Confusion From Clerical Errors Did not Deprive Jurisdiction
Tennessee child support collection case summary.
Katherine Mechelle Stooksbury v. Matthew D. Varney
The parties in this Knox County, Tennessee, case were never married, but were the parents of one minor child. In 2017, the court recognized the father as the parent, set the child support obligation, and set a permanent parenting plan. The father was also ordered to pay outstanding child support as well as half of the birth costs.
In 2018, the mother filed for contempt, alleging that payments were not made as required. There was, however, some confusion as to which court was hearing the case. The father asserted that the case had been filed in Union County, and the case did have a docket number in both counties.
The trial court found that none of the birth costs had been paid, and other than a single payment of $500, no child support had been paid.
The father was held in contempt, but the order contained the name of one county, but the docket number in the other county. The court ultimately corrected this, and the order was filed with the court clerk in Knox County.
The father moved to set aside the judgment on the grounds that the Union County court did not have jurisdiction over the matter.
To further complicate matters, another petition was filed in 2019 in Knox County, filed in Knox County, but erroneously captioned in Union County.
Ultimately, the case was heard, and it was found that the father owed over $85,000 in past child support, plus attorney fees of over $16,000. The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The father first argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, since it was acting as a court of Union County, without Knox County having relinquished jurisdiction.
The appeals court examined the record, and held that even though the trial judge was appointed a juvenile judge in Union County, he at all times had the same power and jurisdiction in Knox County.
The appeals court acknowledged that clerical errors had been made, but that these clerical errors did not rob the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. While there was a “regrettable amount of confusion,” this did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
The father also argued that the award of attorney’s fees was unreasonable. But after reviewing the record, the appeals court held that the lower court had acted within its discretion.
Finally, the father argued that the lower court acted improperly in ordering him to pay back the arrearage at $1000 per month. But again, the appeals court held that the lower court had acted properly.
The appeals court therefore affirmed, and also ordered the mother to be paid her attorney fees on appeal. It remanded the case for a calculation of the amount.
No. E2021-01449-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2023).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Support Collection & Enforcement in Tennessee.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
