716 S.W.3d 58
Tenn. Ct. App.2024Background
- The case concerns unmarried parents (Charles H.H. – Father, and Amy C.W. – Mother) of a minor child, with long-running litigation over parenting time and modification of a parenting plan.
- In late 2021, the juvenile magistrate granted Father’s request to allow the child to fly as an unaccompanied minor for visitation, modifying the parenting plan.
- Mother timely filed a request for a de novo rehearing by the juvenile judge, as permitted by then-existing Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-107(d).
- Over 500 days later, the legislature amended § 37-1-107(d), eliminating the automatic right to a de novo hearing and imposing new requirements for judicial review of magistrate orders.
- Father moved to dismiss Mother’s pending rehearing under the new statute; the juvenile court applied the amended law retroactively but allowed Mother extra time to comply, prompting this interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does amended § 37-1-107(d) apply retroactively? | Statute should not be retroactive; undermines her vested right | Should apply retroactively; is procedural | No retroactivity; to apply it here impairs a vested right |
| If retroactive, can court extend time to comply? | (Not reached, as Mother prevails on retroactivity issue) | Time for rehearing lapsed; no extension allowed | Moot, as amendment cannot be applied retroactively |
| Does retroactive application create unjust result? | Yes; eliminates right to rehearing without notice | No; litigant has no vested right in procedure | Yes; would unfairly deprive Mother of expected hearing |
| Is a de novo rehearing still required? | Yes, under law as it existed when she filed | No, new law eliminates this remedy | Yes; remanded for de novo rehearing under prior law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kee v. Shelter Ins., 852 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. 1993) (procedural statutes generally apply retroactively unless this produces injustice or impairs a vested right)
- Morris v. Gross, 572 S.W.2d 902 (Tenn. 1978) (due process is violated if a remedy relied upon as part of substantive rights is abolished retroactively)
- Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 1999) (multi-part test for whether retroactive application impairs a vested right)
- In re D.A.H., 142 S.W.3d 267 (Tenn. 2004) (application of fundamental right and vested right analysis for retroactivity issues)
- State v. Minor, 546 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. 2018) (standard of review for retroactivity issues)