Brown v. Brown, W2013-00263-COA-R3-CV
| Decision Date | 12 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. W2013-00263-COA-R3-CV,W2013-00263-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | JEFFREY MATTHEW BROWN v. JENNIFER LINDSEY (WILLIAMS) BROWN |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Direct Appeal from the General Sessions Court for Hardin County
Husband filed a petition pursuant to Rule 60.02 to set aside a provision of the parties' divorce decree that required him to pay $80,000 to Wife in accordance with an antenuptial agreement. He sought relief under Rule 60.02(2) for fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. The trial court denied Husband's petition and "confirmed" the divorce decree. We find that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and as a result, it did not properly exercise its discretion. We also find that Wife's conduct constituted misrepresentation or other misconduct within the meaning of Rule 60.02(2). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying Husband's Rule 60 petition and we vacate the challenged portion of the divorce decree.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the General Sessions Court
Reversed in Part, Vacated in Part and Remanded
Dennis W. Plunk, Savannah, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jeffrey Matthew Brown
Mary Jo Middlebrooks, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jennifer Lindsey (Williams) Brown
Jeffrey Matthew Brown ("Husband") and Jennifer Lindsey Brown ("Wife") were married in July 2004. Prior to their marriage, Husband and Wife executed an antenuptial agreement, with the independent advice of their respective attorneys. In April 2008, the parties separated, and Husband filed a complaint for divorce in May 2008. His complaint referred to the parties' antenuptial agreement and asked that it be "applied and enforced by the Court in this divorce proceeding," as "[s]aid Antenuptial Agreement specifically provides for the disposition and settlement of properties by and between the parties and also contains provisions for the marital support for [Wife] upon dissolution of the marriage." Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce, in which she admitted that the parties had entered into the antenuptial agreement.
The parties' antenuptial agreement contained a provision entitled, "Alimony and Maintenance," which provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The parties and their attorneys met on February 18, 2009, and they executed a marital dissolution agreement that contained the following provision:
PAYMENT PURSUANT TO ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT. The parties acknowledge that they entered into prior to their marriage an Antenuptial Agreement dated July 23, 2004, and each agree to be bound by the terms and provisions thereof. Paragraph (11)(a)(5) provides that if the parties are married more than four (4) but less than five (5) years prior to their divorce, the Wife shall receive from Husband the sum of $80,000.00. In accordance with that provision, Husband does hereby agree to pay to Wife the sum of $40,000.00 upon execution of this Marital Dissolution Agreement and agrees to pay the balance thereof, being $40,000.00, no later than six (6) months from the date of execution of this Marital Dissolution Agreement. . . .
A final decree of divorce was entered the following day, on February 19, 2009. The divorce decree stated that the MDA was "hereby incorporated and merged in the Order." Husband paid Wife $40,000 in February 2009 and $40,000 in August 2009.
Approximately six and a half months after the divorce decree was entered, Wife gave birth to a child, on or about September 9, 2009. This alerted Husband to the fact that Wife must have had a sexual affair while they were still married. On January 7, 2010, Husband filed a petition for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, asking the court to vacate the provision of the MDA requiring him to pay $80,000 to Wife, and to order Wife to return the $80,000 sum to Husband. Husband argued that, due to Wife's sexual affair during the marriage, he did not owe the $80,000 sum to Wife pursuant to Paragraph 11.b. of the antenuptial agreement. Husband alleged that when he and Wife entered into the MDA in February 2009, Wife failed to disclose that she had committed adultery and had a sexual affair during the marriage and was, in fact, pregnant at the time of the execution of the MDA. He claimed that "[Wife] knew that [Husband] did not owe her $80,000.00 under the terms of said Antenuptial Agreement but, through [Wife's] non-disclosure and concealment leaving [Husband] ignorant of the [Wife's] sexual affair or adultery during the marriage, [Wife] unjustifiably induced [Husband] to agree to pay the $80,000.00 by the terms of said Marital Dissolution Agreement." Husband pointed out that, in the MDA, both parties specifically agreed to be bound by the terms and provisions of the antenuptial agreement. He claimed that he paid the $80,000 sum to Wife in good faith in accordance with the antenuptial agreement, and that Wife violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to disclose that she was not contractually entitled to the money. He claimed that Wife had a duty to disclose the pertinent facts because of the confidential relationship that exists between married persons. In sum, he argued that Wife fraudulently entered into the MDA by fraudulently concealing her affair and pregnancy from him, andtherefore, relief was appropriate pursuant to Rule 60.02(2).
In response to discovery, Wife admitted that she did in fact have a sexual affair and conceive a child with another man while she was married to Husband. She identified the date of the affair as December 15 or 16, 2008, some two months before the MDA was executed on February 18, 2009. She admitted that she did not inform Husband about the affair and that he did not have knowledge of the affair.
While Husband's Rule 60 motion was pending, the parties' attorneys apparently concluded that because the facts were undisputed, they would file cross-motions for summary judgment. Husband filed a motion for summary judgment with regard to his entitlement to Rule 60 relief, stating the issue as follows: "The central issue posed by [Husband's] Motion for Summary Judgment is whether or not [Wife's] concealment and silence about her sexual affair and adultery committed during the parties' marriage constitutes fraud for purposes of the Court granting [Husband] relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure."
Wife filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment.1 She argued that Husband was attempting to enforce a provision of the antenuptial agreement that was no longer enforceable because the antenuptial agreement had merged into the MDA, and the MDA had merged into the order of the court.
The trial court entered an order denying both parties' motions for summary judgment. The order stated:
These parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement which was approved by the Court and which was presumably drafted and reached with the assistance of counsel, both parties having been represented at the time. Any matters in controversy were merged into that agreement and were approved by the Court. That order is final.
Based upon this finding, the trial court "confirmed" the February 19, 2009 divorce decree. The trial court later entered an amended order, clarifying that its previous order "effectively disposed of" Husband's petition for Rule 60 relief and was a final order that resolved all pending claims between the parties. Husband timely filed a notice of appeal.
Husband presents five separate issues for review on appeal, which we have slightly restated:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable when the parties expressly agreed to be bound by its terms in their MDA;
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that any matters in controversy were merged into the MDA and divorce decree;
3. Whether the trial court erred in failing to find that the parties were subject to a duty of good faith and fair dealing in performing and complying with the terms of the antenuptial agreement;
4. Whether the trial court erred in failing to find that Wife's nondisclosure of her affair constituted fraudulent concealment; and
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying Husband post-judgment relief by failing to order Wife to repay the $80,000 sum to which she was not contractually entitled pursuant to the antenuptial agreement.
Wife naturally contends that the trial court's ruling was correct, and she seeks...
To continue reading
Request your trial