Purswani v. Purswani

• Decision Date: 26 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. E2018-01029-COA-R3-CV,E2018-01029-COA-R3-CV
• Citation: 585 S.W.3d 907
• Parties: Volha PURSWANI v. Krish PURSWANI
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

585 S.W.3d 907

Volha PURSWANI

v.Krish PURSWANI

No. E2018-01029-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, AT KNOXVILLE.

February 20, 2019 Session

FILED March 26, 2019

Krish Purswani, Kingsport, Tennessee, Pro Se.¹

Thomas R. Frierson, II, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. Michael Swiney, C.J., and J. Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., joined.

Thomas R. Frierson, II, J.

This action involves petitions for orders of protection filed by a wife against her husband. Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court entered an order of protection against the husband and in favor of the wife on May 23, 2018. The order of protection prohibited the husband from having contact with the wife and granted the husband co-parenting time with his four children every other weekend. The husband has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural History

According to the trial court's findings, Volha Purswani ("Wife") and Krish Purswani ("Husband") had been married for approximately fifteen years by the time the order of protection hearing was conducted on May 23, 2018, although they had resided separately for approximately four years. Four children had been born to the parties during the marriage.

On August 23, 2017, Wife filed a petition for an order of protection against Husband in the Hawkins County Circuit Court ("trial court"). Wife alleged in her petition, inter alia , that Husband had been emotionally and physically abusive toward her. Wife stated that Husband was "controlling every aspect of [her] life." Wife further alleged that Husband had taken her car, such that she was unable to buy groceries for herself and the children. The trial court did not find that good cause existed and denied Wife's request for grant of an ex parte temporary order of protection. Thereupon, the court scheduled a hearing on the petition for September 15, 2017. On September 10, 2017, Wife filed a handwritten "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice."

On December 6, 2017, Wife filed a new petition for an order of protection. In this petition, Wife alleged essentially the same set of facts as were alleged in the previous petition. Again, the trial court did not find that good cause existed and accordingly denied Wife's request for an ex parte temporary order of protection. In turn, a hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2017. Also on December 6, 2017, Husband transmitted a letter to the court, claiming that Wife was driving to court without a valid driver's license and that her car had a "fake" license plate. Husband requested that Wife be arrested for such actions.

The record does not indicate that either party appeared for the hearing before the trial court on December 14, 2017. On December 15, 2017, Wife again filed a handwritten "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice." However, on January 3, 2018, the trial court clerk issued a subpoena directing Wife to appear before the trial court on March 1, 2018. Wife was served with the subpoena on February 12, 2018. Although Wife appeared in court for the March 1, 2018 hearing, upon the trial court's review of the respective file, the court determined that Husband had not been summoned to court and continued the hearing until March 12, 2018. Husband was subsequently served with a subpoena on March 2, 2018, directing him to appear at the March 12, 2018 hearing concerning the order of protection.

On March 12, 2018, Husband filed a pleading entitled, "Respondent's Special Appearance and Motion for Recusal of Judge Beth Boniface." In the motion, Husband alleged that the trial court judge had an "interest" in the case and should recuse herself. Husband claimed that the trial court judge had improperly scheduled the hearing after Wife filed notices of voluntary dismissal on two separate occasions. Husband also alleged that ex parte communications had occurred between Wife and the trial court judge.

In ruling on the motion, the trial court issued an order denying Husband's motion for recusal on March 15, 2018. In this order, the court explained that no contact had occurred between Wife and the trial court judge before the March 1, 2018 court date. The court also explained that the issuance of the subpoena for Wife was not at the court's direction and that the trial court judge's communications with Wife had only been in open court and solely addressed service of process upon Husband and determination of his address. The court stated that the only interest the trial court maintained in the case was an adjudication on the merits. The court therefore determined that there was no factual basis warranting recusal.

The record contains certain documents immediately following the trial court's March 15, 2018 order that are labeled as exhibits, although the court's order does not reference any exhibits. One such document appears to be a handwritten note demanding payment of $500 or $600, which recites, "You choose: either Restrain Order or child support or 500$ for me? You know I am not joking!!!" Another document appears to contain printed text messages from Wife, stating that she intended to contact the police concerning Husband stealing her car. The record also contains a copy of the Certificate of Title to a 2002 Nissan automobile, which indentifies the owner as "Softek Systems Limited Partner." The record further includes a copy of a $500 check from Husband to Wife dated September 10, 2017, as well as a "Settlement and Release" purportedly bearing Wife's signature. The "Settlement and Release" recites that Wife had made false allegations against Husband and had agreed to dismiss her petitions in exchange for Husband's payment of $200. The final exhibit is a copy of an "Emergency Physician Record" from 2012, reflecting that Husband's hand was injured when he "caught a broomstick that was being swung at him."

Wife subsequently submitted a handwritten document to the trial court dated March 21, 2018, which was witnessed by the court clerk. In this filing, Wife stated that she had not willingly filed a notice of dismissal; instead, Wife alleged that Husband had forced her to write the notice of dismissal. On March 28, 2018, Wife sent a letter to the court, wherein Wife indicated that Husband had forced her to dismiss her petitions. Wife also asserted that Husband threatened her if she did not do so and that Husband would not allow Wife to use the car to purchase food. Wife further claimed that Husband had abused Wife physically and emotionally by threatening, inter alia , to cancel her phone, "lock [her] inside the gate for weeks," and cancel her driver's license. Wife stated that she had been living in fear of Husband, claiming, "[h]e must be restrained, or I am finished."

On April 13, 2018, Husband filed a motion requesting that the trial court cancel the hearing, close the case, or transfer venue to Sullivan County. In this motion, Husband argued that the case should be considered closed because Wife had filed two notices of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Husband argued that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 precluded the trial court from taking any other actions in the matter beyond ministerial or ancillary acts. In the alternative, Husband requested that the case be transferred to Sullivan County or that a thirty-day continuance be granted to afford Husband time to retain an attorney.

The trial court subsequently entered an order on April 16, 2018, directing that the two petitions be consolidated because the alleged facts and parties were the same. Finding that "Petitioner does not want to dismiss her petitions for orders of protection," the court denied Husband's motion to dismiss. The court also denied Husband's motion to change venue, determining that venue was proper in Hawkins County because the allegations of abuse occurred in Hawkins County. The court concomitantly issued a "Bridging Ex Parte Order of Protection," continuing the hearing to May 2, 2018. The court issued a subsequent "Bridging Ex Parte Order of Protection" on May 2, 2018, continuing the hearing to May 23, 2018.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits and entered a one-year order of protection on May 23, 2018. In support of the order of protection, the court stated as follows in pertinent part:

[Husband] has placed all assets purchased during the marriage into a company owned solely by him. The home in which [Wife] resides is without a mortgage; [Husband's] company charges [Wife] rent. [Wife] suffers with severe mental illness and currently receives SSI. [Husband] voluntarily quit the practice of medicine approximately 2 years ago. He claims to be unemployed. [Husband] pays $100 per month to support his 4 children. [Husband] was not a credible witness. [Husband] had no other witnesses testify on his behalf.

[R.S.], neighbor, testified to seeing [Husband] pull [Wife's] hair and shove her. [N.P.], 14 year old son, testified to seeing his father pull his mother's hair, hit her in the face and body, and bend back her fingers. [N.P.] witnessed the abuse 4 years ago when they lived together as a family. Both of these witnesses were credible and the Court credits their testimony. [Husband] in the past, has locked the 6 foot fence trapping [Wife] in her yard.

[Husband] systematically kept [Wife] in a desperate financial state so that he could control her. [Wife] has accepted money in the past to dismiss her Petitions for Orders of Protection. [Wife] testified that she had to dismiss because of her desperate financial condition. [Husband] testified that he has not given her any financial assistance except when paying her to dismiss her Petitions. [Husband] testified that his license to practice family medicine was not revoked for any reason. He just decided to quit working.

[Wife] desires a divorce but [Husband] refuses. [Husband] used vulgar and offensive language to describe his wife evidencing contempt for her. [Wife] testified to physical abuse at the hands of [Husband].

...