State, ex rel., Melody Kay Rogers v. Donnie O'Keith Lewis
W2015-01882-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Mother (Rogers) and Father (Lewis) are unmarried parents; child born July 1997. Mother obtained a 1999 court order incorporating the parties’ agreement: Father to pay birth and future medical expenses or provide insurance; the order stated “no support be ordered by agreement of the Parties.”
- Despite that order, Father made monthly payments to Mother for ~13 years totaling $61,555. Mother filed a new petition for child support in 2012 seeking prospective and retroactive support and health insurance.
- A Juvenile Court Magistrate initially found the 1999 order enforceable and recommended no retroactive arrearage, but a Special Judge later concluded the 1999 order was void and awarded Mother $105,359 in retroactive support and $16,982.56 in attorney fees.
- Appellant challenged (1) the Special Judge’s authority to preside, (2) whether awarding retroactive child support modified the 1999 order impermissibly, (3) calculation issues, and (4) the attorney-fee award.
- The Court of Appeals held the Special Judge acted under color of right so the merits could be reached; it reversed the retroactive support award (holding the 1999 order final and not void on its face) and vacated the attorney-fee award for reconsideration under the correct statutory factors. Case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rogers) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Special Judge authority / subject-matter jurisdiction | Rogers: nunc pro tunc orders cure appointment defect; Special Judge acted in good faith. | Lewis: Special Judge lacked valid appointment order; judgment void. | Special Judge acted under color of right; appellate court may reach merits. |
| 2. Retroactive child support | Rogers: 1999 order void as against public policy because it relieved child-support obligation; retroactive support permissible. | Lewis: 1999 order incorporated parties’ agreement and did not eliminate support; retroactive award impermissible modification. | 1999 order was final and not void on its face; retroactive support award reversed. |
| 3. Calculation / parenting-time credit | Rogers: (not material after reversal) | Lewis: contested credits used to compute arrears. | Pretermitted because retroactive award reversed. |
| 4. Attorney fees | Rogers: fees reasonable and recoverable under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(l). | Lewis: fees inappropriate; he litigated in good faith. | Fee award vacated; remanded for trial court to consider statutory factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrell v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2000) (limits on appointing special/substitute judges; need for case- or time-specific appointment)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (special judges must confirm authority appears in the record)
- Biggers v. State ex rel. Newson, 911 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. 1995) (doctrine of de facto judges acting under color of right)
- Witt v. Witt, 929 S.W.2d 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (agreements relieving parents of child-support obligations are void as against public policy)
- Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1993) (child support orders are judgments enforceable like other judgments)
- Dishmon v. Shelby State Cmty. Coll., 15 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (subject-matter jurisdiction governs a court’s power to adjudicate and voids judgments entered without it)
- Cook v. Alley, 419 S.W.3d 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (nunc pro tunc entries correct omissions in the record, not to supply omitted judicial action)