Higdon v. Higdon
| Decision Date | 29 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. M2019-02281-COA-R3-CV,M2019-02281-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | BRIAN LEE HIGDON v. AEHUI NMI HIGDON |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County
This appeal arises from a divorce. Brian Lee Higdon ("Husband") filed for divorce from Aehui Higdon ("Wife") in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County ("the Trial Court"). The parties executed a marital dissolution agreement ("the MDA"). The Trial Court approved the MDA and entered a Final Decree of Divorce. Wife later filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 seeking to have the MDA and Final Decree of Divorce set aside on grounds of mistake of fact, fraud, and fundamental unfairness. After a hearing at which both Husband and Wife testified, the Trial Court denied Wife's motion. Wife appeals, arguing among other things that she was coerced into signing the MDA. Deferring to the Trial Court's implicit credibility determinations, we do not find that Wife was coerced into signing the MDA. Wife failed to meet her burden of clear and convincing evidence that there was mistake of fact, fraud, or fundamental unfairness in the execution of the MDA. In sum, we discern no abuse of discretion in the Trial Court's decision to deny Wife's Rule 60.02 motion. We affirm.
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W. MCCLARTY and KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ., joined.
Brock East and Benjamin Lewis, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Aehui Higdon.
C. Diane Crosier, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Brian Lee Higdon.
OPINIONHusband was serving in the United States Air Force and deployed to South Korea where he met Wife. Husband and Wife married in 1993. The parties have a daughter, Lauren, who is of majority age. During the marriage, Husband and Wife lived apart much of the time. Wife, who taught English to college students in South Korea, spent much of the marriage living in South Korea and not with Husband and their daughter. Wife periodically sent Husband large sums of money—upwards of $70,000 per year—for Husband and Lauren's support. After over twenty years of service, Husband retired from the Air Force and went to work for Nissan. Husband draws $1,800 a month for service-related disability and $3,616 a month in military retirement.
In March 2018, Husband sued Wife for divorce in the Trial Court. Husband was represented by counsel; Wife elected to proceed pro se. Husband's attorney drafted the MDA, which Husband and Wife executed. The MDA's property division made no provision for Wife to receive any of Husband's military pension. In May 2018, affidavits from Husband and Wife, a Final Decree of Divorce, and the MDA all were lodged with the Trial Court. In June 2018, the Trial Court entered the Final Decree of Divorce with the MDA attached.
In April 2019, Wife, then represented by counsel, filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 seeking to set aside the Final Decree of Divorce and the MDA. Wife asserted, among other things, that she "felt threatened by Husband and Husband was insistent on several issues: a. That [Husband's] attorney was representing both of the parties and the deal was fair and equitable; b. That the marital retirement through Husband's military service was not something that Wife was entitled to nor something that could be divided...." Wife also stated that she did not comprehend the terms of the MDA as English is her second language. Wife stated further that Husband failed to disclose assets and liabilities.
In May 2019, Husband filed a response to Wife's motion. Husband denied that he misled or coerced Wife into signing the MDA. With respect to disclosure, Husband stated: "Admitted that the values were not indicated on the Agreement; however, Plaintiff would state that he provided Defendant with a Statement of Assets and Liabilities indicating the values of the assets." Husband stated further:
In November 2019, the Trial Court heard Wife's Rule 60.02 motion. The bulk of the testimony received at this hearing came from Husband and Wife. Wife testified that, while she was living in South Korea, Husband mailed her a petition for divorce. Wife asked Husband by telephone what the documents meant. Husband responded that he was divorcing her. Ms. Crosier, Husband's attorney, sent Wife a letter stating in part: "I have been retained to represent Mr. Brian Higdon in the above-styled divorce action." Wife testified to receiving a letter from Ms. Crosier but stated
Wife testified that, in May 2018, she returned to the United States to attend Lauren's graduation from the University of Tennessee Knoxville. She stayed with Husband for the visit. According to Wife, upon her return, Husband threatened her into signing the MDA. Wife testified that she was not presented with an asset and liability disclosure at the time. Wife also testified that Husband told her she was not entitled to any of his military pension. In addition, Wife stated that Husband led her to believe Ms. Crosier represented both of them. Wife was asked about the circumstances leading up to her signing the MDA, as well as what eventually prompted her to call Ms. Crosier:
On cross-examination, Wife was asked if she read the divorce documents before signing them. Wife stated Wife stated that she thought Husband might kill her. Wife testified:
Husband took the stand. Husband stated that he and Lauren largely had been without Wife since late 2005. Husband acknowledged Wife's significant financial contributions to the marriage. Husband denied ever suggesting to Wife that Ms. Crosier represented both of them.
According to Husband's testimony, on a Sunday evening or Monday morning during Wife's visit for Lauren's graduation, Husband put the MDA and sworn asset and liabilities sheet on the kitchen table where Wife could access them. On Thursday, Husband and Wife executed the MDA. Asked if he threatened Wife, Husband stated he had not. Husband testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial