Willis v. Willis, 99-01537
| Decision Date | 03 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | 99-01537 |
| Parties | CLAUDE WILLIS v. LOLA MAE WRIGHT WILLISIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Benton County No. 9399
Ron E. Harmon, Chancellor
This appeal arises from a dispute between Plaintiff Claude Willis and Defendant Lola Mae (Wright) Willis regarding the terms of their divorce. The trial court granted an absolute divorce to Ms. Wright,1 divided the parties' marital property, allocated the parties' marital debt, and awarded Ms. Wright alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and attorney's fees. On appeal, Mr. Willis argues that the trial court's division of marital property and allocation of marital debt are inequitable, and that, assuming an award of alimony is appropriate in the case at bar, the court should have awarded Ms. Wright rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro. Additionally, Ms. Wright requests on appeal that her award of attorney's fees be designated as alimony. We affirm the ruling of the trial court; however, we modify the court's ruling to reflect that attorney's fees are awarded to Ms. Wright as alimony.
C. Timothy Crocker, Milan, Tennessee, for the appellant, Claude Willis.
Marsha W. Johns, Huntingdon, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lola Mae Wright Willis.
OPINION
The parties married in July of 1977 and separated in August or September of 1997. After their separation, the parties attempted to reconcile, but these attempts were ultimately unsuccessful. Throughout their marriage, the parties experienced financial difficulties that caused stress and strain in their relationship. The parties also experienced a great deal of conflict regarding Mr. Willis' relationship with Susan Kelley, one of Mr. Willis' neighbors. Ms. Wright once found Ms. Kelley's telephone number written on a piece of paper in Mr. Willis' truck. Additionally, when removing some furniture from the parties' home, Ms. Wright found a greeting card signed by Ms. Kelley that had lip prints on it. Finally, Ms. Wright once observed Mr. Willis entering Ms. Kelley's home without first knocking on the door. At trial, Mr. Willis recited Ms. Kelley's telephone number by memory and admitted that he had called her on several occasions. Mr. Willis repeatedly maintained, however, that he has never been unfaithful to Ms. Wright and that his relationship with Ms. Kelley is only a friendship.
In November of 1997, Mr. Willis filed a complaint for divorce alleging that Ms. Wright had engaged in inappropriate marital conduct and that there were irreconcilable differences between the parties. Ms. Wright then filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce admitting that irreconcilable differences had arisen between the parties, denying Mr. Willis' allegation of inappropriate marital conduct, and alleging that Mr. Willis had engaged in both cruel and inhuman treatment and inappropriate marital conduct. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted an absolute divorce to Ms. Wright on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, divided the parties' marital property, allocated the parties' marital debt, awarded Ms. Wright alimony in solido in the amount of $2,412.00, alimony in futuro in the amount of $700.00 per month, and attorney's fees in the amount of $4,356.25. Mr. Willis filed a motion to alter or amend the final decree and for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. This appeal by Mr. Willis followed.
The issues raised by the parties on appeal, as we perceive them, are as follows:
I.Did the trial court inequitably divide the parties' marital property?
II.Did the trial court inequitably allocate the parties' marital debt?
III.Did the trial court err in awarding alimony to Ms. Wright and further err in awarding Ms. Wright alimony in futuro rather than rehabilitative alimony?
IV.Did the trial court err in refusing to designate that the amount awarded to Ms. Wright for her attorney's fees is awarded as alimony?
To the extent that these issues involve questions of fact, our review of the trial court's ruling is de novo with a presumption of correctness. See T.R.A.P. 13(d). Accordingly, we may not reverse the court's factual findings unless they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Randolph v. Randolph, 937 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn. 1996); T.R.A.P. 13(d). With respect to the court's legal conclusions, however, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See, e.g., Bell ex rel. Snyder v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., 986 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tenn. 1999); T.R.A.P. 13(d).
In the case at bar, the trial court divided the parties' marital property as follows:
Marital Value Party to Whom Value Received Value Received
Property Property Awarded By Mr. Willis By Ms. Willis
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Marital Residence $12,000.00 equity proceeds from sale $6,000.00 $6,000.00
divided equally
Tanning Bed $1,500.00 proceeds from sale
divided equally $750.00 $750.00
Cattle Equipment $1,250.00 proceeds from sale
divided equally $625.00 $625.00
Backhoe $2,000.00 proceeds from sale
divided equally $1,000.00 $1,000.00
1998 Ford Ranger $0.00 (being leased) Mr. Willis $0.00 $0.00
1988 Buick Century $3,000.00 Ms. Wright $0.00 $3,000.00
Tractor and $2,600.00 proceeds from sale $1,300.00 $1,300.00
Equipment divided equally (Ms
Wright's of proceeds
awarded as alimony in
solido)
Cows $2,224.00 proceeds from sale
divided equally (Ms. $1,112.00 $1,112.00
Wright's of proceeds
awarded as alimony in
solido)
4-Wheeler $2,500.00 Mr. Willis $2,500.00 $0.00
Trencher $1,500.00 Mr. Willis $1,500.00 $0.00
Troybilt Riding
Mower $2,500.00 Ms. Wright (if found in
Mr. Willis' possession
or hidden by Mr. Willis) $0.00 $2,500.00
Household
Furnishings $10,183.00 both parties retain the
/Personal items currently in $5,089.00 $5,094.00
Property their possession
Missing Household proceeds from sale
Furnishings/ $5,795.00 divided equally $0.00 $0.00
Personal Property (if any or all of
items are found)
Mr. Willis'
Retirement
Accounts $6,050.00 to Mr. Willis
to Ms. Wright $3,025.00 $3,025.00
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Total Value of Marital Property Awarded to Mr. Willis: $22,901.00
When dividing marital property upon divorce, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in section 36-4-121 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.2 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c) (1996). These factors are as follows:
(1) The duration of the marriage;
(2) The age, physical and mental health, vocational skills, employability, earning capacity, estate, financial liabilities and financial needs of each of the parties;
(3) The tangible or intangible contribution by one (1) party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party;
(4) The relative ability of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income;
(5) The contribution of each party to the acquisition, preservation, appreciation or dissipation of the marital or separate property, including the contribution of a party to the marriage as homemaker, wage earner or parent, with the contribution of a party as homemaker or wage earner to be given the same weight if each party has fulfilled its role;
(6) The value of the separate property of each party;
(7) The estate of each party at the time of the marriage;
(8) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective;
(9) The tax consequences to each party; and
(10) Such other factors as are necessary to consider the equities between the parties.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c) (1996). Although the trial court's distribution of the parties' marital property must be equitable, the court is not required to divide the parties' marital property equally. See Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823, 832 (Tenn. 1996); Watters v. Watters, 959 S.W.2d 585, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Bookout v. Bookout, 954 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). The equity or inequity of a court's distribution of marital property is determined by examining the final result of the court's ruling rather than the...
To continue reading
Request your trial