Jones v. Jones

Citation597 S.W.2d 886
PartiesLorraine JONES, Petitioner-Defendant, v. John R. JONES, Respondent-Plaintiff.
Decision Date23 April 1979
CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee

John T. Conners, Jr., Nashville, for petitioner-defendant.

James F. Neal, Jon D. Ross, Nashville, for respondent-plaintiff.

OPINION

ALLISON B. HUMPHREYS, Special Justice.

Doctor Jones and Ms. Jones sued each other for a divorce. The facts and circumstances of each party's complaint are fully set out in the Opinions of the Court of Appeals on file in that Court. After a full trial, both suits were dismissed on the ground that, as both parties had committed acts constituting grounds for divorce, neither party was entitled to the aid of the Court in the resolution of their marital difficulties.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, applying T.C.A. § 36-801, granted Dr. Jones a divorce on the grounds of Mrs. Jones' attempt to kill him and her subsequent conviction and sentencing for this felony. Mrs. Jones' suit was dismissed and the case was remanded for a division of jointly-owned property, presumably pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-825.

On remand, on the trial court's reconsideration of the record but without the parties being afforded an opportunity to be heard, an order was entered reading as follows ". . . that all of the property, both real, personal and mixed, be divided equally by and between the parties, and that in the event the parties are unable to work out a buy or sell agreement concerning such property that all of such property shall be sold within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order;"

Dr. Jones appealed from this order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals "interpreted and affirmed" the trial court's order in an opinion which awarded Mrs. Jones less property than she would have gotten under the trial court's order. She thereupon petitioned this Court for certiorari.

Certiorari was granted to consider whether or not the Court of Appeals intended to limit the application of T.C.A. § 36-825 1 to a division of property thereunder on the basis of the interests of the parties therein at law, excluding consideration of equitable interests such as might arise, given a state of facts which would establish such interests.

The problem grows out of this statement in the Court of Appeals' Opinion:

"The property to be affected by the order of the Trial Court is that property, and only that property in which, at the time of the divorce decree both parties were possessed of a legal interest, and includes both realty and personalty held as tenants by the entireties, tenants in common, or any other community of ownership recognized at law.

"The record does not sustain any award to either party contrary to or inconsistent with their legal interests so held.

"Property owned by either party as his or her sole and separate property, including partial interests held jointly or in common with non-parties shall not be affected by the order of the Trial Judge, and shall continue to be the property of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Cohen v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 16 September 1996
    ...of its record title, but on the conduct of the parties." Mondelli v. Howard, 780 S.W.2d 769, 774 (Tenn.App.1989) (citing Jones v. Jones, 597 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Tenn.1979) & Langford v. Langford, 220 Tenn. 600, 421 S.W.2d 632, 634 ...
  • Altman v. Altman
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 7 April 2005
    ...consider all the parties' legal and equitable interests in property when they are called upon to divide the marital estate. Jones v. Jones, 597 S.W.2d 886 (Tenn.1979). Both the marital dissolution agreement and the quitclaim deed are transparent attempts by Mr. Altman to keep the parties' m......
  • In re Hohenberg, Bankruptcy No. 91-20777-B (mjn)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • 10 July 1992
    .... . ." and concludes that the equitable interest of revestment may be just such an equitable marital property interest. Jones v. Jones, 597 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Tenn.1979).8 The debtor therefore possessed an after-acquired interest to have all of his property revest in him, except as otherwise ......
  • Mondelli v. Howard
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 29 September 1989
    ...final analysis, the status of property depends not on the state of its record title, but on the conduct of the parties. Jones v. Jones, 597 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Tenn.1979); Langford v. Langford, 220 Tenn. 600, 604, 421 S.W.2d 632, 634 The parties used Mrs. Howard's separate funds as well as the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT