Judith Husk v. Brandon Thompson
M2016-01481-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Judith Husk and Brandon Thompson cohabitated under a lease in Murfreesboro; their relationship ended after a domestic-assault arrest and a no-contact bond condition that prevented Husk from returning to the apartment.
- Husk arranged for her father to retrieve belongings; subsequent interactions led to arrests and a criminal warrant sworn by Thompson for contempt against Husk.
- Thompson refused either to pay full rent or vacate; Husk continued paying her share and later paid full rent for months when Thompson did not; Thompson placed Husk’s remaining property in storage.
- Husk sued Thompson (conversion, unjust enrichment, malicious prosecution) on January 8, 2016; Thompson was served at the sheriff’s office but did not answer within 30 days.
- Husks moved for default judgment; the trial court granted default and immediately entered a final money judgment ($15,577.16) without an evidentiary damages hearing. Thompson filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside, which the trial court denied.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of relief from default but vacated the damage award and remanded for a hearing on unliquidated damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Thompson's Rule 60.02 motion to set aside default judgment | Husk argued Thompson was served, failed to answer, and did not rebut service/certificate; default judgment was proper | Thompson said he believed civil action would await criminal resolution and claimed he did not receive the default-motion hearing notice | Affirmed: default was willful (ignorance of law not excusable); trial court’s credibility finding that Thompson received notice upheld |
| Whether lack of actual notice of the default-motion hearing entitled Thompson to relief | Husk relied on certificate of service raising presumption of mailing and the fact Thompson received complaint and judgment | Thompson argued he never received the motion or notice of hearing (no mailing date on certificate) | Held for Husk: presumption not rebutted; credibility finding supported; receipt of complaint and judgment undermined Thompson's claim |
| Whether the trial court could enter a final money judgment immediately upon granting default | Husk treated claimed sums as ascertainable and requested immediate judgment including fees | Thompson contended damages were unliquidated and required proof before final judgment | Reversed in part: damages were largely unliquidated; trial court erred in entering final damage award without proof; remanded for hearing on damages |
| Whether unjust-enrichment damages were liquidated | Husk alleged specific rent amounts she paid that benefited Thompson | Thompson argued allocation and percentages of rent-sharing were unclear so amounts not precisely calculable | Held: unjust-enrichment amounts were not ascertainable from complaint alone and are unliquidated; require proof at hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenn. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Barbee, 689 S.W.2d 863 (Tenn. 1985) (explaining Rule 60.02 relief standard and burden to show excusable neglect)
- Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475 (Tenn. 2003) (appellate review of trial court’s Rule 60 discretion and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (defining abuse of discretion standard)
- Food Lion, Inc. v. Washington County Beer Board, 700 S.W.2d 893 (Tenn. 1985) (stating ignorance of the law is not an acceptable ground for Rule 60 relief)
- Patterson v. Rockwell Int’l, 665 S.W.2d 96 (Tenn. 1984) (default judgment admits facts but not unliquidated damages)
- Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2009) (defining final judgment as resolving all claims and leaving nothing for adjudication)