Where a premises liability defendant failed to file an answer and first participated in the case seven years after it was commenced, denial of his motion to set aside the default judgment was affirmed.
In Crutcher v. Ellis, No. M2023-00283-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2024), plaintiff was shot at point-blank range in a nightclub. Plaintiff filed this premises liability case against several defendants in 2015, but the only defendant at issue in this appeal was the owner and operator of the nightclub.
Defendant failed to respond to the complaint, and plaintiff obtained a default judgment. Defendant made no appearance whatsoever in the case until February 2022, when he appeared at the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to set a date to determine damages. The damages hearing was set for August 2, 2022. Defendant filed a motion for continuance the day before that hearing, which was denied.
After the hearing, in which defendant did not participate, the trial court awarded plaintiff damages against defendant of $300,000 for pain and suffering. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, then later filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. While the trial court denied the motion to set aside default, it granted the motion to alter or amend. In January 2023, the trial court held a second evidentiary hearing, which resulted in a damages award for plaintiff of more than $15,000 in medical expenses and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. On appeal, the Court affirmed this judgment.
When considering whether to set aside a default judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or fraud, a court looks at “(1) whether the default was willful, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether the non-defaulting party would be prejudiced if relief were granted.” (internal citation omitted). Willful conduct includes “conduct that is flagrant and unexplained.” (internal citation omitted). If a court finds that a default was willful, it is not necessary to consider other grounds.
Defendant argued that he was unable to participate due to health conditions, but he presented no evidence to support this assertion. He admitted that he was properly served, and that he failed to participate in the action until seven years after it was commenced and almost six years after default judgment was entered. Based on these facts, the Court determined that defendant’s default was willful and affirmed the denial of the motion to set aside default.
The Court also affirmed the trial court’s damages award. Although the trial court did not include proper findings of fact in its ruling, the Court stated that “the record [was] sufficient for [the Court] to make [its] own determination regarding where the preponderance of the evidence lies.” Based on the plaintiff’s testimony about his medical issues and how they affected his life, the trial court’s award was affirmed.
The Court of Appeals released this opinion one month after oral arguments.