Husband Can’t Prove That He Was Not Served Papers in Jail

The husband and wife were married for twenty years when the wife filed for divorce in Davidson County, Tennessee in 2022.  She alleged irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct and asked for equitable division of the estate.

At the time, the husband was serving time in jail, but was personally served with a copy of the divorce papers.  He did not file any answer.  About two months later, the wife moved for default judgment.  About three months after that, the trial court granted her the divorce and divided the marital property.  A month later, the court amended its decree to correct a clerical error.  All of the papers were mailed to the husband at the correctional facility.

One month after that, the husband filed a motion to set aside the decree.  He asserted that the papers were delivered to the correctional facility, but it wasn’t until a later time that a correctional officer delivered them to him personally.  He also asserted that some of the documents were sent to the jail after he was released.

A hearing was held, and the husband’s lawyer described the correctional facility’s general procedures.  But nobody from the facility appeared at the hearing, and husband testified from his halfway house by phone.  The trial court refused to set aside the judgment, and the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband argued that there is a strong preference for trials on the merits, and that any reasonable doubt should be resolved in his favor.  But the appeals court pointed out that if the defaulting party acted willfully, the judgment shouldn’t be set aside.

The return of service said that the husband was served, and the appeals court pointed out that this is the best evidence.  The party requesting relief must rebut the presumption that he was personally served.  For example, it cited a 1982 case where the defaulting party had come forward with a logbook, credit card receipts, a truck repair bill, and testimony to corroborate his testimony that he wasn’t in the city where he was supposedly served.  In this case, the husband made a denial, but other than his attorney’s general description of a general procedure was insufficient to overcome the burden. 

Under the circumstances of the case, the appeals court concluded that the husband acted willfully, and was not entitled to have the default set aside.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court and remanded the case.  The opinion of the Court of Appeals was authored by Judge W. Neal McBrayer.

No. M2023-00033-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan 6, 2025).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.