Tennessee case abstract on divorce after 21 years married.
The husband and spouse on this Loudon County, Tennessee, case had been married in 1998 and had one little one, born in 2002. The husband owned a enterprise as a producing consultant, and the spouse was a stay-at-home guardian for a lot of the marriage. They owned three items of actual property collectively, and the husband inherited a fourth in the course of the marriage. In 2009, the husband signed a promissory notice on behalf of his firm to his dad and mom, and a stability of about $70,000 remained on the time of the divorce. This was secured by one of many items of marital actual property.
The husband filed for divorce in 2017, and the spouse filed a counter-petition. In 2019, the trial court docket, Choose Rex Alan Dale, granted the divorce and divided the property. The spouse was awarded two properties, and the husband was awarded the one securing the notice, with offsetting the quantity owing. The husband was ordered to pay $1000 per thirty days transitional alimony and $14,000 to cowl her legal professional’s charges. The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals.
The husband first argued that he was entitled to credit score for funds made on the promissory notice. He argued that he had contributed separate funds in making these funds. Nevertheless, the Courtroom of Appeals reviewed the report and concluded that the husband had didn’t current any proof in assist of his declare that he had used separate property. For that purpose, the court docket affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling on this problem.
The husband raised plenty of different points in his enchantment, however the Courtroom of Appeals identified that events are alleged to argue their points in a sure method of their briefs. Specifically, they’re alleged to cite their authorities and make references to the report. The husband as an alternative merely claimed, in Latin, res ipsa loquitur, which means that the factor speaks for itself. However the appeals court docket identified that the invocation of this phrase, which is a negligence doctrine, had no applicability within the case.
The husband additionally argued that the trial court docket shouldn’t have awarded legal professional’s charges, however as soon as once more, didn’t current the authorized argument or cite to the report. He argued merely that it was “really extreme,” which the court docket held was inadequate.
The husband additionally argued that among the properties awarded to the spouse had been his separate property, and never marital property. However the appeals court docket reviewed the proof and held that it supported the decrease court docket’s conclusion.
For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the decrease court docket’s judgment and remanded the case. It assessed the prices of the enchantment in opposition to the husband.
No. E2019-01168-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2020).
See unique opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.