Judgment on the Pleadings, Motion for

Swingholm v. The Farm at Clovercroft Homeowners Assoc. Inc., No. M2022-01633-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023). 

The grant or denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo by an appellate court. Lawson v. Hawkins Cnty., 661 S.W.3d 54, 58 (Tenn. 2023). “[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings is in effect a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” King v Betts, 354 S.W.3d 691, 709 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted). When this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we must accept as true “all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom” alleged by the parties opposing the motion. Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Tenn. 2004); McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tenn. 1991). “A judgment on the pleadings for a defendant should be affirmed when the plaintiff ‘can prove no set of facts’ in support of a claim entitling her to relief.” Lawson, 661 S.W.3d at 58–59 (quoting Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. App. 2003)).

Taylor v. Ionogen, LLC, No. E2022-01146-COA-R3-CV, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2023). 

This Court has previously explained the standard of review for an order addressing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03:

When reviewing orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 motion, we use the same standard of review we use to review orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Accordingly, we must review the trial court’s decision de novo without a presumption of correctness, Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997), and we must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the non-moving party and take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true. We should upholdgranting the motion only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that will entitle him or her to relief.

Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Whether the trial court erred by granting a motion for dismissal on the basis of mootness is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. State ex rel. DeSelm v. Jordan, 296 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).

McCaughelty v. Sherrod, No. M2020-00403-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 13, 2023). 

This Court reviews orders granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard of review employed to review orders granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). Consequently, we review the trial court’s decision de novo without a presumption of correctness and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the nonmovant, taking her factual allegations as true. Id. at 63 (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)). In addition, we are constrained to uphold the granting of the motion “only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that will entitle him or her to relief.” Id. at 63.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is provided for by Rule 12.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part, that Rule provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03. . . . In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “we must accept as true ‘all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom’ alleged by the party opposing the motion.” Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tenn. 1991)). Importantly, conclusions of law are not admitted. Id. (citation omitted). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted “unless the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.” McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tenn. 1991) (citation omitted). Because the trial court’s determination on a Rule 12.03 motion is a question of law, we review the trial court’s actions de novo, with no presumption of correctness. See Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000).

Ave. Bank v. Guarantee Ins. Co., No. M2014-02061-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 5838309, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2015).