Sykes v. Sykes

Citation647 S.W.3d 596
Decision Date25 October 2021
Docket NumberM2020-00261-COA-R3-CV
Parties Elizabeth Anne SYKES v. Chad Steven SYKES
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee

Benjamin Lewis, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chad Steven Sykes.

Jacob T. Thorington, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Elizabeth Anne Sykes.

Arnold B. Goldin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which J. Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., and Carma Dennis McGee, J., joined.

Arnold B. Goldin, J.

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding filed by Wife in Tennessee. Husband objected to the trial court's divorce jurisdiction and any custody determination concerning the parties’ minor children. Ultimately, the trial court found that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce, as well as any custody determinations. In connection with granting the parties a divorce, the trial court awarded Wife an equalizing distribution of the marital assets and attorney's fees. The trial court also found Husband to be in contempt due to his alleged violation of the statutory restraining order set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-106(d) and his failure to return one of the parties’ minor children to Wife's custody following summer visitation. Husband now appeals numerous aspects of the trial court's findings. Upon our review of the record before us, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Chad Sykes ("Husband") and Elizabeth Sykes ("Wife") were married in 2014 in Williamson County, Tennessee. Shortly after their marriage, the parties relocated to Missouri where they purchased a home and had two children. In May of 2018, after Husband became unemployed, the parties returned to Williamson County to live with Wife's parents.1

Wife filed for divorce on August 23, 2018, and Husband was personally served with a summons and copy of the complaint in Williamson County on the same date. As part of her divorce complaint, Wife alleged irreconcilable differences and, in the alternative, inappropriate marital conduct and that "the complaints she has against Husband occurred in Tennessee since the parties relocated to the state in May, 2018, up to and including that Husband separated from Wife in August, 2018." Specifically, Wife alleged that Husband was overly controlling of her to the extent that he argued with her over her choice of and cost of her attire, hid food from her, and was controlling of the parties’ finances. Wife also requested that the trial court approve her parenting plan and name her the primary residential parent, award Husband "reasonable parenting time," and require that he pay child support. Attached to Wife's complaint for divorce was a form order purporting to be a statutory restraining order in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-106(d) but which did not accurately follow in all respects the language of the statute.2 In response to Wife's filing, Husband filed a motion to dismiss the divorce complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, Husband contended that, at the time of her filing, Wife had not been a Tennessee resident for at least six months and that, because the acts complained of in Wife's complaint did not occur in Tennessee, there was no basis for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction.

Husband also argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over custody issues regarding the parties’ minor children because Tennessee was not the home state of the children.3

A hearing on Husband's motion to dismiss was initially held on September 27, 2018, but it was continued to October 26, 2018, to allow the parties to submit supporting affidavits. Wife submitted various affidavits from herself and her parents, as well as documentation, evidencing the parties’ move to Tennessee. After the hearing on Husband's motion resumed, the court issued its findings in a detailed and thorough order dated November 15, 2018. Therein, the trial court found jurisdiction to be proper over the parties’ divorce, as well as over matters involving custody of the parties’ minor children. Notably, the trial court found Husband's testimony to be inconsistent and not credible concerning his contention that "he never subjectively intended to change his domicile to Tennessee." Indeed, the trial court stated in its findings that it "place[d] very little weight on Husband's testimony and [did] not credit his testimony over the countervailing evidence offered by Wife's various Affidavits filed in connection with the hearing on the pending Motion."

Following the trial court's order on Husband's motion to dismiss, Husband filed an answer to the complaint. On April 3, 2019, Wife filed a motion for temporary support and for a temporary parenting plan, to which she attached a statement of income and expenses, a child support worksheet, and a proposed parenting plan. During the pendency of the divorce, when Husband was still represented by legal counsel, the trial court entered various agreed orders concerning holiday travel arrangements for the parties’ children.

By an order entered on May 1, 2019, the trial court permitted Husband's counsel to withdraw. Husband proceeded pro se for the remainder of the divorce proceedings. After his counsel's withdrawal, the parties reached an oral agreement for Husband to have his older son with him in Missouri for the entire summer and, according to Wife, to return the child in August prior to the start of school in Williamson County. During this time, the parties also participated in mediation, which was unsuccessful. Wife subsequently filed a motion to set the case for trial, which was scheduled to be heard on August 22, 2019.

On August 15, 2019, Wife filed an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order to enjoin Husband from enrolling the older child in school in Missouri, as well as a motion requiring Husband to return the child to Tennessee. In her filing, Wife stated that Husband had communicated to her that he did not intend to return the child to Tennessee and that he was instead going to enroll him in school in Missouri. In an order entered August 16, 2019, the trial court granted Wife's ex parte temporary restraining order and ordered Husband to appear in court with the child for a hearing on August 22, 2019.

A hearing was held on August 22, 2019. Husband was present for the hearing, but the minor child was not. Husband told the trial court that he had no knowledge of its August 16th order. Ultimately, the trial court found that Husband did in fact receive service of the trial court's order on August 16, 2019, via email, which required him to appear before the court with the child in Tennessee. It also found that Husband willfully violated the statutory restraining order set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-106(d). Due to Husband's failure to appear before the trial court with the child and his purported violation of the statutory restraining order, the trial court found him to be in civil contempt. As a result, the trial court ordered Husband to be incarcerated until the child was returned to Williamson County and "presented to the Magistrate at the Sheriff's Office." Upon return of the child to Wife, the trial court held that Husband's contempt would be purged.

The divorce case was tried by the court, and in a subsequent preliminary order following the trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced and provided a detailed and thorough analysis on its findings to date. It also adopted Wife's parenting plan and ordered Husband to pay Wife child support. Further, it awarded Wife a judgment in the amount of $12,479.00, representing child support arrearage of $2,535.00 and attorney's fees. Thereafter, the trial court entered its "Memorandum and Order." In this order, the trial court incorporated its findings of fact and conclusions from its prior preliminary order and further awarded Wife an equalizing distribution of the marital estate. Husband thereafter filed a notice of appeal.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Husband raises six separate issues on appeal for our review, which are slightly restated as follows:

1. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the Williamson County Chancery Court had jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce.
2. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the Williamson County Chancery Court had jurisdiction over the child custody determination of the parties’ minor children.
3. Whether the trial court erred in finding Husband in contempt for violation of the statutory restraining order and the trial court's August 16, 2019 order.
4. Whether the trial court erred in making its equitable distribution of marital assets and debts.
5. Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Wife as alimony in solido without applying the factors relevant to an award of alimony, including, but not limited to, Husband's ability to pay.
6. Whether the trial court erred in failing to provide Husband an opportunity to question or challenge the attorney's fees of Wife's counsel.

In turn, Wife raises only a single additional issue on appeal, restated as follows:

1. Whether Wife is entitled to her attorney's fees on appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a trial court's findings of fact, the appropriate standard of review is de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) ; Robertson v. Robertson , 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2002). A trial court's conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Ramsay v. Custer , 387 S.W.3d 566, 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (citing State ex rel. Pope v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. , 145 S.W.3d 529, 533 (Tenn. 2004) ).

DISCUSSION
Whether the Trial Court Had Jurisdiction Over the Parties’ Divorce

Husband's first issue on appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce. Specifically, he contends that it is Missouri, rather than...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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