1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 23, 2015

ANTHONY TRAVIS RICHARDS v. VERONICA DENISE RICHARDS

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County

No. 2014-50 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor

No. E2014-02123-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JULY 30, 2015

Anthony Travis Richards (Husband), who was incarcerated in the custody of the

Tennessee Department of Correction, filed this divorce action against Veronica Denise 

Richards (Wife). Husband also filed a “motion for leave of court to appear by means of 

video communications technology or, in the alternative, by telephone in lieu of personal 

attandence” in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-809 (2014). The trial court did 

not address Husband’s motion. Rather, the court entered an order dismissing Husband’s 

complaint predicated on his failure to appear and prosecute the action. We hold that the 

trial court committed prejudicial error by dismissing Husband’s action without first 

considering his pending motion. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and 

remand for further proceedings.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Vacated; Case Remanded

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL 

SWINEY and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, JJ., joined.

Anthony Travis Richards, Mountain City, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.

No appearance by or on behalf of appellee Veronica Denise Richards. 

OPINION

On April 15, 2014, Husband filed three documents: (1) his complaint for divorce; 

(2) a “motion for leave of court to appear by means of video communications technology 

or, in the alternative, by telephone in lieu of personal attandence” in accordance with 
2

Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-809;

1

and (3) a “motion to set case for trial.” Wife did not file

a pleading. On October 14, 2014, the trial court entered an order stating in its entirety,

[t]his cause came onto be heard this 13th day of October 2014 

upon the Complaint for Divorce filed by Anthony Travis 

Richards against the Defendant, Veronica Denise Richards; 

and the Plaintiff failed to appear and prosecute his complaint 

(being incarcerated in the penitentiary), but the Defendant did

appear demanding a divorce in the absence of any answer or 

[counterclaim] for divorce filed by her.

It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint for Divorce be, 

and is hereby, dismissed and the costs taxed to the Plaintiff 

for which execution shall issue.

Husband timely filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing 

his complaint. 

In Reese v. Klocko, No. M2005-02600-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1452688 at *4-5 

(Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed May 16, 2007), this Court addressed a similar situation:

Husband’s second issue surrounds his claim that the Trial 

Court erred in not allowing him to participate in the trial by 

telephone. . . . Husband does not claim that he should have 

been transported from prison to attend the trial; rather, he 

simply requested that he be allowed to participate by 

telephone.

In Bell v. Todd, 206 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), we 

gave the following insight into the effects of a trial court’s 

failure to rule on a prisoner’s pending motions when that 

prisoner is a party to the litigation:

 

1

Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-809 provides as follows:

The court may hold a hearing under this part at a county jail or a facility 

operated by the department or may conduct the hearing with video 

communications technology that permits the court to see and hear the 

inmate and that permits the inmate to see and hear the court and any 

other witnesses.
3

Litigation involving self-represented litigants 

can be challenging and difficult. It can become 

even more difficult and cumbersome when the 

self-represented litigant is incarcerated. 

However, an incarcerated litigant’s right to 

meaningful access to the courts requires that the 

litigant be afforded a fair opportunity to present 

his or her side of the controversy. Knight v. 

Knight, 11 S.W.3d 898, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App.

1999). . . .

Appellate courts frequently have been 

confronted with cases in which the trial courts 

have disposed of claims either filed by or 

asserted against self-represented prisoners 

without first addressing the prisoner’s pending 

motions. No matter whether the prisoner is the 

plaintiff or the defendant, reviewing courts have 

consistently held that trial courts err when they 

proceed to adjudicate the merits of the claim 

without first addressing the prisoner’s pending 

motion or motions. These oversights have 

generally been found to be prejudicial rather 

than harmless because the failure to address 

pending motions “give[s] the impression that a 

litigant is being ignored,” Logan v. Winstead, 

23 S.W.3d at 303. We have also held that a 

prisoner’s failure to comply with local rules 

requiring motions to be set for hearing does not 

provide a trial court with an excuse for failing 

to address the pending motions. Chastain v. 

Chastain, 2004 WL 725277, at *2. 

Accordingly, when a trial court has failed to 

rule on an incarcerated litigant’s pending 

motions, reviewing courts have consistently 

vacated the judgment and remanded the case to 

the trial court with directions to consider and act 

on the pending motions.

Bell, 206 S.W.3d at 91 (footnote omitted).
4

Knight v. Knight, 11 S.W.3d 898 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) 

involved a divorce case wherein the husband, who was 

incarcerated, filed a motion seeking transportation to the trial 

or that the trial be continued until his release from prison, 

which was to occur in the not-so-distant future. Id. at 899.

The trial court in Knight never ruled on the husband’s motion 

and proceeded with the trial. Id. On appeal, this Court 

discussed the evolution of the law in Tennessee regarding 

participation by inmates in legal proceedings. We noted that 

there are various options available to a trial court “including, 

but not limited to, offering Husband the opportunity to testify 

by videotaped deposition, [or] allowing Husband to 

participate in the trial by telephone. . . .” Id. at 906. Because 

the trial court never ruled on the husband’s motion and 

because none of the options available to the trial court were 

considered, we vacated the final divorce decree. Id. at 906-

07.

Returning to the present case, we conclude that the Trial 

Court erred when it failed to rule on Husband’s pending 

motions, including his motion to participate in the trial by 

telephone. Husband’s motion to participate in the trial by 

telephone should have been considered by the Trial Court, 

and it should have been granted. We, therefore, vacate the 

final divorce decree in its entirety and remand this case for a 

new trial with directions that Husband be allowed to 

participate at trial by telephone.

(Internal citations in Bell omitted.)

This appeal is controlled by the principles enunciated in Reese and Bell. Pursuant 

to those authorities, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs on appeal are assessed to the 

appellee, Veronica Denise Richards.

 _____________________________________

 CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., CHIEF JUDGE