[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6179897,"mediaKeyId","5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80","parentId",5122010,"title","Court will consider whether discovery sanction that struck defendant’s pleadings was proper","audioSeconds",1672,"startMs",8515000,"endMs",10187000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80&start=8515&end=10187","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80/thumbnail_8515000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6179897/Tennessee/Court-will-consider-whether-discovery-sanction-that-struck-defendants-pleadings-was-proper","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179897-38c4114e667dd37d737c4d9bd2368239/orig.mp4?Expires=1770946858&Signature=PTIxnf0aUtDbXcSta87y37JJlY3RD6ot48VTvPuGHgPlGEuwXQDsJGbEaYGZbCmp3eiR0lwwyhFsTIqoHz-iDqU1c-wzqmG7Qy~cSNpcypOBdqnuPOcwTv2FOKZ66ayG8cBl6QGLRT81CVlsK-AxLtmnIp5r75LMMKDIcy1FPt2fK7-cAijZ33RGl-~nasoxDK2rgj-EWugaijuSOdobbp2w0wGISU07LseFY8JcZoMg0sIMCNyu4GGDnrJ1jr3DTcKRdjTIbM9u0vLkuisMwIk6VghaB3P2IJSwbvG3CyuthBGXfQk57BGcWgFGMcDA6Q~V4gXmcrVjQRwRlDSmwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-03T05:07:25Z","article","A Cheatham County judge took under advisement competing arguments about whether a discovery sanction that struck a defendant’s pleadings was legally justified and whether the sanction should be set aside under Rule 60 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Counsel for the defendant, William Romkey, asked the court to vacate a May 2, 2024 order that struck his client’s pleadings as a discovery sanction. The defendant’s counsel argued at length that the sanctions order lacked the factual findings and proportionality analysis required by controlling authority (counsel cited appellate decisions including Asani, Mercer, and Adams in support) and therefore the order was void or should be vacated under Rule 60. Counsel described the sanction order as \"bare-bones\" and urged that the record does not show the court conducted the analysis required before imposing a final sanction of striking pleadings.

Opposing counsel responded that the defendant repeatedly failed to attend noticed depositions and that the record shows multiple missed appearances and additional opportunities to engage; counsel argued the defendant provided no supporting affidavits or medical documentation to justify relief under Rule 60(1) (mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect), and urged the court to enforce the sanction. Opposing counsel also said the defendant had not appealed or filed other post-judgment motions in a timely fashion.

At the close of arguments the judge said he would need to review the briefs and appellate cases cited and take the matter under advisement. The judge noted that he would determine whether the sanction order contained the required findings and whether any procedural infirmity justified relief. The judge stated, \"I'm gonna take the matter under advisement,\" and asked the parties to be ready to proceed further if the court determines a remand or evidentiary hearing is required.

Why this matters: Striking a party’s pleadings is among the most severe discovery sanctions a trial court can impose. Appellate precedent requires courts to make specific findings and to evaluate whether lesser remedies would suffice. If the trial court finds error in the original sanction order, the appropriate remedy may be to vacate the sanction and remand for further proceedings rather than allow a default or dismissal to stand without the required findings.

Next steps: The judge will review the filed memoranda and cited authorities and either issue a written order or schedule further proceedings to resolve factual disputes about whether the sanction was imposed in compliance with applicable law.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","7-2-25 Cheatham Chancery","oneSentenceSummary","In a contested civil case, the court heard arguments over a discovery-sanction order that stripped a defendant’s pleadings. Counsel asked the judge to vacate the sanction under Rule 60 and case law; the judge took the matter under advisement to review legal authorities and the record.","taxTitle","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee","taxId",66321,"location","Tennessee","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6179902,"Judge pauses divorce hearing after service and deposition dispute; process server testimony questioned",906,2130000,3036000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80&start=2130&end=3036","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80/thumbnail_2130000.jpg","/articles/6179902/Tennessee/Judge-pauses-divorce-hearing-after-service-and-deposition-dispute-process-server-testimony-questioned","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179902-2a70476b91b475906e59f9aba0c16136/orig.mp4?Expires=1770946858&Signature=lko4MLIb0C7HXmrj0Nf7G7RAMeCC-btOE6NMPYdjTd69UYrhWiTftJ8Pv7urH2oicRPGLvzLpGnmM-fFMEDnMvGkLmJIf1yqjaykiA6qE3-j4EFwchM~739Hwv-zJBN4~dLIupmznxcZdOsHBBrfBq9hvsqBbUjYKwAWQ2cqO0pFQHC-uTTeEnmHi39Q100KJDLh8U~ztHWtpPjqbzBdHus1oei43T7129TJln7tdMp-bohFcAoaLsuRFmGxy5HdKNLnHdA1ZOaaFPjYhvG-ZQLrC8hvW6-nNwtil8m1fLZYET1qXdrtiKp3Olb~Fg~vPnHX8M7vOc1qC-IFjHyR6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A contested family-law matter that began as a service-of-process and deposition dispute was stayed by the court after testimony raised questions about who received what paperwork and because a lawyer for a party became an essential witness.

Douglas Strickler, identified in court as the director of security for the state trial courts who sometimes performs process service work for a private company, testified that he personally served a woman at a Cheatham County address and that he remembered \"serving this woman\" on an early rainy Saturday. During cross-examination, he said he typically does not open or read entire packets before serving—they are presented to him in stacks—and that his return-of-service form uses standard language such as \"served summons and complaint\" even if he did not read every page. Strickler also testified the documents he was handed for that date were not in an envelope and that he did not normally receive the full packet in an envelope for service runs.

The dispute centers on whether the papers left with the woman were a summons and complaint for divorce or a marital dissolution agreement and parenting plan. The petitioner’s counsel said a complaint had been served; defense counsel and the respondent contested whether the document served was the complaint or a different agreement. Attorney for the party whose deposition was missed argued the failure to provide formal notice for the January deposition and the lack of a court order made the harsh sanction (striking pleadings) inappropriate.

Complicating matters, the respondent’s lawyer — who had significant communications with the respondent about the pending divorce — was called as a witness. The judge stated that, because the attorney would be both a witness and representing the party, the matter must be stayed and the client must obtain new counsel before the contested hearing resumes. The judge observed, \"this matter is gonna have to be stayed, and we're gonna have to allow your client to obtain another counsel to represent him on this matter.\" The judge asked counsel for scheduling options and the parties discussed dates in July and August; later the court clerk and participants agreed to reschedule the contested hearing for August in Courtroom 5 at the Justice Center in Charlotte, Tennessee, subject to availability.

Why this matters: The hearing implicates basic due-process and discovery-procedure issues in family-law litigation: whether service was correctly executed and documented; whether the procedural prerequisites for imposing a discovery sanction were met; and whether an attorney’s dual role as advocate and witness requires a pause to avoid conflict and to preserve the integrity of testimony.

Courtroom testimony highlighted the practical realities—and limitations—of private process service work. Strickler said he had served for Southern Process Service for seven to eight years and that he typically looks for the name and address and obtains a signature for a return of service without reading the entire packet of documents. When asked whether he had the served party sign the summons, he answered, \"Yes, ma'am.\" He also said he did not receive any follow-up contacts from the served individual after the April 2022 service.

Outcome and next steps: The court stayed the hearing, ordered the affected party to secure new counsel, and directed the parties to return on a rescheduled date. The court indicated it would reassess the procedural questions with counsel present after new counsel has entered and after the parties address whether the requirements for discovery sanctions were properly satisfied.","A Cheatham County family-law dispute over service and a missed deposition led the court to stay proceedings so a party can obtain new counsel; testimony from a longtime process server conflicted with later claims that a different document was served.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6179906,"Judge sets aside final divorce decree after finding parties lacked proper notice",0,8192000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80&start=8192&end=8192","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5122010-ca386c3efcb16320d7f2967185f8fc80/thumbnail_8192000.jpg","/articles/6179906/Tennessee/Judge-sets-aside-final-divorce-decree-after-finding-parties-lacked-proper-notice","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179906-259c6ecb722d5ea496f28469d5a20a30/orig.mp4?Expires=1770946858&Signature=PHdqwR7o1FE84JVrh34UtzzDhjynTBWv3AMYCKxlMm1NMVhkrlr4wbI~S6MtAEmqrPmyg89wsSfCFM2AvK84nthEURw381frz-Zs22A~75ld1RXrOpBOjv~eOToAuLyjhvOgZdwabL1LN2iwf-DSaK5MwCz5UYGhmn-nS~1W7BpEfPjl~R112ytptDyl~r4qsVzJ89LNLgvbaP2wjCHWx7NfbiLq795pXXmml592dFgOjjgVjvVoNGVK0vp1Qtm79HXbuRo4AsMIrVzIdyeM0EMmjD~WqdAQxZosVh-7qdj61PZvAFR7TFMxeLfbj0yF~5Fd6tMKzTQzyZ1ikFoqxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Cheatham County judge granted a motion under Rule 60 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a final divorce decree and parenting plan, returning the matter to the active docket for further proceedings.

The ruling came after the court heard testimony that the respondent, Heather Michelle Wood, and her father, William Craig Martin, did not receive notice of a final hearing and that an order placing the matter on a final-hearing calendar was entered without a properly filed and noticed motion. Judge David D. Wolfe told the courtroom, \"the motion for relief under Rule 60 is granted.\"

The court’s decision follows testimony and filings showing a complicated procedural history: an initial motion to set a final hearing filed in September 2021 was noted for a January 3, 2022 hearing at which the docket shows no one appeared; counsel for Wood thereafter filed a motion to withdraw that was granted in March 2022; and an order signed by the court setting a final hearing appears in the file in early 2023 without a corresponding recorded hearing on the motion to set.

Why the ruling matters: Rule 60 allows relief from a final judgment for several specific reasons and for \"any other reason justifying relief\" (subsection 5) when made within a reasonable time. The judge found that, under the court's local rules and Rule 40 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (which delegates trial-setting procedures to the trial judge), the record did not show that the case had been set in a manner that provided adequate notice to the respondent under the district’s local practice rules. The judge said the court, as a court of equity, could grant relief under the Rule 60 catchall and ordered the final decree set aside.

At the hearing, Ms. Wood testified she first learned the divorce had become final when she was served later with contempt paperwork from child support services; she told the court, \"When I was served paperwork for contempt on child support on a Friday afternoon.\" Her father, William Craig Martin, testified he did not receive mail from the petitioning attorney at the address on file; when asked if he had received any documents addressed to his daughter, he replied, \"I have not.\" Steven Matthew Wood, the former husband, testified about the parties’ interactions and the family’s living arrangements leading up to and following the divorce.

The court noted that the file contained neither a motion to set filed after the 2022 events nor clear evidence that the respondent was mailed the final decree and reliably received it. Judge Wolfe cited the local 23rd Judicial District practice and Rule 40 procedures in explaining that cases must be set by motion, by agreement of counsel, or by the court with subsequent notice to counsel; the court found none of those methods were followed for the final setting in this file.

Outcome and next steps: The court instructed the moving party to prepare an order reflecting the findings and the return of the case to the active docket for further proceedings, including a properly noticed final hearing if the petitioner continues to seek a final decree. No final merits adjudication was reached by the court in this hearing; the judge’s ruling addresses only procedural relief from the previously entered final decree.

Courtroom dynamics and scheduling: Counsel for the petitioner argued the Rule 60 request was untimely or insufficiently supported by affidavits; counsel for the respondent said the absence of a properly noticed setting and the lack of receipt of mailed orders justified equitable relief. The judge took the position that, given the record and the local rule framework, relief under the Rule 60 catchall was appropriate and ordered the case reopened to the court’s active docket.

The case will proceed on the merits only after the parties obtain appropriate notice and any necessary scheduling under local practice rules.","Cheatham County Chancery Court granted a Rule 60 motion to set aside a 2023 final divorce decree and parenting plan, concluding the record did not show the case had been properly set for a final hearing and that the respondent did not receive notice.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court will consider whether discovery sanction that struck defendant’s pleadings was proper

Judge pauses divorce hearing after service and deposition dispute; process server testimony questioned

Judge sets aside final divorce decree after finding parties lacked proper notice