Tennessee Lacks Jurisdiction in Interstate Child-Support Case: State ex rel. Spurlock v. Torres

June 21, 2017 K.O. Herston 2 Comments

Facts: Mother and Father are the divorced parents of four children.

They lived in Texas until, according to Father, Mother moved the children to Tennessee in 1998 without his knowledge or consent. He admitted traveling to Tennessee on one occasion in 1999 or 2000 to visit with the children for approximately two hours. Aside from that, he had no other contacts with the State of Tennessee. Thereafter, Father resided in Texas while Mother and the children resided in Tennessee.

Mother obtained a divorce by default in Tennessee in 1999. Father’s child-support obligation was also established by default in 2001.

In 2002, Father’s lawyer in Texas wrote a letter to Tennessee’s Child Support Services requesting an administrative review of their determination that Father’s child support was in arrears.

In February 2015, Tennessee petitioned to hold Father in contempt for not paying his court-ordered child support.

Father made a limited appearance to vacate Tennessee’s child-support orders because Tennessee lacked personal jurisdiction over him.

The trial court determined that Tennessee had personal jurisdiction over Father because he requested an administrative review of his child-support arrearage and the fact that he visited the children in Tennessee. Father’s motion to vacate the prior orders was denied.

Father appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

The lawful authority of a court to adjudicate a case before it depends upon the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to adjudicate the particular type of case brought before it.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to render a binding judgment over the parties to the case.

The Tennessee Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) governs child-support cases between residents of different states, including when Tennessee may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-2201 says when Tennessee may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in an interstate child-support matter. Subsection (a)(2) allows for personal jurisdiction when the nonresident enters a general appearance or files a “responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction.” Subsection (a)(8) provides a catchall allowing personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Tennessee or U.S. constitutions.

General appearances consist of acts from which it can reasonably be inferred that the party recognizes and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court. A general appearance may be made by the filing of pleadings or orally in open court. Any appearance that contests the merits of the complaint without raising the jurisdictional defense is considered a general appearance.

The Court determined that Father’s request for an administrative review did not constitute a general appearance for filing of a responsive document:

Assuming, arguendo, that [Father] sent a letter or some type of document to the State seeking administrator review of his child-support obligation, such a request would not be sufficient to constitute an answer or appearance permitting the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction in this matter. . . . A letter or other document sent to the State that was not intended to be filed with the trial court would not constitute the filing of a pleading sufficient to waive the issue of personal jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicable constitutional law, the Court explained that Father’s contacts with Tennessee must be sufficient for a court to conclude that the Father should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Tennessee. The Court held that standard was not satisfied here:

[T]he only contact that [Father] had with Tennessee was his single two-hour visit to Tennessee to locate the children in 1999 or 2000. This one visit, standing alone, is clearly insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Tennessee. Otherwise, [Father] resided in Texas and did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits of Tennessee law in any manner.

Thus, the trial court’s prior child-support orders are void for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mother will have to use a Texas court to establish and collect child support from Father.

State ex rel. Spurlock v. Torres (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, May 30, 2017).

Information provided by K.O. Herston: Knoxville, Tennessee Divorce and Family-Law Attorney.

Tennessee Lacks Jurisdiction in Interstate Child-Support Case: State ex rel. Spurlock v. Torres was last modified: June 22nd, 2017 by K.O. Herston

2 People reacted on this

  1. This is the same thing that is happening to me. I need HELP! Tennessee has me paying $400,000.00 in arrears! I will never even get the interest paid… @12%!!!! Divorce was granted and support in Tn. She didn’t even live in Tn. At the time. Neither did my kids. I have never lived there. I was ordered to pay 2600.00 per month. They are only allowed to take 50%. I dint make anywhere near that so I was in arrears from the beginning (Dec.2000) I paid 50%of my wages until my kids aged out in 2009. With Tn. Saying I was 0.00 in arrears. Then in October 2016 she filed again and the court found since I didn’t file for amendment in 2000 (I hand NO money and was told by everyone I talked to about it, that I would win in that court anyway(Sumner Co.) so don’t bother) I was scared and broke beyond beliefe and was still raising our older children that were with me . I was ordered to 1000.00 per month on arrears each month I only make 1600.00 a month. I immediately appealed and was lowered to 500.00. I have been paying this but I’m about to loose everything including my current wife. This has been a tremendous strain on my life and health. I can’t continue any longer. I feel helpless and HOPELESS! Help me PLEASE!

  2. This is the issue I am having currently. I fled from Tennessee on January 22, 2014 due to Domestic Violence. My ex filed a Proof of Paternity/Parenting Plan in March 2014. I sent an addendum in explaining why I had left Tennessee and never heard anything. At that time I was staying in a shelter in WI. I moved the next day and had my mail FWD to my new address. I did not hear anything for months and called a friend in TN finally after 7 months to let them know my 3 daughters and I were safe and doing very well. I was asked if I was attending the hearing July 21, 2014(this was the Wed before that date mind you). I had received no certified letter or any type of mail about the hearing so I set to trying to finding a lawyer and sent letters certified to the Judge and my ex’s lawyer asking for a continuance due to Bad Service. I never heard anything from the certified letters, the faxes, or e mails I sent to the judge and his lawyer. Under UCCJEA the hearing should have never been held in the first place because we had not lived in TN for 7 months at that point. He was granted default custody that he never enforced at all for 3 almost 4 years. Now I am fighting for my 7 year old daughter yet again. My lawyer that I just had was not acting in the best interest of me or my daughter and did not really pursue the UCCJEA. Not quite sure what I can do about it but the information is helpful. Thank you!

Leave a Comment