DAVID MARTIN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST OF CLAUDE S. JERNIGAN AND JO ANN JERNIGAN v. TREVOR D. HILL - Articles

All Content

DAVID MARTIN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST OF CLAUDE S. JERNIGAN AND JO ANN JERNIGAN v. TREVOR D. HILL

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Nov 4, 2025

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1: John P. Konvalinka, Lawson Konvalinka, Barry L. Abbott, Caleb J. Smith, and James Michael Holloway, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, Trevor Hill, The Hill, LLC, Forrest Hill, Knoxville, LLC, and Gale Hill.

Attorneys 2: Elizabeth M. Hill, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, David Martin, Trustee of the Joint Revocable Trust of Claude S. Jernigan & Jo Ann Jernigan.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

A grandmother made a series of loans to her grandson totaling $147,000 to help with his restaurant business. After personal attempts to collect on the loan failed, the grandmother filed a complaint for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. A default judgment against the grandson was granted in 2012, and the grandmother made several unsuccessful attempts to collect on the judgment. After the grandmother’s death, her trustee motioned for substitution as the judgment creditor and for an extension of the judgment, which was granted, and the trustee then began collection efforts, none of which were successful. Only after the trustee filed a charging order against the grandson and his businesses did the grandson respond to the suit, more than ten years after the original default judgment had been granted. The grandson filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the substitution and extension order, and when that was denied, he appealed to this court. While on appeal, the grandson motioned this court for a remand to the trial court to file a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the default judgment, which we granted. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default judgment, and the grandson appealed that decision to this court. Finding that the motion for substitution and extension was timely filed, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the grandson’s motion to set aside order of substitution and extension. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the default judgment is valid and binding and affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside default judgment.

Attachments: