Opinion ID: 3133564
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Void Judgments

Text: ―[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final. The list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, [the] exception to finality would swallow the rule.‖ United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010) (internal citation omitted). A judgment rendered by a court lacking either personal or subject matter jurisdiction is void. Ins. Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 694; Hood v. Jenkins, 432 S.W.3d 814, 825 (Tenn. 2013); Gentry v. Gentry, 924 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tenn. 1996).13 Nevertheless, a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to be valid and will be held void only when ―its invalidity is disclosed by the face of that judgment, or in the record of the case in which that judgment was rendered.‖ Giles v. State ex rel. Giles, 235 S.W.2d 24, 28 (Tenn. 1950); see also Hood, 432 S.W.3d at 825. 13 This proposition ―traces back to the English Year Books‖ and was well-entrenched in American law even before the United States Supreme Court held in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 (1878) that the judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Burnham v. Superior Court of California, Cnty. of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 608 (1990) (plurality opinion) (collecting early American decisions on the subject). -13- A [judgment] is absolutely void if it appears on the face of the record itself either that the Court had no general jurisdiction of the subject matter, or that the [judgment] is wholly outside of the pleadings, and no consent thereto appears. A [judgment] is void as to any person shown by the record itself not to have been before the Court in person, or by representation. A [judgment] not prima facie void is valid and binding . . . . All [judgments] not thus appearing on their face to be void are absolutely proof against collateral attack, and no parol proof is admissible on such an attack to show any defect in the proceedings, or in the [judgment]. Gentry, 924 S.W.2d at 680 (Tenn. 1996) (quoting William H. Inman, Gibson‘s Suits in Chancery § 228 at 219–20 (7th ed. 1988)). If the defect allegedly rendering the challenged judgment void is not apparent from the face of the judgment or the record of the proceeding from which the challenged judgment emanated and must instead be established by additional proof, the judgment is merely voidable, not void. Hood, 432 S.W.3d at 825. The trial court‘s subject matter jurisdiction over Father‘s petition to terminate Mother‘s parental rights has not been questioned, nor has any contention been made that the default judgment terminating Mother‘s parental rights was outside the scope of the pleadings. This case focuses solely on whether the default judgment terminating Mother‘s parental rights is void because the constructive service by publication was not accomplished in accordance with statutory requirements and therefore failed to provide the trial court with personal jurisdiction over Mother.14