Third, think about attending the Tennessee Society of CPA’s Business Valuation, Forensic Investigation & Litigation Services Conference. Held this year on Oct. 18-19, 2009, in Brentwood, Tenn., Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC’s, Family Law Practice Group is proud to sponsor the conference’s lunch on October 19. There are always outstanding presentations. See www.tscpa.com/conferences/business_valuation.aspx for more information. Finally, the AICPA National Business Valuation Conference is held Nov. 15 - Nov. 17, 2009, at the San Francisco Marriott. Held annually, this conference is one of the nation’s elite business valuation conferences. On Nov. 15, I co-present with Robert Vance and Brent McDade another optional three-hour workshop, Mock Deposition for a Business Valuation Engagement. To learn more, please see www.cpa2biz.com. Although I practice Family Law exclusively, I was a CPA before becoming a lawyer. Speaking and writing on divorce, forensic accounting, and business valuation has added depth to my law practice. I have been honored to meet, speak, and work with many of the nation’s leading forensic accountants and business valuation experts. Proudly, I am a member of the AICPA, TSCPA, and NACVA. Also, I serve as the American Bar Association Family Law Section’s Liaison to the AICPA. To learn more about my firm and divorce practice, please see our firm’s family law practice web site, www.MemphisDivorce.com. We have offices in Brentwood and Memphis, Tennessee. If you have any questions, please call or e-mail me. My phone number in Brentwood is (615) 679-4700 and in Memphis is 901.683.1850. My e-mail address is Reciprocal web site links to www.MemphisDivorce.com are appreciated, but not required. If a reciprocal link is provided, let us know by mail or - email at mmason@MMFLG.com. Thank you. Very truly yours, Miles Mason, Sr. JD, CPA 
Family Law Case Histories of Note
Melissa Ann Bishop v. Richard W. Bishop - E2008-01854-COA-R10-CV View Knox County - In February 2004, Melissa Ann Bishop (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce from Richard W. Bishop (“Husband”) following a lengthy marriage. The lawsuit was filed in the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County, Judge Bill Swann presiding. Wife was represented by the law firm of Lockridge and Valone, PLLC, from the outset, through trial, and for much of the post-trial litigation. This representation lasted for over three years. Much of the legal work on Wife’s behalf was performed by attorney Russell Egli (“Egli”), an associate at Lockridge & Valone, PLLC, who left that firm in August 2006 to start his own law firm. Prior to a hearing scheduled for March 2007, Wife discharged the law firm of Lockridge & Valone, PLLC. Wife retained Johnny Dunaway as her new attorney and sought a continuance of the March 2007 hearing because of her change of attorneys. In support of her request for a continuance, Wife filed an affidavit stating that the reason for the discharge of her attorneys was the fact that Mr. Lockridge “sent younger, less experienced associates, who were unprepared to represent me at various stages of the proceedings.” One of these associates was Egli. After leaving Lockridge & Valone, PLLC, and starting his own firm, Egli’s wife filed a separate lawsuit against Judge Swann. Egli represents his wife in this other lawsuit. After several adverse rulings in her divorce case, Wife rehired Egli and immediately filed a motion to recuse. Wife claimed that Judge Swann had a conflict of interest based on the fact that Egli was representing his (i.e., Egli’s) wife in a separate lawsuit filed against Judge Swann. Judge Swann denied the motion to recuse after finding that the only reason Wife rehired Egli was to create a conflict of interest and obtain a new judge to hear any remaining issues. The Court of Appeals granted a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 interlocutory appeal to determine whether the Trial Court erred when it denied Wife’s motion to recuse and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Judith Anne Laws v. Shannon Todd Coffey - E2008-02612-COA-R3-CV View Jefferson County - The Trial Court granted petitioner’s Petition for an Order of Protection. Respondent has appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed. Lila Reinhard Everett vs. David Everett - E2008-00472-COA-R3-CV View Knox County - Lila Reinhard Everett (“Mother”) sued David Everett (“Father”) for divorce. The case was tried before a Special Master. The Trial Court modified the Special Master’s report and entered an Order on February 19, 2008, inter alia, pronouncing the parties divorced and entering a Permanent Parenting Plan naming Father as the primary residential custodian of the parties’ four minor children with Mother to have visitation. Mother appealed raising issues regarding custody. The Court of Appeals vacated only that portion of the Trial Court’s order dealing with custody, and remanded for a determination of those issues related to custody In Re Valerie T. - E2007-02517-COA-R3-JV View Knox County - This appeal arises out of a change of custody petition filed by the father. In the petition, the father asserted that a change of the primary residential custodian was warranted because his daughter was dependent or neglected and a material change of circumstances had occurred since the Juvenile Court’s most recent order. The material change in circumstances cited by the father was the mother’s failure to provide a stable home environment and consistent school enrollment for the child. After a hearing, the Referee for the Juvenile Court dismissed the dependant or neglected child claim for lack of proof; she found, however, that a material change of circumstances had occurred, established the father as the primary residential parent, and gave the mother alternate parenting time. When the mother appealed the Referee’s findings, the Juvenile Court Judge conducted a hearing in this matter, after which the findings of the Referee were affirmed. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Jeffrey Scott Clonce v. Kimberly Michelle Clonce - M2007-02155-COA-R3-CV View Davidson County - The trial court awarded a divorce to the husband, and named both parties as primary residential parents with equal parenting time of their two children. The court also ordered the husband to pay child support since his income was far greater than the wife’s. However, because the wife had lost her job less than one month prior to the divorce hearing, the court was unsure of the most appropriate figure to use for the wife’s income in calculating the presumptively correct amount of child support under the income shares guidelines. The court resolved the question by using the wife’s most current income from part-time work, which resulted in a temporary level of child support of $1,250 per month. The court also declared that it would revisit the issue of child support after six months, and that its order could be modified “without the necessity of proving a change in circumstances or significant variance.” The wife argues on appeal that the trial court’s order was inconsistent with the statutes and regulations that govern child support. The only order under appeal is the order indicating the court’s intent and setting temporary support at a level favorable to the wife. The court did not use its announced procedure in the order that is the subject of this appeal. Under the facts of this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Lisa Goodpaster Riggs v. Kenneth Lee Riggs - M2008-02229-COA-R3-CV View Davidson County - In a prior appeal, husband challenged the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro to wife. This Court reversed the award, finding that long-term support was inappropriate since wife was capable of supporting herself; the case was remanded for the trial court to make a reasonable award of rehabilitative and/or transitional alimony. On remand, the trial court awarded wife nine years of rehabilitative alimony and husband appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the award of rehabilitative alimony, and made an award of transitional alimony and remanded the case. Christopher Eugene Rickman v. Tracy Anna Rickman - W2008-01276-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - In this appeal, the Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether the trial court erred in finding that the phrase “taking up residence,” as used in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement, equated to cohabitation, and in finding that Wife did not cohabitate with an unrelated male in violation of such agreement. The Court of Appeals was also asked to determine whether the trial court erred in finding no material change of circumstances warranting a modification of Husband’s alimony obligation, and in denying Husband’s motions to re-open and supplement proof and for a new trial, based on newly-discovered evidence. The Appellate Court affirmed. Alison Marie Yates v. James Mason Yates - M2008-00552-COA-R3-CV View Rutherford County - This case involved a divorce ending a three year marriage. Wife/Appellant appealed the trial court’s division of marital property, its decision not to award alimony, and its decision granting Husband/Appellee sole decision-making authority for their only child. Because the trial court failed to apply the relevant statutory factors, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s division of marital property and remanded for further consideration. Wife/Appellant also appealed the trial court’s order finding her in criminal contempt for willfully violating previous court orders and the parenting plan. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment on the issue of contempt because Wife was tried in absentia. Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr. - W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV View
Shelby County - This is the second appeal in this divorce case. The husband is a lawyer and the wife was a homemaker during most of the marriage. After the divorce trial, the trial court divided the marital estate, awarded the wife transitional alimony, and ordered each party to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. The wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed. In the first appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s valuation of two marital assets, stock and a corporation, and remanded for the trial court to re-value those assets. In addition, the trial court’s decision regarding the husband’s alleged dissipation of marital assets was reversed, and that issue was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration as well. The issues raised on alimony and attorney’s fees were not addressed in the first appeal. On remand, the trial court found a debt owed by the corporation to the husband was uncollectible and determined that the value of the corporation was zero. The trial court adjusted the valuation of the wife’s interest in the stock and engaged in a detailed analysis of the husband’s alleged dissipation of marital assets, finding no dissipation. On remand, the wife sought an award of alimony in futuro. The trial court declined to award alimony in futuro but awarded the wife an additional year of transitional alimony. Finally, the trial court declined the wife’s request for her attorney’s fees. Both parties now appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that the husband did not engage in dissipation, affirmed the trial court’s increased property award to the wife, reflecting her interest in the stock, reversed the trial court’s finding that the value of the corporation is zero, and remanded to the trial court for valuation of the corporation and division of that asset, modified the trial court’s award of alimony by awarding the wife alimony in futuro when the transitional alimony ends, affirmed the trial court’s refusal to award the wife her attorney’s fees, and ordered the award of post-judgment interest on the wife’s increased property award from the stock, dating from the date of the judgment on remand. 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
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, 2009, at the Walt Disney World Swan in Lake Buena Vista, FL. Go to www.cpa2biz.com for more information. Premarital Agreements - Miles Mason, Sr. and Patrick Mason, Financial Planners Association, on November 4, 2009, Memphis, Tenn. AICPA National Business Valuation Conference - "Mock Deposition for a Business Valuation Engagement" by Robert Vance, Miles Mason, Sr. & Brent McDade, November 15-17, 2009, San Francisco, Ca.
Family Fun
Coming Up Roses - "Abby's Angel" - From the Mason family garden.
Sand and Sun - Mason Family Fun
Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC
|
Dear CPA,
Read More