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

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.