In re Devin B.
W2016-00121-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Child born in Tennessee in 2005; parents later moved to Texas. A Texas court entered a permanent parenting plan on March 1, 2010.
- Father filed in Tennessee (Memphis juvenile court) on August 26, 2011 to enroll the Texas judgment and to modify visitation, alleging the child lived in Tennessee the prior six months.
- A juvenile court magistrate entered an order on May 30, 2012 enrolling the Texas judgment and naming Father primary custodian; that order made no UCCJEA/home-state findings.
- Mother later moved to modify custody (June 2014). After hearings, the magistrate (April 24, 2015) found the child’s home state was Texas and recommended dismissing pending matters for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; magistrate also found Father committed fraud and assessed fees.
- A special judge conducted a de novo review on the record (rehearing) and entered an order (Nov. 30, 2015) declaring the 2012 order void and confirming lack of Tennessee jurisdiction; no findings on fraud or fees were adopted in the final order.
- Father appealed; this Court sua sponte questioned the validity of the special judge’s appointment but proceeded because the parties did not challenge the judge’s authority and he acted as a de facto judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Father contends Tennessee was the child’s home state (or that home-state was established earlier) and jurisdictional challenge is waived because prior Tennessee order wasn’t attacked | Mother argued the child’s home state was Texas; Tennessee lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Court held Tennessee was not the child’s home state on the day of the proceeding or during the six months before Father’s initial petition; no jurisdiction. |
| Whether subject-matter jurisdiction can be waived because prior 2012 order wasn’t challenged | Father argues lack of challenge to 2012 order waives jurisdictional attack | Court (relying on precedent) and Mother: subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived | Court held subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; challenge properly considered. |
| Whether the magistrate exceeded authority by setting aside prior orders | Father contends magistrate improperly set aside earlier unappealed orders | Mother and court: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders prior orders void (not merely voidable) | Court held lack of jurisdiction makes prior juvenile-court orders void and thus properly set aside. |
| Whether Father must pay fees or was found to have committed fraud | Father argues special judge did not hear evidence on fraud/fees at rehearing and thus no basis for fees | Mother conceded final appealed order did not impose fees | Court held the special judge made no findings on fraud or fees in the final order; no fees are imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Ferrell v. Cigna Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2000) (procedural requirements for judicial appointments and related error analysis)
- Cumberland Bank v. Smith, 43 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (distinguishing void judgments for lack of jurisdiction from voidable judgments for other errors)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993) (standard of appellate review in nonjury cases)
- Flowers v. Bd. of Professional Responsibility, 314 S.W.3d 882 (Tenn. 2010) (appellate courts are not required to hunt for issues buried in the record or briefs)
- Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (issues not properly designated in the appellate statement may be waived)