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

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.