Pruitt v. Pruitt, W2018-00453-COA-R3-CV
| Decision Date | 05 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. W2018-00453-COA-R3-CV,W2018-00453-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | KATHERINE MAE PRUITT v. TRAVIS PRUITT |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Henry County
Carma Dennis McGee, Chancellor
Appellant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside a final judgment obligating him to pay child support. The record shows that Appellant voluntarily executed a document placing his name on the child's birth certificate and thereafter entered into a marital dissolution agreement and parenting plan obligating him to pay child support with full knowledge that he was not the biological parent of the child. Because Appellant has failed to present sufficient evidence of a ground for relief under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we affirm the decision of the trial court to deny Appellant's request to set aside the judgment. We reverse, however, the trial court's award of attorney's fees based on the parties' marital dissolution agreement.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part
J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR., SP. J., joined.
J. Neil Thompson, Huntingdon, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travis Pruitt.
OPINIONAppellee Katherine Mae Pruitt ("Mother") gave birth to the minor child at issue in December 2013. Mother and Appellant Travis Pruitt ("Husband") married in December 2014 and lived in Henry County throughout the marriage. There is no dispute that Husband is not the biological parent of the child and that both Mother and Husband were fully aware of this fact at all relevant times. At some point, the parties executed a document for the purposes of changing the child's birth certificate to reflect Husband as the child's father and to change the child's surname to that of Husband. The child's birth certificate reflected these changes.
On November 13, 2015, Mother filed a complaint for divorce in the Madison County Chancery Court; the child was listed as a child of the marriage. On February 16, 2016, the Madison County Chancery Court entered a final divorce decree in which the parties were divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences. Attached to the decree was a marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") signed by both parties and an agreed permanent parenting plan. Under the plan, Husband was to have no visitation with the child but was obligated to pay child support.
On February 15, 2017, Husband filed a motion in Henry County Chancery Court ("the trial court") pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion sought relief from Husband's obligation to pay child support. The divorce case was thereafter transferred from Madison County to the trial court. Mother filed a motion to dismiss the Rule 60.02 motion on the basis that the motion did not allege fraud, inadvertence, mistake, or excusable neglect. In support, Mother noted that Husband was fully aware that he was not the child's biological parent at the time the agreed parenting plan was entered and yet chose to enter a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity concerning the child.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Husband's Rule 60.02 motion on August 7, 2017. At the beginning of the hearing, Husband confirmed that he was seeking relief under Rule 60.02(1), (2), and (3). The proof showed that the parties began their relationship when Mother was already pregnant with the child. Notwithstanding Husband's knowledge that he was not the biological parent of the child, during the marriage, the parties executed a document allowing Father's name to be placed on the child's birth certificate and the child's surname to be changed. Upon the divorce, Mother testified that her counsel informed her that because Husband was listed as the child's father on the birth certificate, the child was required to be included in the divorce documents as a marital child. Husband admitted that although he was given time to review the MDA before signing, he never sought counsel on his own behalf relative to the divorce. When asked why he was seeking to avoid paying child support, Husband answered that he no longer wished to pay child support if he could not see the child due to his work schedule. On August 23, 2017, the trial court entered an order confirming that Husband was seeking relief only on the above grounds and that the parties were permitted to file post-trial briefs concerning Rule 60.02(3).
Thereafter on September 13, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying Husband's Rule 60.02 motion. Therein, the trial court found that Husband had ample time to review the MDA and parenting plan offered by Mother, chose not to obtain attorney advice before signing the divorce documents, and was fully aware that he was not the biological parent of the child. The trial court also found that Husband signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity following the child's birth that allowed Husband to be placed on the child's birth certificate and the child's surname to be changed. The parties thereafter held the child out to be Husband's child. According to the trial court, Husband filed his motion because he does not want to pay child support anymore and cannot see the child because of his work schedule. Finally, the trial court ruled that none of the grounds for setting aside a final judgment under Rule 60.02 had been met, as the parenting plan was not a mistake, there was no fraud, and the judgment was not void. The trial court later entered an order awarding Mother attorney's fees. From these orders, Husband appeals.1
Husband raises the following issues in his brief:
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. As we have previously explained:
[Rule] 60.02 provides an exceptional remedy that enables parties to obtain relief from a final judgment. Nails v. Aetna Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 289, 294 (Tenn.1992); Hungerford v. State, 149 S.W.3d 72, 76 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003). The rule strikes a balance between the competing principles of finality and justice, Banks v. Dement Constr. Co., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991); Rogers v. Estate of Russell, 50 S.W.3d 441, 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), and provides "an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules." Thompson v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 798 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Tenn. 1990). The burden of proof is on the party seeking Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 relief. The bar for obtaining relief is set very high, and the burden borne by the moving party is heavy. Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892, 895 (Tenn. 2001).
DeLong v. Vanderbilt Univ., 186 S.W.3d 506, 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). According to our supreme court:
To obtain relief under Rule 60.02, the moving party "must describe the basis of relief with specificity," Minor Miracle Prods., LLC v. Starkey, No. M2011-00072-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 112593, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012) (citing Hopkins v. Hopkins, 572 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Tenn. 1978)), and establish by clear and convincing evidence that she is entitled to relief. McCracken v. Brentwood United Methodist Church, 958 S.W.2d 792, 795 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). "Evidence is clear and convincing when it leaves 'no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn.'" Goff v. Elmo Greer & Sons Constr. Co., 297 S.W.3d 175, 187 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 n.3 (Tenn. 1992)).
Hussey v. Woods, 538 S.W.3d 476, 483 (Tenn. 2017)
In this case, the trial court asked Husband to specify the grounds on which he was relying in prosecuting his Rule 60.02 motion. Husband specified that he was relying on grounds 1, 2, and 3. On appeal, in addition to arguing that the trial court erred in rejecting each of these grounds for relief, Husband makes a more general argument that Rule 60.02 relief is proper in reliance on case law involving other Rule 60.02 grounds. The trial court specifically asked Husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial