The Court’s Lien on Property is not Void if the Jurisdiction is Lacking

Tennessee case summary on jurisdiction and custody in divorce.

Lien on property in custody case was not void for lack of jurisdiction.

Victor Hugo Hernandez v. Jodie L. Land

The father in this Williamson County, Tennessee case was a California resident, and filed a petition to domesticate and modify a California child-custody decree, as the children lived in Tennessee with the mother. The Tennessee court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the father from transferring the real estate he owned in Nashville. The final decree was issued, modifying the parenting schedule. The father was found guilty by both the mother and the guardian ad-litem. A few months later, the condo association filed a interpleader action asking permission to pay into court the funds resulting from the foreclosure of one of the properties. The mother and guardian-ad-litem asked for the funds to be released to them as partial satisfaction of their judgments. The father then argued that both the earlier order granting a lien and the order granting an interpleader motion were void as a law. The trial court released the funds. A judgment is void if a court lacks jurisdiction or if its ruling was outside of the pleadings. But as the appeals court pointed out, a judgment is not void merely because it may have been erroneous.

The appeals court pointed out that the father initiated the underlying case, and the court had personal jurisdiction over the parties. The father argued the lien order was invalid because the court did not have the proper statutory authority. The appeals court, however, pointed out that the errors that render a judgment null must be evident from the face of the judgement.

If further proof is needed, the judgment will be voidable and not void.

In the case at hand, the appeals panel noted that the father’s argument was in need of additional proof. The judgment was therefore voidable and not void. The Court of Appeals did not grant the mother’s request to pay attorney’s fees. The lower court’s decision was therefore upheld.