Jamie Treadwell v. Gary Thomas Lamb
M2015-01391-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Parties married in 1998, one child; Husband (software engineer) amassed substantial employer-related investment assets; Wife had two years of college, left workforce to raise child, later worked part-time and sought a teaching degree.
- Husband filed for divorce in 2010; trial in 2013; amended final decree (Dec. 2013) divided marital estate roughly equally, awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony $2,444/month for up to 24 months conditioned on active pursuit/progress in a Teacher Certification Program at Middle Tennessee State University.
- Trial court classified three properties: 510 Spring Street and 403 Bennett Street as Husband’s separate property; 508 Spring Street (triplex) as marital property awarded to Husband with $10,000 paid to Wife.
- Wife moved to alter/amend the alimony condition (she no longer wished to pursue teaching); trial court denied the motion and later denied Wife’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion alleging Husband fraudulently withdrew funds from a marital stock account.
- On appeal Wife challenged: (1) educational/vocational conditions on rehabilitative alimony and denial of her Rule 59 motion; (2) classification of the two properties as Husband’s separate property; and (3) denial of Rule 60.02 relief regarding alleged fraudulent withdrawals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing educational/vocational conditions on rehabilitative alimony was an abuse of discretion | Conditions impermissibly dictate Wife’s career choices; she no longer intends to pursue teaching | Conditions are permissible for rehabilitative alimony and reflected Wife’s own request at trial | Affirmed — court may impose conditions on rehabilitative alimony; evidence supports that Wife was disadvantaged and rehabilitable, and conditions mirrored her trial testimony |
| Whether trial court erred in classifying 510 Spring St. and 403 Bennett St. as Husband’s separate property (transmutation/commingling) | Wife argued signatures on deeds of trust and sweat equity transmuted properties into marital property | Husband showed properties were purchased/paid for pre-marriage with separate funds, title stayed in his name, no evidence of appreciable marital-driven increase | Affirmed — evidence does not preponderate against classification as Husband’s separate property; signing deeds alone and routine management/sweat equity insufficient to show transmutation or marital appreciation |
| Whether Rule 60.02 relief was warranted for alleged fraudulent withdrawals from marital stock account | Wife alleged Husband withdrew ~$388,000 to deplete marital estate and withheld evidence; sought reopening/reallocation | Husband testified withdrawals paid marital debts and rental property expenses; account statements and discovery did not prove concealment; trial court limited duplicative discovery | Affirmed — Wife failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying additional discovery or Rule 60.02 relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (trial courts have broad discretion in spousal support determinations)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (spousal support decisions are fact-driven and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (disadvantaged spouse’s need and obligor’s ability to pay are primary factors)
- Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1991) (rehabilitative support may be made subject to court-imposed conditions)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to enable disadvantaged spouse to gain skills or education)
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (separate vs. marital property analysis; transmutation and commingling principles)