Bates v. Bates, M2002-02037-COA-R3-CV.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. M2002-02037-COA-R3-CV.,M2002-02037-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | LORI ANN BATES v. JOSEPH LYNN BATES. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Andy L. Allman, Hendersonville, For appellant, Joseph Lynn Bates.
Thomas J. Drake, Jr., Nashville, For Appellee, Lori Ann Bates.
OPINION
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce, involving issues of appreciation involving Husband's property, award of attorney fees, and division of marital property and debt. Husband appeals. We affirm as modified herein and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary.
Joseph Lynn Bates ("Mr. Bates," or "Husband," or "Appellant") and Lori Ann Bates ("Ms. Bates," "Wife," or "Appellee") were married on April 26, 1997. Prior to their marriage, the couple had lived together for two years. Both parties had one child each from previous relationships. Both children lived with the couple. The day before the marriage, Husband purchased a house and adjoining lot at 2502 Distillery Road, Greenbrier, Tennessee (the "Distillery Road Property"). Husband paid $158,000.00 for the house and lot with a $43,000.00 down payment.
On May 18, 2000, Wife filed a "Complaint for Absolute Divorce," citing grounds of irreconcilable differences, cruel and inhuman treatment, and inappropriate marital conduct. The Complaint alleged that the parties owned marital property at 2502 Distillery Road, Greenbrier, Tennessee, and seeks, inter alia, an equitable division of marital property. On July 14, 2000, Husband filed an "Answer and Counter-Complaint." Husband's Answer alleged that Husband purchased the Distillery Road Property prior to the marriage and that the monies for the down payment from this property came totally from Husband's separate funds. Husband seeks a divorce on the same grounds alleged by Wife. Wife filed her "Answer to Counter-Complaint" on July 20, 2000.
A non-jury trial was held on May 16, 2002. On August 14, 2002, the trial court entered a Final Decree, which reads, in relevant part, as follows:
This cause came to be heard on the 16th day of May, 2002, before the Honorable Carol Ann Catalano, Chancellor of the Chancery Court for Robertson County, Tennessee, on the complaint for divorce filed by the Wife, answer and counter-complaint filed by the Husband, and on presentation of exhibits, testimony through witnesses and the record as a whole, and, on stipulation of the parties as to grounds, pursuant to T.C.A. 36-4-129, the Court finds it appropriate to make an equitable division of the marital estate and it is, therefore, ORDERED:
1. That the specific findings of the Court are related in the attached transcript of findings, Exhibit A, and are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
2. The parties are declared divorced pursuant to T.C.A. 36-4-129.
3. The Court finds that the property located at 2502 Distillery Road, Springfield, Tennessee, has an appreciation in value between 1997 and May, 2000, and is a part of the marital estate.
4. Because of the Wife's substantial contribution to the marriage between 1997 and 2000, the Wife is awarded two-thirds of the equity in the home.1
5. The Court has calculated the increase in the value of the home between the date of the marriage in 1997 and May, 2000 to be $33,125.00. The Court grants judgment in favor of Wife, Lori Ann Bates, two-thirds of that increase, or $22,082.00, against the Husband, Joseph Lynn Bates.
6. The Court does not find that the Wife, Lori Ann Bates, made any contribution to the business of Bates Landscaping and awards all right, title and interest in the business of Bates Landscaping to the Husband, Joseph Lynn Bates.
7. The Court further awards the 1997 Oldsmobile Achieva automobile to Wife, Lori Ann Bates, who will be responsible for paying the balance of any and all indebtedness owing on that vehicle.
***
9. The Court finds that the medical bills and credit card debt is marital debt in the amount of $3,804.04 and the Court grants judgment to Lori Ann Bates against Joseph Lynn Bates in the amount of $1,902.02, which sum represents one-half of that amount.
10. The Husband, Joseph Lynn Bates, is ordered to pay a reasonable attorney's fee to Thomas J. Drake, Jr. Attached is an affidavit of time and activity submitted by Thomas J. Drake, Jr. Attorney fees are awarded to Thomas J. Drake, Jr. in the amount of $3,410.00
Husband filed a Notice of Appeal on August 19, 2002. Husband raises the following issues for review as stated in his brief:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appreciation in the Distillery Road home and adjoining lot was $33,125.00.
2. Whether Wife was entitled to two thirds of the appreciation in the Distillery Road home and adjoining lot for her contribution as a homemaker for three years.
3. Whether Husband was entitled to a set off in the amount of $12,000.00 for his contribution to Wife's automobile.
4. Whether Husband should be required to pay one half of Wife's credit card debt in her name when she refused to provide copies of statements evidencing charges despite repeated requests.
5. Whether Husband has the ability to pay an award of attorney's fees.
Wife raises the following additional issues:
1. Whether the appreciation in the Distillery Road home should have been $48,000.00.
2. Whether the court erred in failing to award the Wife one-half interest in the business.
Since this case was tried by the court sitting without a jury, we review the case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact by the trial court. Unless the evidence preponderates against the findings, we must affirm, absent error of law. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). We now address Husband and Wife's issue concerning the appreciation of the marital home concurrently.
It is undisputed that Husband purchased the Distillery Road Property, which included the home and an adjoining lot, for $158,000.00. Husband purchased this property the day before the wedding and paid a $43,000.00 down payment from his separate funds. In calculating the amount of appreciation in the property over the course of the brief marriage, both parties hired experts to conduct separate appraisals. Wife hired Paula Satterfield to give expert opinion as to the value of the home and adjoining lot. Ms. Satterfield testified, based on her appraisal, that the home was worth $182,000.00 and the adjoining lot was worth $24,000 for a total of $206,000.00 as of May 2000, the time of separation. Husband hired Mike Beshear to conduct an appraisal of the property. Mr. Beshear testified that the value of the home was $155,000.00 as of March 2000. Mr. Beshear did not provide a separate appraisal for the vacant lot. At the close of all testimony, the trial court made the following relevant statements:
Therefore, the Court considers that Ms. Bates has an interest in the increase in value in the residence. Now what is the increase in value of the residence.
According to Ms. Satterfield, the residence and side lot—and the Court is considering these together. They were bought together. They were maintained together. They go hand in hand in the actual values of what is there as the marital residence...
Ms. Satterfield told us that—and she is a licensed real estate appraiser—that she made a full and complete appraisal of this property as opposed to a limited appraisal, that the average sale price in the county for property was two hundred thousand dollars. She didn't consider that there was a traffic pattern problem in the residence. She thought the whole structure was on concrete blocks including the addition. She made no adjustment for the property being in any FEMA flood area because she said there wasn't any real schedule for that and she didn't think the house was in jeopardy. After closely reviewing Ms. Satterfield's opinion of the value of the properties that she compared to this, the Court's opinion was that Ms. Satterfield had utilized the higher value comparables. Therefore, she determined that the marital residence in toto—and that's both lots—was a value of two hundred and six thousand dollars.... Since Mr. Bates paid a hundred and fifty-eight thousand for this property, that means that the increase in value according to Ms. Satterfield is forty-eight thousand dollars.
But that's not all the testimony as to the increase in value with this property. Mr. Beshear testified that in his opinion—and he, too, is a licensed real estate appraiser—the value of the property which contains the house alone is one hundred and fifty-five thousand, five hundred dollars. He said this property actually ranged in value from a minimum of sixty thousand dollars to a maximum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The Court examined his comparables and concluded that Mr. Beshear had used the lower range of value for comparables. Using the lower range that he used, including twenty-four thousand dollars for the value of the lot, Mr. Beshear would have this property valued at a hundred and seventy-nine thousand, five hundred dollars. The twenty-four thousand for the other land that goes with the house is from Ms. Satterfield.... But using those figures, the total value for Mr. Beshear would be a hundred and seventy-nine thousand, five hundred dollars. Since Mr. Bates paid a hundred and fifty-eight thousand, that would mean that the increase in value of this property is twenty-one thousand five hundred dollars.
Now, there's quite a difference between those two figures. There's either an increase in value of forty-eight thousand dollars or there's an increase in value of twenty-one...
To continue reading
Request your trial