Dishon v. Dishon
| Decision Date | 20 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. M2017-01378-COA-R3-CV,M2017-01378-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | BRENT CHRISTOPHER DISHON v. LISA RENEE DISHON |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Coffee County
This appeal arose from a divorce action filed by the husband. The parties entered into a mediation agreement in December 2014, wherein the parties agreed, inter alia, that the husband would pay to the wife $1,200 per month in alimony, that the husband's alimony obligation would cease if the wife were cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex, and that the wife would be designated as the primary residential parent for the parties' minor child. Following execution of the mediation agreement, the husband's employment hours were decreased by his employer. The wife subsequently filed a "Motion to Restore Payment Agreement," in which she alleged that the husband had failed to adhere to his financial responsibilities pursuant to the mediation agreement. The husband thereafter filed a response to the wife's motion, alleging that a material change in circumstance had occurred subsequent to the mediation agreement. The trial court entered a judgment on February 25, 2016, enforcing the mediation agreement but determining, due to the husband's decrease in income, that a material change in circumstance had occurred since the mediation agreement was entered into by the parties. The trial court further found that the wife had been cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex. Nonetheless, the trial court determined that the wife remained the economically disadvantaged spouse following the divorce and reduced the husband's alimony responsibility to $500 per month. The trial court further determined that it was in the best interest of the child for the wife to be the primary residential parent of the child. The husband subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend the trial court's judgment and a motion to terminate his alimony obligation, both of which were denied by the trial court. Husband timely appealed. Having determined that the trial court erred by failing to cease Husband's alimony responsibility, in compliance with the enforced mediation agreement, upon its finding that the wife was cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex, we reverse the alimony award. We affirm the remaining aspects of the trial court's judgment. Because the husband's payment history regarding alimony is unclear from the record, we hereby remand for a determination by the trial court regarding whether Husband owes Wife alimony incurred prior to February 25, 2016, or whether Husband is owed reimbursement of alimony paid past February 25, 2016.
Randall W. Morrison, Tullahoma, Tennessee, for the appellant, Brent Christopher Dishon.
Lisa Renee Dishon, Tullahoma, Tennessee, Pro Se.
OPINIONThe parties were married on August 18, 2003, and they had one child together, G.D. ("the Child"), who was eleven years old at the time of trial in January 2016. On September 22, 2014, the plaintiff, Brent Christopher Dishon ("Husband"), filed a complaint seeking a divorce from the defendant, Lisa Renee Dishon ("Wife"). The record reflects that the parties had attended mediation in December 2014 and reached an agreement. The mediation agreement, in its entirety, provided as follows:
Both parties and their respective counsel signed the mediation agreement.
The trial court entered an order on July 2, 2015, granting a divorce on stipulated grounds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-129 (2017). All issues regarding spousal support, custody, child support, and division of marital property were reserved for further hearing. On August 13, 2015, Wife filed a motion, seeking to enforce the mediation agreement and alleging that Husband had not complied with the mediation agreement and had "intentionally suspended all obligations he was paying on except the mortgage." Husband filed a response to Wife's motion on August 14, 2015, requesting that the mediation agreement not be enforced because a material change in circumstance had developed since the parties entered into the agreement, which had rendered his performance of the contractual obligations "impossible."
The trial court conducted a hearing on January 29, 2016. During the hearing, Husband testified that he had left items at the marital home that were awarded to him, including several tools, pieces of equipment, and a vintage pickup truck. Husband presented a list of those items of property to be admitted into evidence. Husband further testified that the mediation agreement was impossible to perform because he was aware of some property disposed of by Wife during the pendency of the divorce action. Specifically, Husband alleged that Wife had disposed of welding equipment and a welding tank, which he valued at approximately $2,000 combined. Husband further testified that Wife had been cohabitating with her boyfriend, T.P., averring that she was allowing T.P. to stay at her home, she was staying at his home, and she and T.P. hadtraveled out of town together overnight. Husband also claimed that he had experienced a decrease in his income and that he could no longer afford the alimony obligation to which he had agreed in the mediation agreement. According to Husband, his hours at work had been reduced by his employer because "of a contract loss at his place of employment." Husband submitted that the permanent parenting plan was no longer in the Child's best interest because the Child had been left alone while in Wife's care without food or supervision. Husband further related that the Child had been having difficulty arriving at school on time because of Wife's "failure to either get her child up on time or make arrangements for him to be taken to school . . . ." Furthermore, he averred that it was in the Child's best interest that he be designated the Child's primary residential parent.
Following the January 29, 2016 hearing, the trial court entered an order on February 25, 2016, enforcing the mediation agreement between the parties. The trial court determined, however, that "a significant and substantial change of circumstance" had occurred since the parties' execution of the mediation agreement, specifically finding that a modification of alimony was warranted because Husband's income had decreased substantially and Wife was cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex. Determining that Wife nonetheless remained economically disadvantaged and in need of rehabilitation, the trial court reduced Husband's spousal support payment to $500 monthly as rehabilitative alimony for a period of twenty-four months and ordered that Husband was relieved of paying for Wife's household expenses. The trial court also divided the marital assets, allocated the marital debts, and approved a permanent parenting plan regarding the Child, determining the parenting plan to be in the best interest of the Child. Additionally, the trial court awarded to Wife half of her attorney's fees. The trial court further determined that $350 would be subtracted from Wife's award of attorney's fees, representing the value of equipment that Wife had sold during the pendency of the proceedings. The trial court did not make a determination regarding the precise amount of attorney's fees awarded to Wife because the amount could not be ascertained at the time of trial.
Following entry of the trial court's February 25, 2016 order, Husband filed a "Motion to Alter and Amend Supplemental Order" on March 21, 2016. In his motion, Husband emphasized that the parties' mediation agreement was determined to be valid and enforceable by the trial court and that the parties "should be bound by the terms and conditions of said Mediation Agreement." Husband further highlighted the parties' agreement that Husband's alimony obligation would cease upon Wife's cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex. Additionally, Husband averred that Wife should have to reimburse him more than the $350 ordered by the trial court for the value of the equipment sold by Wife while the divorce proceeding was pending. Wife subsequently filed a response, contending that the trial court should not alter or amend its judgment.
The parties subsequently agreed to schedule the matter for hearing on May 16, 2016. Prior to that hearing, Husband filed a "Petition for Contempt/Replevin" on May 9, 2016, alleging, inter alia, that Wife had removed his property from the marital home, including tools, "the built-in cook stove and the built-in refrigerator" and that Wife had taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial