Town & Country Jewelers, Inc. v. Jessica Lynn Trotter aka Jessica Lynn Trotter-Lawson
538 S.W.3d 508
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2003 Town & Country Jewelers and the Rozens obtained a consent/default judgment of $493,685.81 against Jessica Trotter-Lawson (finalized Aug. 11, 2003).
- Appellants filed a motion to revive/extend that judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 69.04 on June 20, 2016 (≈13 years after the judgment).
- Appellee raised the statute-of-limitations defense (Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(2)) in response; she did not respond within 30 days to the Rule 69.04 motion.
- The chancery court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the ten-year limitation had expired; Appellants appealed.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether Rule 69.04 permitted granting an extension where the motion was filed after ten years but the debtor failed to timely respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Town & Country) | Defendant's Argument (Trotter-Lawson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to extend the judgment should be granted where no debtor response was filed within 30 days | Because Appellee failed to respond within 30 days under amended Rule 69.04, the motion must be automatically granted | Rule 69.04 requires the motion to be filed "within ten years from the entry of a judgment;" a motion filed after ten years is untimely and the court lacks authority to extend | The motion must be filed within ten years; because Appellants filed after that period, Rule 69.04 could not be used and the motion was properly denied |
| Whether expiration of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(2) deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction to act on a renewal motion | (Implicit) The rule's automatic-grant provision controls regardless of statute of limitations lapse | Expiration is a statute-of-limitations defense; such defenses are not jurisdictional and can be waived if not timely raised | Court erred in concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, but the Rule’s ten-year filing requirement is mandatory for using Rule 69.04 |
| Whether the debtor’s late assertion of the statute-of-limitations defense is waived when the debtor fails to timely respond to a Rule 69.04 motion | The creditor may rely on Rule 69.04’s automatic-grant when debtor does not timely respond, even if motion filed after ten years | The Rule conditions the 30-day response duty on a timely-filed motion; a motion filed after ten years cannot invoke the Rule, so debtor’s defense remains effective | The debtor’s failure to respond did not excuse the creditor’s filing outside the ten-year window; the debtor’s response duty was never triggered because the motion was untimely |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous and merits fee award under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 | N/A (Appellants appealed) | Appellee requested fees for frivolous appeal | Appeal not deemed frivolous; no fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818 (Tenn. 2015) (rules of civil procedure are interpreted like statutes; apply plain meaning to rule language)
- Shepard v. Lanier, 241 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. 1951) (judgment may be renewed before ten years expires; renewal is simple and expected)
- Estate of Brown v. Sneed, 402 S.W.3d 193 (Tenn. 2013) (statutes of limitations are waivable affirmative defenses, not jurisdictional)
- Cook v. Alley, 419 S.W.3d 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (extension under Rule 69.04 is a continuation, tacked onto prior period rather than a new judgment)
- PNC Multifamily Capital Institutional Fund XXVI Ltd. P’ship v. Bluff City Cmty. Dev. Corp., 387 S.W.3d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (chancery court may grant full relief for liquidated claims)
- Rogers v. Hollingsworth, 32 S.W. 197 (Tenn. 1895) (historical rule on scire facias revivals; limited application post-Rules of Civil Procedure)
- Selitsch v. Selitsch, 492 S.W.3d 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (definition of frivolous appeal: devoid of merit or no reasonable chance of success)