In re Prichard

• Decision Date: 31 March 2023
• Docket Number: W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV
• Parties: JOE RILEY PRICHARD v. RHONDA KAY PRICHARD
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

JOE RILEY PRICHARD
v.
RHONDA KAY PRICHARD

No. W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

March 31, 2023

February 8, 2023 Session

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Dyer County No. 20-CV-394 Tony Childress, Chancellor

This appeal arises from a divorce case. The husband filed a petition for divorce, and the wife filed a counter-petition. The trial court entered a final decree of divorce dividing the marital estate and granting the divorce in the wife's favor on the grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct. The husband appeals. We affirm as modified.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed as Modified

Jason R. Creasy, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joe Riley Prichard.

Thomas E. Weakley, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellee, Rhonda Kay Prichard.

Carma Dennis McGee, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Arnold B. Goldin and Kenny W. Armstrong, JJ., joined.

OPINION

CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, JUDGE

I. Facts &Procedural History

Joe Riley Prichard ("Husband") and Rhonda Kay Prichard ("Wife") married in August 2006. They had one child during the marriage. Husband began working for Caterpillar at a young age, was employed there during most of the marriage, and had worked his way up to the position of supervisor. However, after the plant at Caterpillar shut down in 2019, he began working as an insurance salesman. He also acquired investment properties during the parties' marriage. Wife had a bachelor's degree in medical technology and worked in medical laboratories during most of the marriage. However, she was laid off from her job, and she transitioned into the education field

2

working as a teacher's assistant.

In September 2020, Husband filed a petition for divorce alleging the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wife filed a response and a counter-petition for divorce, in which she also alleged the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. She subsequently filed a motion to amend her counter-petition in order to include the additional ground of adultery, which the trial court granted.

The trial court ultimately held a trial in February 2022. At the beginning of trial, the parties agreed to the values of certain marital assets and how that marital property should be divided.^[1] As for Wife, the parties agreed that she would get the 2012 Cadillac SRX valued at $13,000. As for Husband, the parties agreed that he would get the 2011 Ford F150 valued at $11,000, the 1979 Chevrolet truck valued at $1,500, the 2015 KTM 450 dirt bike valued at $2,000, and the 2007 E-Z-Go golf cart valued at $1,000. They agreed that the stove and the refrigerator valued at $750 would go to whomever was awarded the marital residence. Additionally, they agreed that Husband would get the Jayco camper, but they did not agree as to its value. After trial, the trial court announced its findings of fact on limited issues and entered an order incorporating its oral ruling. Among other things, the court made findings regarding the classification and values of Husband's IRA, Wife's retirement account, and Wife's pension. The court valued each of these assets; however, it classified only certain percentages of the values as marital property because each of these assets was established for a period of time prior to the parties' marriage. The court also made findings regarding the marital residence and the values of the zero-turn lawn mower, the utility task vehicle, and the Jayco camper.^[2]

The trial court then announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues in dispute and entered an order incorporating its oral ruling. Among other things, the court found that Husband's testimony regarding his income and expenses was not credible. Additionally, the court found that Husband committed adultery and engaged in inappropriate marital conduct, and therefore it awarded Wife the divorce based on those grounds. The court also explained that there was a rebuttable presumption as to the marital

3

residence being marital property because it was purchased during the marriage. The court concluded that Husband failed to rebut the presumption so the marital residence was classified as marital property. The court then announced its valuations of the marital property, how the marital property would be divided, and how the marital debt would be allocated. After considering the statutory factors relevant to alimony, the court concluded that Wife was in need of alimony and that Husband had the ability to pay alimony. As a final matter, the court denied Wife's request to require Husband to pay her attorney's fees.

In May 2022, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce incorporating both of its prior orders that contained its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court granted Wife an absolute divorce on the grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct and named Wife as the primary residential parent of the parties' child. As for the division of marital property, the court's rulings are summarized as follows:

1. The court awarded Wife the marital residence along with the lot the marital residence was situated on

2. The court awarded Husband two rental properties, the Washington Street property and Frankie Drive property, along with the debts on each of those properties

3. The court awarded Wife 60% of the marital portion of Husband's IRA and awarded Husband 40% of the marital portion of Husband's IRA;

4. The court awarded Wife the money market account based upon the value set forth in its findings;

5. The court awarded Husband the Greystone storage units, along with the debt against them;

6. The court awarded Husband his personal checking account and awarded Wife her personal checking account and her pension; and

7. The court awarded Husband the Jayco camper, the zero-turn lawn mower, and the utility task vehicle.^[3]

In addition to these rulings, the court ordered Husband to pay transitional alimony, denied Wife's request for attorney's fees, and taxed the court costs equally to Husband and Wife. The court also entered a permanent parenting plan order. Thereafter, Husband timely filed an appeal.

Meanwhile, Husband filed a motion to alter or amend the final decree of divorce. In his motion, he argued that the marital residence should have been awarded to him. Furthermore, he noted that there was an error in the value of Husband's IRA because the trial court had stated the value of the IRA was $189,261 when the actual value was $389,261. Wife also filed a motion to amend the trial court's findings to address certain

4

issues. In July 2022, the trial court entered an order amending its findings and conclusions. The court granted Husband's request to amend its findings regarding the value of the IRA but denied his other requests. The court also denied Wife's requests to amend its findings regarding the issues she raised in her motion. However, the court noted that it was amending its findings and conclusions in an effort to put some of the issues in the best posture possible for an appellate review. Therefore, the court made additional findings regarding the shop building on the property of Husband's father, the 2020 tax return, the child's savings account, the value of the Greystone storage units, and the value of the marital residence.^[4]

II. Issues Presented Husband presents the following issues for review on appeal, which we have slightly restated:

1. Whether the trial court erred in its division of marital property; and

2. Whether the trial court erred in not giving Husband credit for his use of separate funds to purchase the marital residence that was titled in his individual name.

For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court as modified.

III. Standard of Review

We review the trial court's findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness and will honor those findings unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2007)); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) ("Unless otherwise required by statute, review of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise."). However, we review the trial court's conclusions of law with no presumption of correctness. Id. at 245-46 (citing Keyt, 244 S.W.3d at 327).

The division of the marital estate in divorce cases "necessarily begins with the classification of the parties' property as either marital or separate property."^[5] Green v. Green, No. W2019-01416-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 1343569, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2021) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163, 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); see Tenn.

5

Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b) (defining "separate property" and "marital property"). "The classification of particular property as either separate or marital is a question of fact to be determined in light of all relevant circumstances." Id. (quoting Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d at 245). The court's decision regarding classification is subject to its "sound discretion and will be given great weight on appeal." Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Dunlap v. Dunlap, 996 S.W.2d 803, 814, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

After classification of the parties' property, the trial court "should place a reasonable value on each piece of property subject to division." Green, 2021 WL 1343569, at *4 (quoting Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)). On the subject of valuation of the parties' property, we have explained as follows:

The

...