Murray Owen Wilhoite, Jr. v. Brenda Ruth Wilhoite, M2016-00848-COA-R3-CV

Background

Wife filed for divorce in Williamson County Chancery Court (May 4, 2011); she later filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy (Feb. 8, 2013), which may trigger the automatic stay.
Husband filed a separate breach-of-contract suit against Wife and her divorce counsel on Jan. 11, 2016 seeking large damages.
On Feb. 8, 2016 the parties mediated and executed a settlement/MDA releasing claims as of that date; Chancellor Binkley entered a final divorce decree and an agreed order dismissing the breach-of-contract suit with prejudice the same afternoon.
On Feb. 8, 2016 bankruptcy counsel allegedly filed (but later dismissed) an adversary proceeding in Wife’s bankruptcy alleging Husband violated the stay by filing the chancery suit. That adversary proceeding is not in the appellate record.
Husband moved (Mar. 8, 2016) to void the agreed dismissal/reinstate his breach claim under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 (filed within 30 days), asserting fraud, nondisclosure, and an unfair marital distribution; the trial court denied relief and Husband appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of motion without hearing violated Husband’s constitutional/process rights	Wilhoite argued he was denied a hearing and basic due process	Wife argued local rules and procedural defects justified denial; no entitlement to oral argument on such motions	Court: No reversible error; parties not entitled to oral argument on Rule 59/60 motions as of right; dismissal stands
Whether order was entered while a timely recusal motion was pending	Wilhoite claimed Binkley ruled while motions to disqualify were pending, violating Rule 10B	Wife argued no recusal motions appear in the appellate record	Court: No record of any recusal motion on appeal; appellant failed to include necessary record; issue not shown on appeal
Whether the chancery order dismissed the bankruptcy adversary proceeding	Wilhoite contended the order improperly purported to dismiss the bankruptcy adversary	Wife argued the agreed dismissal only pertained to the chancery breach action; bankruptcy adversary not in record	Court: Wilhoite waived argument by not briefing it; the agreed order does not dismiss the adversary proceeding
Whether the MDA/divorce decree was unfair and should be set aside	Wilhoite attacked fairness of the MDA and distribution, alleging fraud and insufficient consideration	Wife argued attack on divorce decree is improper collateral attack in the breach-of-contract appeal; proper remedy is direct appeal or Rule 60 in divorce case	Court: Collateral attack not permitted here; Husband raised divorce issues in wrong case and failed to provide record to review them

Key Cases Cited

Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011) (automatic stay in bankruptcy generally halts actions against debtor or estate)
Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. 2012) (characterizes Rule 60.02 as relief from final judgments; distinguishes Rule 59 relief)
Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as attorneys)
Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110 (Tenn. 1977) (Rule 59 is appropriate remedy for errors affecting a judgment not yet final)
State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993) (appellate court cannot consider issues when record is incomplete)