Shayla Nicole Purifoy v. Devine Mafa
556 S.W.3d 170
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Purifoy, an attorney for domestic-violence victims, sought and obtained a permanent injunction (defamation case) and later an order of protection against Mafa after he posted videos and Facebook messages directed at her and appeared near her workplace.
- Mafa posted public videos calling Purifoy by name, accusing her of lying, and making derogatory and intimidating statements; Purifoy asked him to remove photos and stop.
- Purifoy filed (1) a defamation suit with a temporary restraining order and later a permanent injunction, and (2) a separate petition for an order of protection alleging stalking; multiple ex parte orders were entered and the protection petition produced a two-day final hearing.
- After evidentiary hearings, the trial court found Mafa engaged in stalking and harassment (relying on posts, repeated public communications, parking-lot sightings, and an intimidation email about a private investigator) and granted a one-year order of protection; Mafa’s counter-petition was denied.
- Post-judgment disputes included alleged service defects, judge recusal, misfiled docket documents between the two actions, sealing of the record, and attorney’s-fee awards; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded for appellate-fee determination.
Issues
| Issue | Purifoy's Argument | Mafa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of Judge Fields | No reversible error; recusal occurred after final hearing and did not void prior acts | Judgment should be set aside because Fields later recused herself | Denied relief; recusal after trial did not require vacating prior orders |
| Extra-county judge (Local Rule 21) | Trial court discretion; late request not fatal | Entitled to designation under local rule | Denied—request was untimely and designation is discretionary |
| Service of petition/order of protection | Mafa was served in court on Feb. 28 and had notice | Never properly served; docket-number errors invalidate service | Denied—record shows service/notice; docket-number technicalities corrected and not prejudicial |
| Stalking determination (statutory elements) | Posts, parking-lot appearance, and intimidation communications meet "unconsented contact" and caused emotional distress | Facebook posts were public speech and not direct contact; conduct protected by Free Speech | Affirmed—Facebook posts and other acts constitute unconsented contact/harassment not protected here |
| Free speech defense | N/A | Posts were constitutionally protected ranting | Rejected—speech integral to harassment/stalking is unprotected in this context |
| Due process / timeliness of hearing | N/A | Delay and other procedural defects denied due process (15-day/continuance issues) | Denied—delays did not divest jurisdiction; appellant contributed to delays; Kite precedent controls |
| Admission of evidence (videos, Facebook, police reports) | Evidence was authenticated and relevant to stalking course of conduct | Evidence hearsay, incomplete, unauthenticated, unduly prejudicial | Denied—trial court did not abuse discretion; appellant waived many specific objections on appeal |
| Private-investigator/settlement email | Email demonstrated intimidation and was admissible for harassment context | Privileged/settlement negotiation under Tenn. R. Evid. 408 | Denied—email not an offer to compromise; admissible to show harassment/intimidation |
| Sealing and registry filing re: attorney's-fees judgment | Seal appropriate; fee order may be recorded to permit execution | Recording the fee judgment violated the seal and should be removed | Denied—seal justified; recording to permit execution was proper |
| Appellate attorney’s fees (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3-617) | Entitled to fees because order of protection affirmed | N/A | Granted—remanded to trial court to fix reasonable appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (First Amendment protections are not absolute)
- U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected)
- Kite v. Kite, 22 S.W.3d 803 (Tenn. 1999) (statutory hearing-timing limits constrain ex parte orders but do not strip court of jurisdiction)
- Whack v. Seminole Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 456 So. 2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (recusal does not void prior valid acts of the court)
- McNally v. Bredemann, 30 N.E.3d 557 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (repetitive harassing speech in stalking context may be subordinated to victim protection)