Larry E. Parrish, P. C. v. Nancy J. Strong
M2015-02495-COA-R9-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Parrish PC filed an in rem complaint seeking to enforce a chose-in-action assignment from Nancy Strong for attorney’s fees; Strong was identified only as a “non-party respondent” and not personally served.
- Strong filed an answer and counter-complaint alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, and alternatively seeking to invalidate the assignment clause.
- The case was bifurcated; after phase one a jury found the agreement valid but awarded Strong compensatory and punitive damages, reducing compensatory damages to a judgment of $194,978.70.
- Strong later moved to pierce the corporate veil to reach Parrish personally; the trial court denied veil-piercing, but more than 12 months elapsed since the original jury was summoned.
- Strong moved to reconvene the original jury for the punitive-damages phase; the trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-1-101 to reconvene jurors more than 12 months after summons and held it was premature to empanel a new jury.
- The trial court granted interlocutory appeal permission; the Court of Appeals initially granted review but, upon further consideration, vacated that grant and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of a justiciable, reviewable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Strong) | Defendant's Argument (Parrish) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court may reconvene original jurors after 12 months | Original jury can be reconvened to finish punitive phase | Original jury cannot be reconvened after 12 months under § 22-1-101 | Both parties conceded trial court correctly declined to reconvene; issue not contested on appeal (moot) |
| 2. Whether trial court may empanel a new jury for punitive damages | Trial court may empanel a new jury to decide punitive amount | Opposed or argued statutory/time constraints likely bar re-use of original jurors; new jury possible | Trial court had made no decision; interlocutory review improper (advisory) |
| 3. Whether original jury answers/first-phase verdict bind parties if a different jury assesses punitive damages | First-phase findings remain binding regardless of second jury | First-phase findings bind liability but punitive amount determination by another jury raises questions | No decision below to review; appellate court declined to address as advisory |
| 4. Whether interlocutory appeal was proper under Tenn. R. App. P. 9 | Interlocutory review warranted to resolve jury/administrative questions | Interlocutory review inappropriate because issues were moot or premature | Court vacated its prior grant of interlocutory appeal and dismissed appeal for lack of a reviewable order and justiciability |
Key Cases Cited
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998) (appellate courts may consider jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam County, 301 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2009) (justiciability doctrines and requirement that controversy remain live)
- West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2008) (discussion of mootness and justiciability)
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. City of Memphis, 513 S.W.2d 511 (Tenn. 1974) (requirement of real and adverse interests to create a justiciable controversy)