Landers v. Jones
872 S.W.2d 674, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 46, 1994 WL 92142 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's participation in a joint motion for a continuance does not constitute a general appearance and does not waive the defendant's right to subsequently contest the court's personal jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Tina Landers, a resident of Tennessee, alleged that Jay Byron Jones, a resident of Mississippi, was the father of her child.
- Jones had never been in the State of Tennessee.
- Landers filed a paternity proceeding against Jones in Tennessee.
- Jones was served with process in Mississippi approximately five months after the suit was filed.
- The attorneys for Landers and Jones filed a joint motion to continue a hearing, stating that Jones needed additional time 'to prepare his defense.'
- An alleged private agreement for blood testing was made between counsel, though the court found the record insufficient to support this.
Procedural Posture:
- Tina Landers filed a paternity proceeding against Jay Byron Jones in the Juvenile Court of Greene County, Tennessee (trial court).
- The parties filed a joint motion to continue, which the juvenile court granted.
- Jones then made a 'limited appearance' and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The Juvenile Court overruled Jones's motion to dismiss.
- The Juvenile Court subsequently entered a default judgment against Jones.
- Jones (appellant) appealed the default judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Juvenile Court's judgment.
- Landers (appellant) filed an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's participation in a joint motion for continuance in a juvenile court paternity proceeding constitute a general appearance, thereby waiving the defendant's right to later contest the court's personal jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Justice.
No. A defendant does not waive the right to contest personal jurisdiction by participating in a joint motion for continuance. The court reasoned that modern procedural rules, such as Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02, have superseded older, hypertechnical distinctions between general and special appearances. Under these modern rules, a waiver of the personal jurisdiction defense occurs only if the defendant files a motion on the merits or an answer without raising the jurisdictional challenge. A motion for a continuance does not address the merits of the case, seeks no affirmative relief, and does not recognize that the cause is properly pending before the court. The court explicitly overruled prior decisions to the extent they held otherwise, aligning Tennessee law with the modern trend that avoids creating 'a trap for the unwary.'
Analysis:
This decision modernizes Tennessee's approach to personal jurisdiction waivers, bringing it in line with the flexible standards of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and federal practice. It explicitly rejects the old, formalistic doctrine where nearly any interaction with the court could be deemed a 'general appearance' that waived jurisdictional defenses. The ruling provides clarity and protection for defendants, particularly non-residents, allowing them to seek procedural accommodations like a continuance without inadvertently forfeiting the fundamental right to challenge the court's power over them. This precedent ensures that jurisdictional challenges are decided on their merits rather than being lost due to procedural missteps.
