Edward Keith Morelock v. Ruth Ellen Mick Morelock
E2016-00543-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Edward Keith Morelock and Ruth Ellen Mick Morelock married on December 21, 1991 and have two children; the trial court’s judgment was entered February 18, 2016.
- Husband operated the Sir Speedy printing business (Professional Printing Services, LLC) in Johnson City; the parties owned it as a 51/49% partnership, Husband as managing partner.
- The trial court designated Wife as primary residential parent with 237 days of time; Husband received 128 days.
- Sir Speedy was valued at $150,000, awarded entirely to Husband, with debt allocated to Husband; marital residence awarded to Wife.
- Husband challenged custody, asset valuation, division of debt, and alimony; the appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion, and the custody issue was moot since the child turned eighteen.
- The trial court concluded Husband’s earning capacity was at least $30,000/year and denied spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody and parenting time discretionary decision | Morelock contends he should be primary and have more time | Morelock argues trial court abused discretion | Court found no abuse of discretion; custody moot as child reached majority |
| Valuation and division of the Sir Speedy asset | Sir Speedy overvalued or the division unfairly favored Wife | Estate should reflect equal division of the business and debts | Trial court valuation of Sir Speedy at $150,000 and award to Husband affirmed; expert valuation not necessary |
| Equitable distribution of marital property and debts | Husband should receive 51% and share of debts; more balanced | Distribution appropriate given control of debts and debt reduction potential | Court affirmed division; debts following assets and Husband remains primarily responsible for business debts |
| Spousal support | Husband seeks alimony due to disparity in assets and income | Husband does not need support; Wife cannot pay; no error in denial | Court affirmatively held no spousal support is warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (details of parenting plans within trial court's broad discretion)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for parenting plans)
- Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (valuation decisions require preponderance of evidence)
- Baggett v. Baggett, 422 S.W.3d 537 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (broad discretion in fashioning equitable property divisions)
- Rountree v. Rountree, 369 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (wide latitude in property division; abuse of discretion standard)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (factors for evaluating marital asset contributions)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (statutory factors for alimony decisions)