and sets de novo standard)
- Busby v. Massey, 686 S.W.2d 60 (Tenn. 1984) (settlement approval procedures and notice issues when minors are involved)
- United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (U.S. 2010) (a judgment is not void merely because it may be erroneous)
- Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010) (limits on Rule 60.02 as a vehicle for post‑judgment dissatisfaction)
- Federated Ins. Co. v. Lethcoe, 18 S.W.3d 621 (Tenn. 2000) (Rule 60.02(5) is a narrow catch‑all for extraordinary circumstances)
- Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699 (Tenn. 2005) (Rule 60.02’s general purpose to balance finality and justice)