DONEL AUTIN, ET AL. v. WILLIAM GOETZ - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Feb 22, 2017

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Van R. Irion, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Goetz.

Attorneys 2:

J. Lewis Wardlaw, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Donel Autin, and Dana Autin.

Judge(s): STAFFORD

The trial court entered a protective order under Rule 26.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure while the case was ongoing. After the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, the trial court entered an order confirming the dismissal and extending the protective order "in perpetuity." The defendant did not appeal the final order, but years later filed a motion to modify the protective order. The trial court denied the motion as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to extend the protective order after plaintiffs nonsuited their case. As an issue of first impression, we conclude that the trial court retained jurisdiction to extend and modify its previously entered protective order notwithstanding the voluntary dismissal of the underlying action. We further hold that modification of existing protective orders is authorized by the holding in Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tenn. 1996); accordingly, we vacate the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to modify and remand for reconsideration in light of our supreme court's established precedent.

Attachments: