Party Entitled to Hearing if Courtroom Sound System Met ADA

Tennessee case summary on the divorce process.

Kelly R. Harris v. Lonnie C. Harris

The husband and wife in this Knox County, Tennessee, case were married in 1995 and had two minor children.  In 2015, the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.  The husband filed an answer admitting irreconcilable differences, but alleged that it was the wife who had engaged in inappropriate marital conduct.

In 2017, the trial court held a hearing and ordered the parties divorced.  The remaining issues in the case were reserved for future hearing, although the court later entered an agreed order calling for the wife to pay child support of $293 per month.

An agreement was ultimately reached, and in 2018, the court held a hearing on approving the settlement agreement.  Both parties stated in court that they agreed to be bound by it.

Two months later, however, the husband was back in court with a new lawyer, and asked to have the agreement set aside.  He stated that he suffered from significant hearing loss, and that he hadn’t fully understood the earlier hearing.  He said that he thought he was communicating his lack of consent when questioned by the judge.  The trial court disagreed, and entered judgment based upon the agreement.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the husband argued that the lower court had not complied with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and court rules.  Under the ADA, courts are required to make reasonable modifications to procedures to ensure that communications with disabled persons is effective.

Under Tennessee Rules implementing the ADA, courts are also required to provide reasonable modifications, and sets forth the procedures for requesting modification.  In some cases, advance notice is not required.

In this case, the husband argued that he had requested voice amplification equipment at the hearing, but that it was not functional.

The appeals court noted that the husband’s second attorney had made arguments regarding the lack of amplification equipment, but that no evidence was actually heard.  In particular, the lower court had not made any findings as to whether the husband was disabled, or whether the modification was necessary.

For this reason, the appeals court held that the record on appeal was insufficient to make a determination on the merits.  For that reason, it sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing.  At that hearing, the court would need to determine whether the husband complied with the ADA policy, and whether it applied to him.  In particular, it asked the lower court to determine whether the voice amplification equipment was working the day of the first hearing.  It also held that it would not decide other issues in the case until that issue was decided.

For these reasons, the lower court’s order was vacated and the case was remanded.

No. E2018-01445-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.