State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Barbara E. Catalano v. William R. Woodcock
E2015-01877-COA-R9-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 5, 2016Background
- Mother obtained a default divorce decree in Rutherford County in October 2001 after notice by publication; the parties’ only child was then 17, severely disabled (Down syndrome, legally blind).
- The divorce decree granted Mother custody and expressly reserved child-support issues "pending service of process upon [Father]." No child-support amount was set.
- The record contains an Order of Publication but no affidavit or return showing the statutorily required facts to justify service by publication or attempted personal service.
- In March 2014 the State (on Mother’s behalf) petitioned the Knox County trial court to set ongoing and retroactive support for the now-adult disabled child.
- A child-support magistrate and the trial judge concluded the reservation in the 2001 decree constituted a prior child-support order, giving the trial court jurisdiction to set/support; Father obtained interlocutory appeal.
- The Court of Appeals held the 2001 child-support portion of the divorce decree was void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction over Father (service by publication was not supported by the record), and therefore the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to set ongoing or retroactive support; the petition was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reservation in the 2001 divorce decree constituted a valid prior child-support order permitting the trial court to set/continue support for an adult disabled child | Catalano/State: The divorce complaint and the decree invoked the court’s jurisdiction and the reservation in the decree amounts to an existing child-support order | Woodcock: No valid child-support order was ever entered because the court lacked personal jurisdiction (no proper service); without a prior order the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 | Held for Father: the child-support portion of the 2001 decree is void for lack of personal jurisdiction; therefore no prior order existed and the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to set/continue support; petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (discusses requirements for personal jurisdiction, void judgments, and review standards)
- In re Estate of Brown, 402 S.W.3d 193 (Tenn. 2013) (standards for appellate review of jurisdictional issues)
- Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (distinction between subject-matter and personal jurisdiction)
- Overby v. Overby, 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970) (judgment in personam void without service of process or appearance)
- Osborn v. Marr, 127 S.W.3d 737 (Tenn. 2004) (vacatur and dismissal required when trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Roderick v. Roderick, 776 S.W.2d 533 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (trial courts must have personal jurisdiction over both parties to adjudicate child-support claims)
- Witt v. Witt, 929 S.W.2d 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (court may set aside void orders sua sponte)