Megan C. England v. Sonya Schnur
E2017-00085-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Megan England (guardian ad litem in a separate child custody case) filed an ex parte petition seeking a restraining/protective order and injunctive relief against Sonya, Roswell, and Lisa Schnur, alleging threats and intimidation related to her GAL role.
- The trial court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) the day the petition was filed.
- Sonya and Roswell filed Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 motions to dismiss; Lisa later filed a similar motion. Respondents also submitted affidavits challenging allegations and procedure.
- England then filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 seeking dismissal without prejudice; respondents opposed unless dismissal was with prejudice and appealed when the court dismissed without prejudice.
- The core procedural dispute: whether the pending Rule 12.02 motions (and submitted affidavits) converted to Rule 56 summary-judgment motions such that Rule 41.01 would bar an unconditional nonsuit as of right, or whether the court could dismiss without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court converted Rule 12.02 motion to Rule 56 by considering affidavits | England argued the court did not consider the affidavits and thus no conversion occurred, so nonsuit without prejudice was available | Respondents argued affidavits made the Rule 12 motion a summary-judgment motion, blocking an absolute nonsuit | Court held record indicates the trial court excluded the affidavits (no conversion); dismissal without prejudice was permissible |
| If conversion occurred, whether court had discretion to allow dismissal without prejudice despite pending summary-judgment motion | England argued court retains discretion to permit nonsuit even if a summary-judgment motion is pending | Respondents argued Rule 41.01 bars an unconditional nonsuit when a summary-judgment motion is pending | Court held even if conversion occurred, under Stewart court has discretion to permit dismissal without prejudice and trial court did not abuse that discretion |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice caused legal prejudice or deprived defendants of vested rights | England implied no legal prejudice or vested-rights deprivation resulted | Respondents contended nonsuit prejudiced them and warranted dismissal with prejudice | Court found no showing of plain legal prejudice or deprivation of vested rights; dismissal without prejudice proper |
| Whether trial court misinterpreted Rule 41.01 distinctions between express Rule 56 motions and Rule 12 converted to Rule 56 | England argued the trial court misstated the law but reached a correct result | Respondents relied on the court’s language to support their position | Court clarified Rule 41.01 does not preclude discretionary nonsuit when summary-judgment motion is pending and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Univ. of Tenn., 519 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. 1974) (trial court has discretion to permit voluntary dismissal even with a pending summary-judgment motion)
- Lacy v. Cox, 152 S.W.3d 480 (Tenn. 2004) (interpretation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. is question of law; discusses limits on nonsuit)
- Finchum v. ACE, USA, 156 S.W.3d 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (no conversion where court did not consider matters outside complaint)
- Hixson v. Stickley, 493 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1973) (trial court discretion to receive or exclude matters outside the pleadings on Rule 12 motion)
- Oliver v. Hydro-Vac Servs. Inc., 873 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (discusses "plain legal prejudice" standard for denying nonsuit)
- Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787 (Tenn. 1975) (vesting-of-rights standard for denying nonsuit)