Elizabeth Eberbach v. Christopher Eberbach
535 S.W.3d 467
Tenn.2017Background
- Elizabeth and Christopher Eberbach divorced in 2011; their Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) — incorporated into the decree — contained a mandatory fee provision: prevailing party entitled to reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, to enforce the agreement.
- Post-divorce, Wife sought to relocate with the children; Husband opposed and later voluntarily dismissed his opposition after some discovery disputes.
- Trial court allowed Wife to relocate, awarded her reimbursement for uncovered medical expenses, and awarded her $19,870 in attorney’s fees under the MDA and statutory authority (Tenn. Code Ann. §§36-5-103(c), 36-6-108(i)).
- Husband appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s awards but declined to award Wife appellate attorney’s fees, addressing only statutory grounds (Tenn. Code Ann. §27-1-122) and not the MDA fee provision.
- Wife petitioned for rehearing to invoke the MDA provision for appellate fees; the Court of Appeals denied rehearing. Wife sought review by the Tennessee Supreme Court on whether an appellate court must award appellate fees when an enforceable MDA mandates fee recovery for the prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Wife’s Argument | Husband’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellate court may decline to award appellate attorney’s fees when an enforceable MDA mandates fees to the prevailing party | Court must enforce mandatory MDA fee provisions; no appellate discretion to deny such fees | Appellate award would improperly circumvent contract defenses and issue not properly before the Court | Where an MDA is valid and its fee clause is mandatory and applicable, appellate courts must award reasonable appellate fees to the prevailing party; appellate court erred by not considering the MDA |
| Whether Wife was prevailing party for purposes of the MDA fee clause | Wife achieved primary relief at trial and prevailed on appeal; defending the judgment constitutes prosecuting/enforcing the MDA | — (argued procedural/justiciability and potential contract defenses) | Wife was the prevailing party at trial and on appeal; appellate defense qualifies as prosecuting the action under the MDA |
| Proper analytical sequence when both contract and statute are invoked for fees | Contractual entitlement should be considered first; if MDA governs, it controls; then consider statutory claims | Statutes grant discretion; appellate court may exercise discretion regardless of contract | Courts must first determine applicability of a valid MDA fee clause; if mandatory and applicable, it governs; statutory fee claims then considered separately |
| Standard of review for entitlement and amount of fees under an MDA | Entitlement is a question of law (de novo); amount is reviewed for abuse of discretion | — | Entitlement to contractual fees reviewed de novo; reasonableness/amount reviewed for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Barnes, 193 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2006) (MDA treated as a contract subject to contract rules)
- Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Epperson, 284 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2009) (explains American Rule and contractual exception for fee-shifting provisions)
- Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2005) (fee awards in custody/support matters and statutory discretion under §36-5-103(c))
- Connors v. Connors, 594 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. 1980) (factors guiding reasonable attorney’s fees)
- Fannon v. City of LaFollette, 329 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. 2010) (definition of prevailing party)
- Towner v. Towner, 858 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1993) (distinguishing contractual vs. statutory provisions in incorporated MDAs)