In Re: Lucius H.
M2016-00534-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- The State (on behalf of Amy C. H.) filed a paternity and child support petition against Cameron W. B. in Wilson County Juvenile Court seeking paternity, current and retroactive child support, medical insurance, and birth-related costs.
- Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed various pleadings challenging jurisdiction, invoking the UCC, alleging fraud, and otherwise seeking dismissal; he admitted under oath at the paternity proceeding that he is the child’s biological father and declined genetic testing.
- The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss, found jurisdiction proper under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307, and treated Appellant’s filings as a general appearance.
- The court adopted the parties’ Child Support Worksheet and ordered monthly child support of $274, retroactive support of $3,014 plus interest (with a $100/month repayment plan), shared responsibility for uncovered medical expenses, and required employer-offered insurance if available.
- Appellant appealed, raising jurisdictional challenges, reliance on the Uniform Commercial Code, and objections to the amounts of support and retroactive support. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Amy) | Defendant's Argument (Cameron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction/venue | Wilson County is proper; statutory jurisdiction exists for paternity actions | Court lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; UCC defenses | Jurisdiction and venue proper; Appellant’s in-court admission and appearance waived jurisdictional objection |
| Whether paternity was properly established | Paternity established by Appellant’s sworn admission | Denied paternity; relied on UCC and other defenses | Paternity established based on Appellant’s sworn admission; UCC inapplicable |
| Whether child support award followed law | Support determined under mandatory child-support guidelines and worksheet | Challenged amount and retroactive support | Child support award, retroactive amount, and medical provisions affirmed; guidelines properly applied |
| Whether UCC or other technical defenses bar enforcement | Enforcement appropriate under family law statutes | Invoked UCC, sovereign/juristic person arguments, and other non-family-law defenses | UCC and related arguments are inapplicable to paternity/support; such defenses rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (standard of review for non-jury appeals and legal/factual review)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (appellate review principles cited with Kelly)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (father’s beliefs about responsibility irrelevant once paternity established)
- Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000) (establishing child support obligation upon paternity)
- Matter of Grosfelt, 718 S.W.2d 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (general appearance by conduct waives personal-jurisdiction objections)