Deborah Bistolfi Felker v. Rex Stephen Felker
W2019-01925-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2021Background
- Wife and Husband executed a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) in 2005; the final divorce decree referenced but did not incorporate the MDA.
- The MDA required Husband to maintain $150,000 life insurance naming a testamentary trust for the parties’ son and to provide a revised will and cooperate with Wife obtaining insurance.
- Plaintiffs (Wife and adult Son) filed a breach-of-contract suit in Shelby County in 2019 alleging Husband never produced the revised will or trust, failed to maintain required life insurance, and refused to cooperate.
- Husband, a Hamblen County resident, moved to dismiss asserting lack of personal jurisdiction/venue and that the six-year statute of limitations on contract claims expired (and asserted laches); he attached a November 14, 2016 letter to the complaint.
- The trial court found the breach occurred in 2016 (relying on Husband’s letter), denied the motion to dismiss, found Husband breached the MDA, ordered life insurance and awarded Wife attorney’s fees; Husband appealed.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the MDA was an entire (nonseverable) contract, that the breach accrued in 2005 (when Husband failed to deliver the revised will/trust), held the 2019 suit was time-barred, reversed, and dismissed the action; appellate fees were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / Statute of limitations | MDA contained continuing obligations; latest breach (2016) restarts limitations so 2019 suit is timely | Breach accrued in 2005 (failed to deliver revised will/trust); six-year contract SOL bars 2019 suit | Court held MDA is entire, breach accrued in 2005, 2019 suit barred by six-year SOL; dismissal required |
| Due process (failure to rule pre-trial / procedural handling) | Trial court’s delayed ruling and clerk actions violated Husband’s due process rights | Procedural rulings did not deny due process; trial court heard evidence | Moot after reversal on statute of limitations; not reached on merits |
| Attorney’s fees on appeal | Plaintiffs sought fees under MDA and Tenn. Code § 27-1-122 | Husband argued no basis because Plaintiffs lost on appeal | Denied: Wife not prevailing, and appeal not frivolous under § 27-1-122 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2003) (standards for Rule 12.02(6) review)
- Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004) (de novo review of legal questions)
- Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87 (Tenn. 2004) (Rule 12.02(6) review principles)
- Brewer v. Brewer, 869 S.W.2d 928 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (MDA provisions not incorporated in decree are enforceable as contracts)
- Coleman Mgmt., Inc. v. Meyer, 304 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (cause accrues on breach or clear intent not to perform)
- Greene v. THGC, Inc., 915 S.W.2d 809 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (distinction between entire and severable contracts for SOL accrual)
- James Cable Partners, L.P. v. City of Jamestown, 818 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (factors for determining contract severability)
- Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004) (analysis of severability in family agreements)