Wife Violated Discovery Orders Not Allowed to Present Evidence
Tennessee case summary on discovery sanctions in divorce. This is a memorandum opinion. Under the rules of this Court, as a memorandum opinion, this opinion may not be published, “cited[,] or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.” TENN. CT. APP. R. 10.
Thomas Joseph Nedumthottathil v. Siby John Thomas
The husband and wife in this Rutherford County, Tennessee, case were married for 13 years and had three minor children when the husband filed for divorce in 2019. The husband sent the wife a set of written discovery requests, and when she didn’t reply, he filed a motion to compel. At the hearing, the wife agreed to respond, and a deadline was set. The deadline was about a week before trial.
The deadline rolled around, but the wife never responded. The trial court moved the trial date, and gave the wife one more week to respond, but she never did.
As a sanction, the trial court ruled that the wife would not be allowed to offer proof at trial in support of her alimony claim, nor to oppose the husband’s parenting plan and division of property. She was, however, allowed to submit evidence regarding the grounds for divorce, and the children’s best interests.
The trial court granted the divorce and denied the wife’s request for alimony. The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to limit the wife’s evidence. The rules specifically permit an order refusing a disobedient party to support certain claims and defenses. The appeals court noted that the wife had ample opportunity to respond to the requests. In particular, she had never objected nor requested a protective order. Despite being allowed extra time, she never offered an excuse or explanation.
The wife pointed the finger of blame at her attorney, and also argued that the husband did get the requested information prior to the end of trial. But the appeals court rejected these arguments and held that the lower court had acted properly in sanctioning her.
The appeals court also looked at the merits of the lower court’s property division and alimony rulings, and held that the lower court had acted properly.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, but denied the husband’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.
No. M2020-00473-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2023).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
