No Jurisdiction When Underlying Divorce Case Not Properly Served
Tennessee child support case summary on service of process and subject matter jurisdiction in divorce.
State of Tennessee ex rel. Barbara E. Catalano v. William R. Woodcock
In 2001, the mother in this Tennessee child support case obtained a default divorce in Rutherford County, Tennessee. The issue of child support for the parties’ 17 year old son was reserved. No child support was ever set until 2014, when the State of Tennessee filed a petition to set child support in Knox County. In its petition, the state alleged that the son was disabled, requiring ongoing child support past the age of majority. The lower court determined that it had jurisdiction, since the prior order reserving the issue vested the courts with subject matter jurisdiction on an ongoing basis. Anticipating, however, that there would be an appeal, the trial court did not set the amount of child support. The Tennessee Court of Appeals allowed the father to appeal to determine whether the lower court had subject matter jurisdiction.
The father had not been served with the original 2001 divorce complaint. Instead, notice to the father was published in a Murfreesboro newspaper on four dates. The order allowing publication referred to the mother’s sworn statement that the father lived outside of Tennessee and couldn’t be served. However, there was no other record of such a sworn statement being made, nor was there any evidence explaining why the father could not be served. No further action to set child support was taken until the state became involved 13 years later, when the son was 29 years old.
On appeal, the father argued that the lower court erred in finding that the 2001 divorce judgment was valid. Without this prior order, the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to set either ongoing or retroactive child support. Therefore, the case hinged on whether the 2001 judgment was valid. The appeals court examined whether it was invalid since the 2001 divorce court never obtained personal jur9isdiction. Therefore, it had to examine whether the service by publication in 2001 had been valid.
The appeals court noted that service by publication is allowed in cases when the defendant resides outside of the state. However, there must be a statement made under oath to that effect, and that personal service had been attempted. In this case, there was no record of a statement under oath setting for the circumstances surrounding his absence from the state.
Since there had been no proper service of process, the appeals court held that the 2001 judgment was void, as against the father, at least with respect to the child support issue.
Because there was no prior child support order, the appeals court concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, it vacated the lower court’s order.
No. E2015-01877-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2016).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Support Laws in Tennessee.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.