March 2009
MemphisDivorce.com e-newsletter
The MemphisDivorce.com e-Newsletter is a service provided by Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC to clients, friends, and persons requesting family law updates through e-mail from: www.MemphisDivorce.com. with offices in Shelby County and Memphis, Tennessee we serve Middle and West TN and Eastern Arkansas.
MemphisDivorce.com / / Meet the Team / / Areas we Serve
Family Law Case Histories of Note
Sarah Dale Pruitt v. Michael A. Pruitt - M2007-01896-COA-R3-CV View
Davidson County - Husband appealed the finding that he was in willful contempt of the Final Decree of Divorce and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which were entered at the time of the parties’ divorce in 1997, pursuant to which, inter alia, Wife was to be designated as the surviving spouse for purposes of Husband’s annuity. In October of 2004, Husband took early retirement, after which the 1997 QDRO was presented to the pension plan administrator for the administrator’s acceptance. The administrator rejected the QDRO because it was not in compliance with the plan’s internal guidelines. In 2006, the parties agreed to an amended QDRO that materially and substantively changed the division of marital property in the Final Decree and submitted it to the plan administrator. The administrator rejected the amended QDRO because it too was not in compliance with the plan’s internal guidelines. Thereafter, it was discovered that Husband had irrevocably waived the surviving spouse option when he took early retirement. Believing Husband had willfully violated the Final Decree of Divorce and QDRO, Wife filed this contempt action. The trial court found Husband in contempt because he willfully failed to designate Wife as the survivor beneficiary. The Court of Appeals determined that the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties flow from the Final Decree of Divorce and the initial QDRO, which was contemporaneously entered with the Final Decree in January 1997. The Appellate Court also determined that Husband violated the court’s order; however, found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Husband’s failure to designate Wife as the survivor beneficiary was willful.
Sandra L. Hill v. James R. Hill - M2007-00049-COA-R3-CV View
Williamson County - This case involved the dissolution of a twenty-five year marriage that produced nine children. The trial court granted the wife a divorce on the basis of the husband’s fault, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife alimony in futuro. The court also found the husband guilty of criminal contempt for failing to timely deposit $85,000 with the clerk and master in accordance with an agreed order. The husband argued on appeal that the trial court’s property division was inequitable, that the trial court erroneously considered fault as a basis for the property division, that the alimony award was excessive, and that the contempt conviction violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals vacated the contempt conviction. In all other respects, the Appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial court.
Michael Skinner v. Karen Thomas - M2007-01583-COA-R3-CV View
Williamson County - This is a post-divorce case where Father petitioned for modification of the child custody order based on alleged material change in circumstances. The Williamson County Circuit Court partially granted the petition finding a material change in circumstances, but that a change in custody from Mother to Father was in the best interest of only one of the children, leaving custody of the other child with Mother. Both Father and Mother assert error by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reverse in part and remand this case for further proceedings.
In the Matter of: The Estate of Allen Crawford Roberts, Deceased; William B. Simmons, Executor, et al. v. Esther May Roberts - W2007-01903-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - In this appeal, the Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether the probate court erred when it granted Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict. The probate court found that Appellants, in their proof in chief, did not satisfactorily make out a prima facie case of the Antenuptial Agreement’s validity under the statutes and appellate opinions of Tennessee as Appellants failed to establish that there was a satisfactory disclosure of Mr. Roberts’ assets. On appeal, Appellants contended that the motion for a directed verdict was improperly granted as reasonable minds could conclude that the Antenuptial Agreement was presented to, read, and understood by Appellee at execution and that the Antenuptial Agreement constituted a full and fair disclosure as required by Tennessee law. Although Appellants have urged an incorrect standard of review, the Appellate Court found, after a de novo review of the evidence, that Appellants made out a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the probate court for further proceedings.
Annette Cecilia Blakes v. Nicholas J. Sims - W2007-02129-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - In this appeal, the Appellate Court was asked to determine whether the trial court erred: (1) in modifying the Parties’ Final Decree of Divorce absent proof of a material change in circumstances affecting the best interest of the Parties’ child; (2) in making temporary modifications to the Final Decree of divorce absent clear and convincing proof that the child was being harmed or would be harmed in the situation that existed when the modifications were made; and (3) in finding that Father’s motives for relocating were vindictive, and in its concerns about Father’s willingness to comply with future court orders or to provide for the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Melody Young v. Donald Gregory Godfrey - M2007-02308-COA-R3-CV View Marion County - This appeal involved an order entered by an Alabama court in 1996 regarding child custody and support. The trial court modified the order to require the father to pay future and retroactive child support. The Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the order dealing with modification, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the order, and remand for further proceedings.
Joyann E. Butler v. James Michael Butler - W2007-01257-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - In this divorce proceeding, wife appealed the trial court’s decision not to enforce the parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement, the trial court’s distribution of the marital assets, and the trial court’s failure to sanction husband for failure to comply with the discovery rules. After wife filed for divorce, the parties executed a Martial Dissolution Agreement. The trial court, however, refused to enforce the Marital Dissolution Agreement because some of husband’s property was damaged while within wife’s exclusive control. The trial court admitted as evidence wife’s attorney’s statement that he would not permit wife to damage husband’s property. The Court of Appeals affirmed that attorney’s statement was properly admissible parol evidence and the trial court properly denied wife’s motion to enforce the Martial Dissolution Agreement. Wife also argued that the trial court failed to equitably distribute the marital assets and that the court erred by failing to sanction husband for discovery violations. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s division of marital assets, as modified, and its order denying wife’s request for sanctions.
Harry W. Lofton v. Nelda Joan Lofton - W2007-01733-COA-R3-CV View
Shelby County - This is a divorce case terminating a 40 year marriage. Husband/Appellant appealed the trial court’s division of marital property, award of alimony in futuro, and award of attorney’s fees to Wife/Appellee. In addition, Husband/Appellant contended that the trial court erred in granting Wife/Appellee’s motions to re-open proof, and in denying Husband/Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified herein.
Jill M. Floyd v. John S. Floyd - M2007-02420-COA-R3-CV View Wilson County - This is a divorce case. The parties were married for nineteen years and had three children, one of whom was a minor at the time of the divorce. The husband is a pilot with an irregular work schedule. On the first day of trial, the parties announced that they had reached an agreement concerning distribution of the marital property. On the third day of trial, the wife filed a motion to alter or amend the order distributing the marital estate, alleging that she had been mistaken about the value of the parties’ interest in a piece of real property when she agreed to the division of property. The trial court denied the wife’s motion to alter or amend. After granting a divorce to both parties, the trial court designated the wife as the primary residential parent and ordered that the husband would have a certain number of days of residential parenting time each month, to be selected by the husband at his discretion due to his irregular work schedule. The trial court denied the wife’s request for alimony, finding that she did not need alimony and that the husband could not afford to pay it. The trial court also denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees. The wife appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that permitting the husband to choose his residential parenting days was not an abuse of discretion under the circumstances, that the trial court did not err in denying the wife’s request for alimony or attorney’s fees, and that the trial court did not err in denying the wife’s Rule 60.02 motion to amend the order on division of the marital estate.
Charles Edward Carpenter, Sr. v. Mary Alice Bobo Carpenter - W2007-00992-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - This is a divorce case. The parties had a long-term marriage and enjoyed a high standard of living. The parties then filed for divorce. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court adopted the wife’s proposal for the distribution of marital property and ordered the husband to pay the wife substantial alimony in futuro and attorney’s fees. The husband challenged the distribution of marital property as well as the award of alimony and attorney’s fees. Regarding the distribution of the marital estate, the husband argued that the trial court overvalued his law practice, undervalued the wife’s counseling business, and failed to give the husband credit for several tax liabilities that he assumed. Husband further argued that the trial court awarded the wife an excessive amount of alimony and attorney’s fees. The Appellate Court affirmed in part as modified, determining that the facts as found by the trial court were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the distribution of marital property and award of alimony. The Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney’s fees.
Why Do We Pick These Particular Cases? Each month, many appellate decisions are available from which to choose. We include in the e-Newsletter all family law cases from the Supreme Court of Tennessee, most appellate cases originating from Shelby, Davidson, and Williamson County Circuit and Chancery Courts, and a handful of cases from across the state and occasionally from across the U.S. Our goal is to provide an array of cases most likely of interest to our readers.
Upcoming Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC Seminars
Miles Mason, Sr. current and upcoming Tennessee CLE opportunities:
WEBCAST - Advanced Accounting for Lawyers, a CLE seminar given by Miles Mason , in conjunction with the Tennessee Bar Association's TennBarU, will take place on March 25 from noon-1 p.m. CST. The one-hour webcast provides an overview of accounting practice and theories specifically for business litigators, estate lawyers, and family lawyers who handle business valuation, fraud, and income determination issues. The presentation includes specific discussion of information flow from transaction detail and general ledgers to financial statements. Specific topics include: Theories Behind Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); Cash v.s. Accrual Basis; Normalizing Adjustments; Best Places to Look for Problems in a Subject Company's Records; Reading a Tax Return to Discover Assets - Step by Step. For sign-up information, please go to https://www.tnbaru.com/CLE/catalog_course_details.php?course=5825.
ONLINE CLE - Intermediate Accounting for Lawyers in conjunction with the Tennessee Bar Association's TennBarU, was taped on January 21st. The one-hour webcast provides an overview of accounting practice and theories specifically for business litigators, estate lawyers, and family lawyers who handle business valuation, fraud, and income determination issues. The presentation assists attorneys prepare document discovery requests, analyze results, and plan depositions of accountants by increasing understanding of the accounting environment and its terminology. Specific topics include: Accounting Information Systems; Financial Statements; General and Subsidiary Ledgers; Audits, Reviews, and Compilations; Forensic Accountants; Understanding Accounting in Relation to the Ownership Interest. For sign-up information, please go to https://www.tnbaru.com/CLE/catalog_course_details.php?course=5824.
Memphis Tax Watch, May 6, 2009, at 8:00 a.m., at the Crescent Club. Miles Mason and Patrick Mason will be speaking on Premarital Agreements. Tax Watch is an elite group of tax professionals, including attorneys and CPAs.
Real Boston Legal - Mason to speak at NACVA's 2009 Sixteenth Annual Consultants Conference: "Mock Deposition for a Business Valuation Engagement" by Robert Vance, Miles Mason, Sr., & Brent McDade on May 27-30, 2009. Register at the NACVA's website,
It's a small, small world - Hear Miles speak about forensic accounting issues and earn CPE credits at the AICPA National Forensic Accounting Conference from Sept.23-25th at the Walt Disney World Swan in Lake Buena Vista, FL. Go to www.cpa2biz.com for more information.
Family Fun
Anne, Abby and Miles taking a break at Epcot on Christmas Eve, 2008.
Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC
Memphis Office
Clark Tower / 5100 Poplar Ave. / Suite 3200 / Memphis, TN 38137
901.683.1850
Nashville/Brentwood Office
Suite 350 / 109 West Park Dr. / Brentwood, Tennessee 37027
(901) 683-1850
If you received a benefit from this free service of the Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC, please consider making a donation to St. Jude's Children's Hospital: http://www.stjude.org/donate.
To unsubscribe from the MemphisDivorce.com E-Newsletter
reply to this email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
©2009 Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC
|
