State of Tennessee, ex rel., Betty Ann Torres (Stone) Spurlock v. Cesar G. Torres
W2016-01633-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- In 2015 Tennessee (acting for mother Spurlock) filed contempt and enforcement proceedings in Weakley County seeking to collect long‑running child‑support arrears from Cesar Torres, a Texas resident, based on prior Tennessee child‑support orders dating to 1999–2007.
- Torres filed a special limited appearance and a Rule 60.02(3) motion to vacate, arguing the prior Tennessee support orders were void for lack of personal jurisdiction; he admitted minimal contact with Tennessee (one brief visit ~1999–2000).
- The trial court found personal jurisdiction based on (1) Torres’s alleged 2002 request for administrative review (treated as a responsive filing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑5‑2201(2)) and (2) a broad catch‑all in § 36‑5‑2201(8) given his limited visits, some payments, and purported service by mail/return receipts.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction and whether prior support orders were void; it concluded Torres had not waived jurisdiction and lacked the minimum contacts required by due process.
- The appellate court held the prior child‑support orders were void for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for the trial court to determine on remand whether "exceptional circumstances" (per Turner) justify denying relief from a void judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Spurlock) | Defendant's Argument (Torres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an administrative review request (2002) equals a responsive filing waiving jurisdiction under §36‑5‑2201(2) | The 2002 request (allegedly a letter from counsel) constituted a responsive document/appearance, so Torres submitted to jurisdiction | Torres denies filing any court‑record responsive pleading; any letter to the agency not filed in court cannot waive jurisdiction | Court: No — an administrative request/letter not filed in the court record did not constitute a responsive pleading or general appearance; subsection (2) inapplicable |
| Whether Torres’s contacts satisfy §36‑5‑2201(8) (catch‑all) and due process minimum contacts | State: signatures on mailed return receipts, past payments, and a visit show contacts justifying jurisdiction | Torres: contacts were minimal and unilateral (children moved to TN); one short visit and incidental payments do not show purposeful availment | Court: No — contacts insufficient under Kulko/Int'l Shoe; subsection (8) could not salvage jurisdiction |
| Whether prior service by mail/2001 personal service immunizes orders despite weak contacts | State: attempted service and return receipts indicate notice and proper procedure | Torres: even if served, lack of minimum contacts makes any in‑person or mailed service insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction | Court: Moot — because jurisdictional minimum contacts lacking, validity of service not dispositive |
| Whether relief from a void judgment should be denied due to exceptional circumstances | State: exceptional circumstances can bar vacatur (reliance interests) | Torres: judgment void; relief available absent exceptional circumstances | Court: Remanded — trial court must determine on remand whether Turner factors (notice + reliance) justify denying vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (framework for denying relief from a void judgment when exceptional circumstances exist)
- Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978) (unilateral relocation of child by other parent does not establish defendant's purposeful availment)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Patterson v. Rockwell Int'l, 665 S.W.2d 96 (Tenn. 1984) (what constitutes an implied/general appearance)
- Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (distinction between subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction)