Grubb v. Grubb
Decision Date | 09 June 2017 |
Docket Number | No. E2016-01851-COA-R3-CV,E2016-01851-COA-R3-CV |
Parties | RHONDA SUE GRIFFIS GRUBB v. JAMES WESLEY GRUBB |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County
Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor
This appeal arises from a divorce. Rhonda Sue Griffis Grubb ("Wife") filed for divorce against husband James Wesley Grubb ("Husband") in the Chancery Court for Roane County ("the Trial Court"). Trial in this matter was bifurcated. The validity of the parties' antenuptial agreement ("the Agreement") was tried first. The Trial Court found that the provision in the Agreement purporting to cap Wife's alimony was unenforceable but otherwise upheld the Agreement. Later, trial was conducted on the remaining issues in the case. Citing her adultery and a clause in the Agreement, the Trial Court declined to grant Wife alimony. However, the Trial Court awarded Wife a substantial portion of the marital estate. The Trial Court also ruled upon child support, parenting time, and education for the parties' two daughters. Husband appealed to this Court raising numerous issues. Wife raised additional issues of her own. We find and hold that Husband failed to carry his burden as to the validity of the Agreement. As to the second stage of this bifurcated matter, we find that the Trial Court's final judgment is devoid of factual findings to such a degree that we cannot effectively review the remaining issues in this case. We reverse as to the validity of the Agreement. We vacate and remand for further proceedings as necessary and for entry of a new final judgment containing detailed factual findings and conclusions of law as to the remaining issues.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed, in Part, and Vacated, in Part; Case Remanded
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S. and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., joined.
C. Scott Taylor and Margo J. Maxwell, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, James Wesley Grubb.
Browder G. Williams and Julianna L. Mason, Kingston, Tennessee, for the appellee, Rhonda Sue Griffis Grubb.
OPINIONBackground
Husband and Wife married in 2002. There was a significant gap in the parties' ages as well as their educational, employment, and business backgrounds. Wife was born in 1982. Husband is 22 years older than Wife. Wife earned her G.E.D. in 2000. Husband graduated from college in 1985. Husband worked in his rent-to-own business and sold furniture, electronics and appliances. Husband met Wife around 2000 when Husband took his clothes to the dry cleaners where Wife worked. Husband and Wife began a relationship. Wife soon thereafter moved in with Husband and stopped working at the dry cleaners. Husband provided for them both, and Wife soon became financially dependent on Husband. Husband proposed to Wife in 2001. Husband, who had been married once before, desired an antenuptial agreement with Wife.
In August 2002, Husband took Wife to his family lawyer to sign the Agreement. This was two days before the couple was to go on vacation and be married. The accounts of this meeting are in contention. Wife states that she did not fully understand what she was signing. Wife was informed that the Attorney, Chris Trew, was not her attorney and that she could get independent legal advice if she wished to do so, something she never did. Wife signed the Agreement, and the couple shortly thereafter left on their vacation as planned and got married.
The Agreement purported to safeguard Husband's business interests and contains the following relevant provisions:
Husband and Wife had two children, both daughters, over the course of their marriage. Wife served as homemaker while Husband continued working in his business. The daughters attended private school. Over time, problems developed in the marriage. Wife would testify to arguments the couple had over the upbringing of their daughters and that Husband was very distant from Wife. Wife filed for divorce in January 2015.
Trial in this case was bifurcated. First, at an October 2015 hearing, the issue of the validity of the Agreement was tried. Husband, Wife, and Howard Chris Trew ("Trew"), the attorney who drafted the Agreement, all testified.
Trew had drafted antenuptial agreements throughout the course of his 30-plus year legal career. Trew had known and worked with Husband's family for some time. In July 2002, Trew sent Husband a form version of an antenuptial agreement for him to review. Husband's accountant faxed Trew Husband's financial statement. Trew then prepared a draft agreement before finalizing the Agreement. The Agreement was executed at Trew's office on August 26, 2002. Husband made the appointment. Trew never before had met Wife. Trew met with Wife one-on-one for at least 30 minutes to go over the Agreement. Trew acknowledged Wife's youth and took this into account in how he discussed the Agreement with her. Trew testified: "I knew there was a disparity in wealth, obviously, and rather than -- he may have thought when he first wanted this that what's mine is mine and that's it, but I told him that he needed to provide some things for her, such as housing, and provide her with some alimony, depending on the length of the marriage." Trew stated that he believed the Agreement was fair to Wife. Regarding whether Wife knew she could seek her own counsel, Trew testified: Trew, when asked about Wife's demeanor at the meeting, testified: Trew stated that he went over the worth of Husband's assets with Wife. On cross-examination, Trew stated: "My job was to prepare a document that protected his interests, but to also prepare a document that I...
To continue reading
Request your trial