### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUARY 14,

2001 Session
MARCUS MOONEYHAM v. HAR OLD E. CATES Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cocke County No. 22,859 II W. Dale Young, Judge FILED MAY 9, 2001
No. E2000-01337-COA-R3-CV

Marcus Mooneyham, former General Sessions Judge of Cocke County, seeks by

this suit to recover
a mental health commitment supplement which he contends he is entitled to rece ive by virtue

of his position as Juvenile Judge. The Trial Court found adversely

, and further fou

nd that because

he was notacting in good faith he was required to repay the County $8912.94. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court

that he was not entitled

to the supplement he claimed and was required to repay the County the sum assessed. Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Cause Remanded
H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and C HARLES D. S USANO , JJ., joined. William M. Leibrock, Newport, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Marcus Mooney ham J. Kenneth Porter, Newport, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Harold E. Cates
OPINION
Inthis suit, Marcus Mooneyham, a non-lawy er, who was General

Sessions Judge for Cocke County from 1974 to 1998 , seeks payment for supplemental pay he contends he is entitled to by virtue of a supplement provi

ded for juvenile j udges who exerc ise jurisdiction as

to mental health commitments.
The Trial Judge held

under the authority of Wilson v. Johnson County , 879 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn

. 19 94), that because Judge Mooneyham was not a lawy er he was not entitled to that supplement. He did, however, hold that Judge Mooneyham was entitled to the supplement accorded him because of the d

omestic relations jurisdiction he exercised in the amount of $5000 per year, or $40,000 for his termas Domestic Relations Judge. He further found, upon reviewing the stipulation of the parties, that Judge Mooneyham received $8912.94 to which he

was not entitled, a

nd because-2-

it was not received in good faith, rendered judgment agains t him in favor of the County in that amount. He did not, as represented in Judge Mooneyham’s brief, award the County pre-judgment interest. Judge Mo

oneyham ap

peals, raising t

he following fou

r issues:
I. THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN I TS RULING BY IGNORI NG THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN MENTAL HEA LTH MATTE RS AN D THEREBY FAILING TO FIND TH AT THE APPE LLA N T WAS ENTITLED TO THE MENTAL HEALTH PAY SUPPLEMENT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT E RRED IN ORDERING THE APPELL ANT TO REPAY $8912.94 FOR MONI ES R ECEIVED IN GOOD FAI TH AS GENERAL

SESSI ONS JU DGE FOR EXER CISING J URISDIC TION IN MENTAL

HEALTH

MATTERS AND FOR

EXERC ISING DO MESTIC RELATIONS JU RISDICTI ON IN DOMESTIC RELATI ON S MATTERS.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYI NG THE APPEL LA NT THE PAY SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JU RISDICT ION IN DOMES TIC RELATIONS MATTERS AND MENTAL HEALTH MATTERS FOR HIS FULL TERM I N OFFICE.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSI NG TO GR ANT TO APPELLANT

HIS REASONAB

LE ATTORNEY’ S FEES. Addressing issue number three first, i t is our und erstandin g from the reco rd that Ju dge Mooneyham

received credit for supplemental pay in connection with his domestic relations and mental health jurisdiction.
For the most part the facts necessary for disposition of this appeal are stipulated, such as the amounts Judge Mooney

ham was paid by

the County dur

in g his te rm of office, the amounts he received as juvenile jurisdiction supplement, and as mental heal th commitment supplement, the latter being for 49 months until payment was stopped by the County Executive.
The County in

its brief relies u

pon the following

passage from Wilson

to supportthe Trial Court’s reliance thereon (at page 811):

Because jurisdiction over mental health comm itments may only be exercised by a general ses sion s judge who is a lic ensed attorney

, it would contravene legislative inte nt to require general sessions judges who are licensed att orn eys to assume an increased workload, "by operation of law," while denying any increased compensation. By contrast, when a non-lawy er genera l sessio ns judge is pre s ented with an issue involving a mental health commitment, additional1 The testimony of C ommis sioner Hux is particularly compelling in that he voted favorably to Judge

Moone yham’s position as to all three motions.

-3- public funds are required to compensate a referee to determine the mental health question which the lay judge may not conside r.
Inresponse, J udge Mooneyham p oints out that the for

egoing stateme

nt is dicta in th at Judge Wilson was a lawyer. It is our view, howeve r, that the statement

of the Supreme Cour

t as to nonlawyers is predicated

upon T.C.A. 37-1-203, mentioned earlier in the opinion, which provides the following:
37-1-203. Jurisdiction of gener al sessions

court. – The general sessions courts shall exercise juvenile court jurisdiction

in all of the countie

s of this state except in the counties o

r munic ipalities in which juvenile courts are or may hereafter be specially

provided by law; provided, that only gener al sessions court judges who are attorneys may or der com mitment of

a delinquent child to the department of ch

ildren's servic

es. Notwithstanding the foregoin g, Judge Mooneyham contends that he is not required to repay monies received becaus e he was acting in good faith, and that under the authority of Bayless v. Knox County

, 286 S.W.2d 579 (Tenn. 1955); Franks v. State , 772 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn. 1989); and State v. Harmon , 882 S.W.2d 352 (Tenn. 1994), he is entit led to keep t he monies p aid. This b rings us to the only factual dispute in this appeal.
The proof with regard to this point is disputed. The record shows that three motions came before the Cocke County Commission bearing on the subject. The first motion, at a November 1991 meeting, was “to fund back pay and then fund regular sa lary for supplement for the Sessions Court Judge.” This motion passed with 1 2 members voting “Aye,” and two not voting. The second motion, at

an August 19 94 meeting, was “to remove the $10,000 supplement for the Sessions Court Jud ge effective September 1, 1994.” This motion failed with 10 members voting “Nay,” two members voting “Aye,” and two members passing. The thir

d motion, at a

September 1994, meeting
w as to “ask the County

Attorney to f

ile a petition for a

declaratory

judgment to deter

mi ne th e appropriate

salary that should be paid to the General Sessions Judge in Cocke County.” This motion failed with five members voting “Aye,” eight “Na y,” and one absent. The only material

dispute as to the good faith issue is whether Judge Mooneyham told the Cocke County legislative body prior to the motion passed in November

1991 above referenced that he would repay the money if he was not entitled to it. Members of the Commission, Jim Graham, Terry Hux 1 and County Executive Haro ld Cates, t estified t hat he made s uch a statem ent. Judge Mooneyham

testified that he d

id not, but did not present any other members of the legislative body or any other witnesses who may have been present to support his position.-4-

In ruling on th is disput ed matter th e Trial Jud ge made the fo llowing fin ding: The parties stipulated most of the relevant facts in this case.
The only relevant factual

dispute which could impact on the issues before the Court is whether the Cocke County Legislative Body relied on an alleged

oral promise of J udge Moo neyh am t o rep ay a ll f unds received by him in connection with any mental h

ealth supplement in

the event it

should be later determined that he was not entitled

to those funds. Judge Mooneyham te

stified tha t he mad e no suc h pr omi se t o rep ay. Members of the Cocke County Legislative

Body, inclu

ding the former

County Executive, Honorable

Harold Cates,

testified affirmatively that such promise was made to the County

Legislative Body by

Judge Mooneyham at the time the Cocke County Legislative Body authorized the a ppropriation of f

unds for pay

ment to Judge Mooney

ham for the menta

l health supplemen

t.
Def enda nt’s witnesses affirmativ ely testified that not on ly did Judge Mooneyham

make the promise but that the Cocke County Legislative Body relied on that promise in p assing the Resolution to authorize payment of the mental health supplemental funds. The Court finds that Trial Exhibit 9 makes no mention of Judge Moo

neyham’s pr

omise to repay

any funds.
As to the one material fact in dispute in this case, the Cour t finds that J udge M ooneyham di

d make such a prom

ise and that the Coc

ke County Legislative

Body relie

d on that p romise in making it s decision as to whe

ther to pass the Resolution authorizing payment of the funds. I

n making such fin

ding, it should be clear that the

Court does not fin d that Judge Mooneyham was being dishonest with the Court when he testified to the contrary. Oftentimes, when two people see and obser

ve the same a ct or incident, the y often will s

ee or hear it differently, depending on many , many factors, specifically including, but not by way of l imitatio n, one’s mental attitude about a task at hand, his genuine and sincere belief about a particular set of facts and whether he is involved as a p

arty to the transaction or

merely a casual observer. Our “point of view” frames every word we speak and every action we take.
The Court is of the opinio n that Judge Mooney

ham is a be lievable, thoughtful person, but that the grea ter weight of the

evidence on this

issue causes the Court to conclude that its more likely true than not that he com

municated to the Cocke County Legislative Body his willingness to repay

any funds to which he was not

entitled. Without dispute, the Cocke County Legislative Body relied on that promise. (Footnotes omitted.)-5-

Although the Trial Judge did find that Judge Mooney

ham was not “being

dishonest with the Courtwhen he testified to the contrary,” he nevertheless clearly found that the statement was made.
Inaddit ion thereto, after the motion was passed in November 1991, authorizing the supplement pay

to Judge Mooneyham, he prevailed upon State Representative R. E. Davis to pass
a Private Act autho

rizin g payment. T

his Act, however

, was never rati

fied by the C

ocke County legislative body. Still

later, he went with the Juvenile Court Referee, who was a lawyer, to Senator Tommy Haun and

prevailed upon hi

m to introduce a general Act to accomplish the same purpose. This bill was never enacted.
Giventhe foregoing facts, we cannot find as required by Tenn.R.A

pp.P. 13 that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court’s finding on the question of Judge Mooneyham’s good faith.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Courtis affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of the judgment and costs below. Costs of ap peal are adju dged against J udge Mooneyham a

nd his sureties.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE