The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled today that a void judgment may be challenged at any time, but a trial court need not grant relief from a void judgment if exceptional circumstances exist.
A void judgment is one that never had any legal meaning or authority. Exceptional circumstances exist if: 1) The party seeking relief from the void judgment, after having had actual notice of it, appeared to treat the judgment as valid; and 2) Granting relief would have a negative impact on someone who took action based on the judgment being in full force and effect.
In this case, Kevin Turner filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of his ex-wife, Stephanie Turner, in July 2001. Mr. Turner attempted to serve Ms. Turner with the petition at the couple’s marital home, a place where he knew she would not be found because he had received the marital home in the couple’s divorce. When the attempt at personal service failed, Mr. Turner relied upon service by publication to give Ms. Turner notice of the petition. He later moved for a default judgment terminating Ms. Turner’s parental rights. Ms. Turner did not appear at the hearing on his motion for default judgment, and on December 17, 2001, the trial court entered a default judgment terminating Ms. Turner’s parental rights.
More than eight years later, Ms. Turner asked the trial court to set aside the judgment as void because she had not received notice of the petition to terminate her parental rights and because Mr. Turner had violated state law by failing to file an affidavit describing the efforts he had made to personally serve her and by failing to obtain the trial court’s permission before resorting to service by publication. The trial court agreed with Ms. Turner’s arguments and set aside the judgment terminating her parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted the appeal to determine whether relief must be granted in every case when a court determines that a judgment is void. The Supreme Court held that Tennessee law permits denying relief from a void judgment if the party seeking relief has manifested an intention to treat the judgment as valid and granting relief from the void judgment would impair another person’s substantial reliance interest on the judgment. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine, after a hearing, whether those exceptional circumstances exist in this case.
The Court explained that the trial court may now consider that Ms. Turner waited two years after learning of the judgment terminating her parental rights to file her petition challenging it and did not financially support the children or attempt to visit them during that time. The Court explained that the trial court should consider how Mr. Turner, the children, and their stepmother relied on the earlier decision to terminate Ms. Turner’s parental rights, and pointed out that the record on appeal is unclear as to whether the children, one an adult and the other within months of adulthood, already have been adopted by their stepmother or have any wishes concerning adoption.
Read the unanimous opinion in Turner v. Turner, authored by Justice Cornelia A. Clark.