556 S.W.3d 211
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2008 Mark Bentley filed to domesticate an Alabama money judgment against Wood Byrd under Tennessee’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, seeking to reach Byrd’s interest in Hishbach Partners (said judgment ~ $1.35M).
- Bentley obtained a 2008 charging order against Byrd’s partnership interest directing Hishbach to withhold distributions and permitting foreclosure if distributions would not satisfy the judgment.
- The record contains affidavits of attempted contact, but no proof that a summons was ever properly served on Byrd as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-105; nevertheless enforcement efforts continued and a later foreclosure sale vested title to the Estate of Bentley.
- Byrd (pro se) and Hishbach Partners repeatedly moved to dismiss or vacate, arguing lack of service/personal jurisdiction; Byrd also argued the Alabama judgment was void.
- The trial court rejected Byrd’s service objections (finding actual/constructive notice and waiver via counsel’s participation in a telephone conference) and left enforcement orders in place; the Court of Appeals reviewed only the dispositive personal-jurisdiction/service issue.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the record shows no proper service under the statute, that Byrd did not waive the defense, and that the enforcement orders were void for lack of personal jurisdiction; it vacated the trial court’s execution-related orders and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over Byrd by service required under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-105 | Bentley/Estate argued service/notice was adequate (court previously found actual and constructive notice) and Byrd waived objections via counsel’s participation in a 2014 phone conference | Byrd argued he was never properly served with the summons required to enroll and enforce the foreign judgment and thus the court lacked personal jurisdiction | The court held there was no proof of proper service, Byrd did not waive the defense, and orders permitting execution were void for lack of personal jurisdiction; vacated enforcement orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (appellate jurisdiction ordinarily requires a final judgment)
- Bailey v. Sneed, 49 S.W.3d 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (service gives debtor opportunity to appear and seek a stay of enforcement)
- Biogen Distributors, Inc. v. Tanner, 842 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (foreign judgments subject to same defenses and reopening procedures as Tennessee judgments)
- Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (participation to obtain a continuance does not waive personal-jurisdiction defense)
- Cumberland Bank v. Smith, 43 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments)
- Hood v. Jenkins, 432 S.W.3d 814 (Tenn. 2013) (a judgment is void if the issuing court lacked personal jurisdiction)