What happens if the oral ruling on an issue is one thing at trial but is changed when the judge hands done the decision in writing? Which ruling controls – the oral ruling or the written ruling?
The recent case of In Re Emarie E., No. E2022-01015-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2023) says the law is as follows:
We begin with Appellants’ third issue, i.e., whether the trial court’s reconsideration of its oral ruling on grounds constitutes reversible error. “‘It is well-settled that a trial court speaks through its written orders—not through oral statements contained in the transcripts[.]’” Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 119 (Tenn. 2015) (quoting Anil Constr. Inc. v. McCollum, No. W2013-01447-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3928726, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2014) (citing Conservatorship of Alexander v. JB Ptnrs., 380 S.W.3d 772, 777 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011))) (footnote and additional citations omitted); In re Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tenn. 2001). Additionally, an oral ruling—even if considered a valid order—is an interlocutory order that is “subject to revision at any time prior to ‘entry of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.’” Frank Rudy Heirs Assocs. v. Sholodge, Inc., 967 S.W.2d 810, 813 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (quoting Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.). In short, “[a] judgment must be reduced to writing in order to be valid. It is inchoate, and has no force whatever, until it has been reduced to writing and entered on the minutes of the court, and is completely within the power of the judge . . . .” Broadway Motor Co. v. Pub. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Tenn. App. 278, 280, 1930 WL 1696, *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 1930), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 17, 1931). A trial court may reconsider the proof and the applicable law and “amend its judgment at any time before the judgment becomes final.” In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 112 (Tenn. 2013) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[w]e do not review the court’s oral statements, unless incorporated in a decree. . . .” Steppach v. Thomas, 346 S.W.3d 488, 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Shelby v. Shelby, 696 S.W.2d 360, 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)). Because the trial court’s oral ruling on grounds was subject to revision and of no force or effect until it was reduced to writing, the trial court’s reconsideration of its oral ruling on grounds was not error.
Id. at *6-7.
Thus, in the case at hand, it was of no consequence that the trial judge ruled one way on an issue and then reversed himself after hearing more proof several days later. He had the absolute right to do so.