Dad Loses After Failing to Notify Court of New Address

Tennessee case summary on service of process.

Todd Randolph Napier v. Kristen C. Napier

The parties in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2005.  The mother was named the primary residential parent, with the father being allowed visitation.  In 2015, the father went back to court to enforce the parenting plan.  The parties were able to agree to a modification, but the father alleged that the mother was misconstruing and violating the new agreed order.  The father asked to have the mother held in contempt, the order set aside, and the child support be recalculated.

The mother made a limited appearance and moved to dismiss.  She alleged that she had not been served with the petition.  The trial court agreed, and the father tried again.  The mother again objected based on lack of service.

The father hired an attorney and made a third attempt.  He alleged decrease in income and asked for a change of child support.  The mother filed a counter-petition alleging that the father voluntarily quit his job.

More motions were filed, including the withdrawal of two attorneys for the father.  The last one indicated that the father was proceeding pro se, and listed an e-mail address.  It failed, however, to list any physical address.

The father never answered one of the mother’s petitions, and she asked for a default judgment.  She indicated that she had mailed the documents and sent them to another e-mail address.  The trial court granted the default judgment.

The father moved to set aside the default.  He stated that he had notified the mother of his new address in Missouri.

The father conceded that he had never formally updated his mailing address with the court files.  The trial court, Judge James G. Martin, III, denied the motion and let the default judgment stand.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which decided the case in an opinion penned by Judge J. Steven Stafford.

The appeals court first had to determine what grounds for relief the father was asserting.  Even though his argument changed slightly on appeal, he had argued that the judgment was basically procured by fraud, because the mother sent the papers to the wrong address.

The appeals court noted that it is incumbent upon pro se litigants to keep their address up to date with the court.  It held that without this rule, it would be impossible for the court to keep in contact with litigants, and the father had failed to meet this obligation.

The father argued that he wasn’t aware of any continuing litigation, but the appeals court rejected this argument.

After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court affirmed.  It also awarded the mother her attorney’s fees on appeal and remanded the case for a determination of the amount.

No. M2019-00978-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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