Sometimes trial judges are slow to issue rulings on pending pretrial matters or judgments after a nonjury trial. Oftentimes, there is a good reason for this. The judge may have a particularly heavy docket. The judge may have personal illness or illness in a member of her family. If the judge is fortunate enough to have a law clerk, the law clerk may have a personal issue that affects his ability to help the judge, forcing the judge to do things otherwise delegated to the clerk, which diverts the judge from addressing other pending matters. The issues presented by the pending matter might be complex, requiring more of an effort by the judge. The order required on the motion may be require lots of writing. And so on.
But, technically, Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 20-9-506 requires that a judge issue a decision and have a judgment entered within sixty days of a nonjury trial:
When any judge of any district tries a case without the intervention of a jury, whether the judge is required to reduce the judge’s finding of facts to writing or not, the judge shall be required to render the judge’s decision and have judgment entered in the case within sixty (60) days from the completion of the trial.
And Supreme Court Rule 11, Section III(d) requires that the same 60-day deadline applies to any “motion, or other decision of the trial judge that delays the date of trial or final disposition in the trial court….” This rule was modified slightly by a court order entered on February 1, 2023 and now reads as follows:
d. Cases under advisement.
No case may be held under advisement in excess of sixty days and no motion, or other decision of the trial judge that delays the date of trial or final disposition in the trial court, shall be held under advisement for more than thirty days, absent the most compelling of reasons. (See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-9-506) A MOTION TO RENDER DECISION setting out the facts said to constitute a failure to comply with this rule may be filed with the presiding judge and the circuit justice, or either of them.
Note that the rule provides that a motion may be filed seeking a decision on the pending matter.
So, does the reasonably prudent trial lawyer file a motion 61 days after a hearing or trial demanding that the court issue a ruling? No. First, as stated above, there may be good reason for the delay. Second, absent irreparable harm to the client, there is no reason to risk irritating the trial judge who may well (and indeed probably does) have a good reason for the delay.
So what do you do when a decision has been pending for more than sixty days? Inquire of others in the Bar whether the judge is struggling with a heavy docket or some personal issue. Talk to opposing counsel to see what she has heard about the judge’s workload. Perhaps, after additional time passes, it would be appropriate to file a motion to ascertain the status of the pending matter, ideally a joint motion with your adversary, but be careful not to push too hard too early, especially if you are unsure what is going on it the judge’s personal or professional life. And be sure to take into account the complexity of the pending matter. Findings of fact and conclusions of law after a eight-day nonjury trial with 14 witnesses, two of whom are expert witnesses, take time to draft, even if counsel have filed proposed findings and conclusions.
Any one of us can get overloaded, despite best efforts.