Hudson v. Hudson
328 S.W.3d 863
Tenn.2010Background
- Divorce decree (Jan 29, 2007) incorporated a Marital Dissolution Agreement and Parenting Plan designating Mother as primary residential parent with 135 days of the year for Father.
- June 21, 2007 Mother petitioned to relocate from Nashville, TN to Hopkinsville, KY; Father opposed.
- Trial on relocation petition held April 14–15, 2008; May 22, 2008 trial court granted relocation, amended Parenting Plan, and awarded Mother attorney's fees.
- Court of Appeals affirmed relocation but reversed the attorney's fees award; this Court granted Father’s permission to appeal.
- Mother filed a post-judgment motion asserting new facts: she remarried (May 28, 2010) and relocated to Sumner County, TN, seeking relocation anew.
- This Court grants the post-judgment facts motion, dismisses the appeal as moot, vacates the May 22, 2008 order, and remands for proceedings consistent with this order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Father's appeal moot | Hudson argues relocation facts render controversy moot | Hudson contends dismissal would bar review and allow evasion of review if she relocates again | Yes; appeal dismissed as moot with vacatur and remand |
| Collateral consequences post-mootness | Collateral consequences may preserve review | No sufficient collateral consequences to avoid mootness | Collateral consequences insufficient; mootness remains; exception not applied |
| Vacatur and remand | Vacatur of May 22, 2008 order appropriate to restore original position | Maintainability of remand unnecessary if moot | Court vacates May 22, 2008 order and remands for proceedings consistent with this order |
| Judicial bias/remand to a different judge | Motion for recusal not filed; bias claim warrants remand | No motion for recusal; no basis to remand | No remand to a different judge; decision not to remand upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2008) (mootness hinges on whether controversy is preserved or capable of repetition)
- Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2009) (exception for collateral consequences when moot)
- EEOC v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009) (collateral consequences may persist post-dismissal)
- May v. Carlton, 245 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2008) (collateral consequences and continued effect after invalidation)
- Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) (relevance to collateral consequences post-conviction)
- Putnam v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (2006) (collateral consequences concept in mootness analysis)
- Bailey v. Blount Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 303 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2010) (no recusal motion; bias claim insufficient for remand)