389 S.W.3d 329
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Teresa Larkin died in 2003; her life insurance proceeds and estate passed to Dale Larkin.
- Gentry, Teresa Larkin’s minor daughter, sued Larkin claiming he caused her mother’s death and that Slayer’s Statute barred him from receiving proceeds or inheritance.
- Gentry and Larkin mediated a settlement in 2006; Gentry received $500,000 in insurance proceeds, with $180,000 to her attorney, otherwise Larkin would have received the proceeds.
- Larkin later was convicted of first-degree murder in Teresa Larkin’s death.
- In 2011, Gentry (now an adult) sued Larkin again for deceit and fraud in the inducement related to the settlement.
- The trial court granted dismissal, treating the action as duplicative of the prior mediated settlement; Gentry appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 60.02 relief viability | Gentry seeks relief under Rule 60.02 for fraud in the prior judgment. | Larkin contends the claim is barred as a later, duplicative action or fails the extrinsic fraud standard. | Relief denied; intrinsic fraud barred; no unusual circumstances for savings provision. |
| Fraud in the mediation agreement | Gentry argues Larkin’s denial of killing Teresa induced the settlement via deceit. | Larkin argues no actionable fraud; there was no reliance by Gentry on his innocence. | No actionable fraud; no reliance; final settlement stands. |
| Minority tolling and mediation settlement | Gentry asserts tolling statutes apply due to minority at settlement. | Larkin argues tolling does not apply where a judicially approved minor settlement occurred. | Minority tolling does not apply; settled claims governed by final mediation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699 (Tenn. 2005) (Rule 60.02 intrinsic fraud must be within one year)
- Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (savings provision requires extrinsic fraud; exceptional independent action)
- Nobes v. Earhart, 769 S.W.2d 874 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (extrinsic fraud distinguished from intrinsic fraud)
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. Nashville Trust Co., 292 S.W.2d 749 (Tenn. 1956) (independent action to set aside judgment requires extrinsic fraud)
- Brown v. Birman Managed Care, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 62 (Tenn. 2001) (no reliance on misrepresentations; intrinsic fraud considerations)
- McCarley v. West Quality Food Service, 960 S.W.2d 585 (Tenn. 1998) (summary judgment standards in Tennessee)