Elizabeth Anne Sykes v. Chad Steven Sykes
M2020-00261-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2021Background
- Elizabeth (Wife) and Chad Sykes (Husband) married in 2014, lived in Missouri, then moved to Williamson County, Tennessee in May 2018 with their two children. Wife filed for divorce in Tennessee on August 23, 2018.
- Husband challenged the Tennessee court’s jurisdiction over the divorce and over child custody; the trial court found Wife a bona fide Tennessee resident and exercised jurisdiction over the divorce and custody (including under UCCJEA §36-6-216(a)(2)).
- The parties had an oral summer agreement allowing Husband to keep the older child in Missouri until school; Husband later refused to return the child and Wife obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order directing Husband to appear with the child.
- At an August 22, 2019 hearing Husband appeared without the child; the trial court found him in civil contempt both for (1) violating the court’s August 16 order to appear with the child and (2) violating the statutory restraining order in Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4-106(d).
- The trial court granted the divorce, adopted Wife’s parenting plan, ordered child support, awarded Wife an equalizing distribution ($5,900) and awarded various attorney’s fees (some as prevailing-party fees under §36-6-236 and some characterized as alimony in solido tied to contempt).
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed jurisdiction and the equitable distribution and upheld fees under §36-6-236, but reversed the contempt findings (and fees tied to contempt) and declined to award appellate fees to Wife.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over divorce (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4-104(a)) | Wife: she was a bona fide Tennessee resident when the acts complained of occurred, so Tennessee may grant the divorce. | Husband: Wife had not been a Tennessee resident six months pre-filing; Missouri has jurisdiction. | Affirmed — court properly found Wife a bona fide Tennessee resident when the acts occurred, so Tennessee had jurisdiction. |
| Jurisdiction over child custody (UCCJEA) | Wife: Tennessee has significant-connection jurisdiction and substantial evidence (family, daycare, employers, grandparents in TN). | Husband: Tennessee is not the children’s home state; custody should not be decided in TN. | Affirmed — although not home state, TN had jurisdiction under §36-6-216(a)(2) (significant connection and substantial evidence). |
| Contempt for failing to bring child to court / violating August 16 order | Wife: Husband willfully refused to return the child and ignored the court’s order to appear with the child and violated statutory restraining injunction. | Husband: He lacked proper notice (email service improper for a pro se party) and the statutory restraining injunction was not validly in effect because the correct form language was not attached to the complaint. | Reversed — email service on pro se Husband under Rule 5 was improper; statutory restraining-language in §36-4-106(d) was not correctly attached to the complaint, so contempt findings reversed. |
| Equitable distribution / equalizing payment | Wife: equalizing distribution necessary because Husband received vehicle equity leaving Wife disadvantaged. | Husband: trial court ignored value of Wife’s glass marble collection (claimed $25k–$30k) that would offset an equalizing award. | Affirmed — trial court’s valuation choices supported; Husband failed to produce competent evidence of marble collection value. |
| Attorney’s fees awarded as alimony in solido | Wife: entitled to fees as prevailing party under §36-6-236 and alternatively as alimony in solido (bad faith). | Husband: court awarded alimony in solido without applying alimony factors (ability to pay, etc.). | Mixed — fees awarded under §36-6-236 affirmed (Husband waived challenge); fees based on contempt/alimony reversed because contempt reversed. |
| Opportunity to challenge Wife’s attorney’s fees | Wife: Husband had the opportunity to object and cross-examine and did not; he waived objections. | Husband: was not given the opportunity to review or challenge counsel’s fees before the court adopted the affidavit. | Affirmed — Husband had the opportunity, did not object or request cross-examination, and proceeded pro se; trial court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (standard of review: trial court findings of fact reviewed de novo with presumption of correctness).
- Conley v. Conley, 181 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (residence for divorce jurisdiction equated with domicile; factors for domicile).
- Wiseman v. Wiseman, 393 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. 1965) (definition of domicile).
- State v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (purpose and scope of UCCJEA).
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (attorney’s fees in divorce constitute alimony in solido and alimony factors apply).
- Powell v. Powell, 124 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (burden and proof required to value marital property).
- Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (party opposing fee request must be afforded fair opportunity to cross-examine and present proof; failure to object may constitute waiver).
- Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (trial court’s broad discretion in equitable distribution).