Facts: After 10 years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce.

Although they entered an agreed order regarding the marital residence and child and spousal support, Husband did not respond to Wife’s discovery requests. She believed that Husband, an attorney, was receiving substantial sums of money. So she moved to compel him to respond to discovery and provide an accounting.

When Husband did not appear at the hearing on Wife’s motions, the trial court granted them.

Several months later, Wife petitioned for civil contempt, alleging that Husband was not making payments as directed by the agreed order. He also had not responded to discovery or provided an accounting.

The hearing on the contempt petition resulted in a second agreed order requiring Husband to pay the arrearages he owed for temporary support, the oldest child’s school tuition, the children’s counseling, etc. Husband also had to make a $50,000 payment to Wife and an additional $250,000 payment by the end of the year as part of the division of marital property.

Husband violated the agreed orders and still did not respond to discovery or provide an accounting. Wife filed a second petition for civil contempt. Before the second petition could be heard, she filed a third contempt petition alleging that Husband’s failure to pay the mortgage caused the marital residence to go into foreclosure, he did not make either of the lump-sum payments required by the second agreed order, and still, almost two years later, had yet to provide discovery or the court-ordered accounting.

Once again, Husband did not appear at the hearing on Wife’s contempt petitions. The trial court issued an attachment for law enforcement to get Husband and set a bond of $100,000, which was later reduced to $25,000 at Husband’s request.

Over two years after filing for divorce, Wife finally moved for a default judgment as a discovery sanction under Rule 37.02. By then, Husband had provided some discovery responses, although his responses were “evasive and incomplete.” He persisted in his refusal to provide basic financial information, such as bank statements. Based on bank statements Wife accessed through other means, she believed Husband was living an exorbitant lifestyle, including joining an expensive country club, going on many vacations, and paying for “intimate encounters.”

Husband’s final court appearance was at the hearing on Wife’s motion for default judgment. The trial court again allowed Husband to respond to discovery and complete the accounting but noted that if he did not, the trial court would presume Husband dissipated the marital estate. The trial court continued the hearing on Wife’s request for default judgment until after the final deadline for Husband to complete the ordered tasks.

Husband did not complete discovery or give an accounting.

Husband was not present at the hearing where the court granted Wife a default judgment. For Husband’s noncompliance with earlier orders, the trial court also struck his pleadings and prohibited him from introducing any evidence at the final hearing.

Husband also failed to appear at the final hearing.

The trial court awarded Wife several judgments resulting from Husband’s failure to follow court orders. It also equitably divided the marital property and debts, awarded alimony, adopted a parenting plan, and set child support.

Husband appealed.

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

When a party fails to follow an order to provide discovery, the trial court may order sanctions, including rendering a default judgment, striking pleadings, and prohibiting the party from introducing specific evidence. Trial courts have broad discretion in determining a sanction for failure to follow an order to provide discovery.

Husband complains the sanction imposed “the highest form of sanction” in a divorce and that any appearance or defense attempted by him at the final hearing “would be in vain.”

The Court found no abuse of discretion:

The sanctions imposed were of a type expressly contemplated by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37.02. True, a default is an extreme sanction. But a default is appropriate where there has been a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. Here, there is such a record. Husband, himself an attorney, deprived Wife of detailed financial information throughout the entirety of the divorce. For months, he failed to fully respond to discovery in the face of orders directing him to do so. Because Husband persisted in his disobedient conduct, preventing Wife from discovering necessary evidence and prolonging the case, the punishment fits the offense.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment sanctioning Husband for the chronic failure to comply with court orders.

Source: Kelly v. Kelly (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, April 23, 2025).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.