Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedApril 3, 1996
Docket03A01- 9510- CV- 00369
StatusPublished

This text of Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass (Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED April 3, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk SANDRA K. LEW S a nd hus ba nd, I ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9510- CV- 00369 CARLTON LEW S, I ) ) BLEDSOE LAW Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s , ) ) HON. J . CURTI S SM TH, I v. ) J UDGE ) J ASON M PENDERGRASS a nd . ) R. EUGENE PENDERGRASS, ) REVERSED ) AND De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a n t s . ) REMANDED

HOWARD L. UPCHURCH, Pi ke vi l l e , f or Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s .

LYNNE D. SW AFFORD, SW AFFORD & SWAFFORD, Pi ke vi l l e , f or De f e n d a nt s - Appe l l a nt s .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

The de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l a s f r a me d by t h e

a p p e l l a nt s i s :

[ W t he r ] t he de f e nda nt s we r e de pr i ve d of a f a i r a nd he i mpa r t i a l j ur y be c a us e of J ur or Ra nki n’ s f a i l ur e t o r e s pond t r ut hf ul l y on v oi r di r a nd f ur t he r , be c a u s e J ur or Ra nki n a nd pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l bot h f a i l e d t o r e ve a l a r e c e nt a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p a nd a n upc omi ng t r i a l whe r e i n pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l woul d b e a c r uc i a l wi t ne s s on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n. I n t hi s a c t i on whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a j ur y ve r di c t f o r

t h e p l a i nt i f f s , de f e nda nt s ’ c ouns e l , whe n c onduc t i ng t he v oi r

d i r e , a s ke d of t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or s :

Ha ve a ny of you, l a di e s a nd ge nt l e me n, e ve r be e n r e pr e s e nt e d by M . Upc hur c h or hi s a s s oc i a t e , or r e mpl oye e , Eddi e Bor i ng?

Ha r r y Le e Ra nki n, a me mb e r of t he pa ne l , r e ma i ne d s i l e nt , a nd

s e r v e d a s a me mbe r o f t he t r i a l j ur y.

Thi s i s s ue wa s r a i s e d i n a mot i on f or a ne w t r i a l ,

a n d t he Tr i a l J udge s ubpoe na e d Ra nki n who t e s t i f i e d t ha t he

d i d n o t r e me mbe r t he a t t or ne y a s ki ng whe t he r pl a i nt i f f s ’

a t t o r n e y ha d e ve r r e pr e s e nt e d hi m. The Tr i a l J udge ove r r ul e d

t h e mo t i on a nd de f e nda nt s a ppe a l e d.

As we not e d i n Te nne s s e e Far me r s M ual I ns ur anc e ut

Co mp a n y v . Gr e e r , 682 S. W 2d 920 ( Te nn. App. 1984) , t he r e a r e .

t wo b r oa d c l a s s e s of c a u s e s f or t he c ha l l e nge of a j ur or :

Pr o p t e r d e f e c t um a nd pr opt e r af f e c t um. The l a t t e r c l a s s i s

g r o u n d s f or c ha l l e nge ba s e d on s ome bi a s or pa r t i a l i t y e i t h e r

a c t u a l l y s hown t o e xi s t or pr e s ume d t o e xi s t f r om

c i r c ums t a nc e s , a nd a s t he Gr e e r c our t obs e r ve d, t he

wi t h h o l di ng of i nf or ma t i on a mount s t o f a l s e s we a r i ng a nd

r a i s e s t he pr e s umpt i on of bi a s a nd pa r t i a l i t y. I d. 924.

Howe ve r , t he a ppe l l e e s c ount e r t ha t a me r e

p r e s u mpt i on i s c r e a t e d a nd t ha t t he r e c or d r e but s t he

p r e s u mpt i on. I t i s f ur t he r a r gue d t ha t t he r e l a t i ons hi p

b e t we e n t he j ur or a nd p l a i nt i f f s ’ a t t or ne y ?wa s a pa s t

r e l a t i ons hi p a nd not hi n g mor e . I t di d not r i s e t o t he l e ve l

o f b e i ng i nhe r e nt l y or pr e s umpt i ve pr e j udi c i a l . ? W c a nnot e

a gr e e .

Thi s a c t i on wa s t r i e d on Oc t obe r 6, 1994. On

2 De c e mbe r 3, 1993, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l f i l e d a n a ns we r a nd

c r o s s - c ompl a i nt on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n i n a n a c t i on br ou g h t

a g a i n s t Ra nki n i n Bl e ds oe Count y. Among t he i s s ue s i n t ha t

c a s e wa s whe t he r Ra nki n’ s a t t or ne y, Upc hur c h, ha d i mpr ope r l y

n o t a r i z e d t he gr a nt or s ’ s i gna t ur e s t o a de e d whe r e i n Ra nki n

wa s g r a nt e e . I n M y of 1994, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d b y a

d e p o s i t i on i n J ur or Ra nki n’ s l a ws ui t , a nd whi l e no or de r wa s

e n t e r e d, t h e a t t or ne y’ s a f f i da vi t s t a t e s t ha t on Apr i l 13,

1 9 9 4 , dur i ng di s c ove r y de pos i t i ons i n t he Cha nc e r y l i t i ga t i o n ,

?i t b e c a me a ppa r e nt t ha t I c oul d not f ur t he r r e pr e s e nt M . r

Ra n k i n i n t ha t c a s e . Soon t he r e a f t e r I wi t hdr e w f r om t he c a s e

. . . .?

Of f i c e r s o f t he Cour t a r e r e qui r e d t o ?r e ve a l

p r o mp t l y t o t he Cour t i mpr ope r c onduc t by a ve ni r e pe r s on or

j ur o r . . . ? Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t Rul e 8, Code of

Pr o f e s s i onal Re s pons i bi l i t y , DR7- 108( g) . I n t hi s a c t i on,

n e i t h e r t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or nor pl a i nt i f f s ’ a t t or ne y

r e v e a l e d t he i r a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p t o t he Cour t . Th e

M s s i s s i ppi Supr e me Cour t i n t he c a s e of M s hal l Dur bi n, i ar

I n c . , v . Te w, 381 S. 2d 152 ( MS. 1980) , i n de a l i ng wi t h a l i k e

i s s ue s a i d:

A l a wye r ’ s dut i e s a r e not c onf i ne d a l one t o s e r vi n g hi s c l i e nt s . He i s a n of f i c e r of t he c our t a nd a s s uc h i s c a l l e d on t o do a nd s a y wha t e ve r i s ne c e s s a r y t o pr omot e t he f a i r a dmi ni s t r a t i on of j us t i c e . M . Le wi s s houl d ha ve c a l l e d t o t he r c our t ’ s a nd oppos i ng c ouns e l ’ s a t t e nt i on, hi s r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h t he j ur or . . . . I n or de r t o a voi d a ny s ugge s t i on of i mpr opr i e t y, c ouns e l s houl d a l wa ys di s c l os e a nd br i ng t o t he a t t e nt i on of t he c our t a nd oppos i ng c ouns e l , t hi s t ype of r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h pr os pe c t i ve j ur or s . I d. a t 154 - 5 .

I n o r de r t o r e s ol ve t hi s i s s ue t he t ot a l i t y of t he

c i r c u ms t a nc e s , not t he j ur or ’ s s e l f - s e r vi ng c l a i m of l a c k of

3 p a r t i a l i t y a l one , i s t o be c ons i de r e d.

W do not be l i e ve t he pr e s umpt i on c r e a t e d by t he e

f a l s e s we a r i ng of t he j ur or wa s ove r c ome . Thi s j ur or ha d b e e n

r e p r e s e nt e d by pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l unt i l j us t a f e w mont hs

b e f o r e t hi s t r i a l , a nd ha d a n ongoi ng r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h

p l a i n t i f f s ’ c ouns e l i n t ha t pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l woul d be a

wi t n e s s on J ur or Ra nki n’ s be ha l f i n t he Cha nc e r y Cour t

p r o c e e di ng. Howe ve r , t h e r e i s a mor e c ompe l l i ng gr ound t o

g r a n t de f e nda nt s a n e w t r i a l . Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l , a s we l l a s

t h e p r os pe c t i ve j ur or , h a d a dut y t o r e ve a l t o t he Cour t a n d

a d v e r s a r y c ouns e l t hi s r e l a t i ons hi p. Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l

c o u l d ha ve a voi de d a l l of t hi s by di s c ha r gi ng hi s dut y t o t h e

Co u r t . M e ove r , t he a ppe a r a nc e a l one i s pr e j udi c i a l t o t he or

j ud i c i a l pr oc e s s . Se e Rul e 36, T. R. A. P. For t he f or e goi n g

r e a s o n s we r e ve r s e t he Tr i a l Cour t a nd r e ma nd f or a ne w t r i a l .

W pr e t e r mi t t he r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s a nd a s s e s s t he e

c os t o f t he a ppe a l t o a ppe l l e e s .

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Greer
682 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandra-k-lewis-and-husband-carlton-lewis-v-jason-m-tennctapp-1996.