Heather Kailoni Lawson (Stewart) v. Michael Sherman Stewart, M2016-02213-COA-R3-CV

Mother filed a petition to modify the 2009 permanent parenting plan and attached a proposed parenting plan asking also to increase Father's child support; Father was served but failed to timely answer.
At a July 11, 2016 hearing Father appeared, was granted until July 15 to answer, retained counsel the next day but no answer was filed.
Trial court entered default on July 29, 2016, adopted Mother's proposed parenting plan in full without an evidentiary hearing, and increased Father’s monthly child support and entered arrearage and medical expense judgments.
Father moved to set aside the default (claimed excusable neglect/mistake); trial court denied the motion and treated it as a motion to alter or amend.
On appeal the Court of Appeals vacated the default modification order because the record and pleadings lacked the specific factual findings required to show a material change in circumstances and a best-interest determination under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 and § 36-6-106.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lawson)	Defendant's Argument (Stewart)	Held
Whether court properly modified parenting plan and increased child support without evidentiary hearing or statutory findings	Mother's petition alleged Father failed to exercise visitation and unpaid medical/changed support circumstances warrant modification; default admitted those allegations	Trial court erred: modification requires (1) proof of material change and (2) best-interest determination with statutory factor findings; pleadings alone were insufficient	Vacated: trial court failed to make required factual findings and improperly adopted a blank worksheet and imputed 2009 incomes without evidentiary support
Whether default judgment should be set aside for excusable neglect/mistake	N/A (Mother opposed default)	Father asserted he retained counsel but counsel missed the court-ordered deadline due to lack of effective communication, constituting excusable neglect	Court of Appeals did not reverse on equitable grounds alone; primary basis for relief was insufficiency of trial-court findings—trial court’s denial of relief reviewed and order vacated for lack of statutory findings
Whether appeal was frivolous such that Mother should recover appellate fees	Mother asked for fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122, arguing appeal was frivolous	Father maintained appeal had merit	Denied: appeal was not frivolous; Father prevailed on appeal

H.G. Hill Realty Co., L.L.C. v. Re/Max Carriage House, Inc., 428 S.W.3d 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (default converts well-pleaded factual allegations to admissions but does not substitute for required evidentiary findings)
Brashears v. Hartsook, 450 S.W.2d 7 (Tenn. 1969) (default judgment effects and limits)
Stricklin v. Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (a trial court must find material change in circumstances and make best-interest findings when modifying custody)
Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for bench trial findings and legal conclusions)
Yearwood, Johnson, Stanton & Crabtree, Inc. v. Foxland Dev. Venture, 828 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (discretion in entering default judgments)
Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010) (imposing sanctions for frivolous appeals is rare and requires clear applicability)
Wakefield v. Longmire, 54 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (definition of frivolous appeal)