Adnan A. Alattiyat v. Faiza A. Qasqas
W2016-00855-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Parties: Adnan A. Alattiyat (Husband, pro se on appeal) and Faiza A. Qasqas (Wife); married in Jordan in 1997, three children, separated August 2014.
- Procedural posture: Wife obtained pendente lite relief; Husband appealed referee order and later sought summary judgment/annulment based on alleged fraud about Wife’s birth certificate. Trial court held a bench trial and entered a final divorce decree (April 15, 2016); Husband appealed.
- Financial facts at trial: Wife testified to some income (support from Memphis Islamic Center and employment); pendente lite hearing earlier had her stating she had no income. Trial court imputed income to Husband as willfully underemployed.
- Relief awarded: trial court modified pendente lite support, imputed Husband income, ordered rehabilitative alimony $500/month for 12 months, alimony in solido $3,000 (attorney fees), reduced child support to $589/month, and each party retained property in their possession.
- Key procedural defects by Husband: late-filed summary judgment (3 days before hearing vs. 30 required) and failure to comply with Rule 56.03 and appellate briefing rules (no Rule 7 property table, sparse record citations).
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to make adequate findings under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 | Trial court made insufficient findings and conclusions | Trial court issued adequate findings across decree and post-trial order | Affirmed: findings and conclusions sufficient when read together |
| Whether denial of Husband's late summary judgment (annulment for fraud) was error | Marriage should be annulled for alleged fraud about Wife's birth certificate; summary judgment should have been granted | Motion failed procedural requirements and case proceeded to trial on merits | Affirmed: summary judgment properly denied for noncompliance with Rule 56 and immaterial on merits after trial |
| Whether court erred in refusing to vacate pendente lite order for perjury and instead recalculated support | Entire pendente lite order should be vacated due to Wife's perjured testimony that she had no income | Court properly modified support based on trial testimony; cannot vacate support needed for child | Affirmed: court declined full vacatur but recalculated child support appropriately |
| Whether property division and alimony/attorney-fee awards were inequitable or lacked findings | Division and alimony/fees unsupported by findings; award improper | Court considered statutory alimony factors, imputed income to Husband, and made supporting findings; Husband failed to present property proof or follow appellate rules | Affirmed: alimony and fees supported; property-division challenge waived due to inadequate record and briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (standard of review for bench trials: de novo with presumption of correctness for factual findings)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (requirements for sufficiency of trial court factual findings under Rule 52)
- Cortez v. Alutech, Inc., 941 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (denial of summary judgment not reviewable after a full trial on the merits)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (spousal support determinations are fact-driven and deferential on appeal)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (appellate review of alimony awards limited; trial court’s discretion respected)