Kathy Hudson v. William T. Hudson
W2015-01519-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Parties: William T. Hudson (Husband) and Kathy Hudson (Wife) divorced by final decree on November 8, 2012; divorce decree divided a 68-acre parcel into three tracts.
- Decree awards Wife: the marital home on 3 acres, a separate 10-acre tract “immediately surrounding” a mobile home (with an ingress/egress easement), and other property at the same address; Husband awarded the remaining 55 acres.
- Decree required the parties to split the cost of a survey to divide the property as ordered. Wife hired a surveyor who drew a single contiguous ~13-acre tract (including full road frontage), rather than two separate tracts (3 and 10 acres).
- Husband sought contempt and a new survey; trial court denied new survey and adopted Wife’s survey. Husband also contested the valuation of a Kubota tractor and attachments (trial court ordered Husband to tender the tractor or pay $26,000).
- This Court reversed the adoption of Wife’s survey (holding it conflicted with the decree) and remanded with instructions to adopt Husband’s survey; the Court affirmed the $26,000 valuation of the tractor as within the evidentiary range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by denying a new survey and adopting Wife’s survey? | Wife’s survey contradicts the divorce decree (which awarded separate 3-acre and 10-acre tracts and an easement); adoption was error. | Wife argued her survey comported with the decree and the court properly adopted it. | Reversed: Wife’s survey did not follow the decree; trial court abused discretion. Remanded to adopt Husband’s survey. |
| Was $26,000 a proper valuation for the Kubota tractor and attachments? | Tractor’s value was $12,000–$15,000; Wife’s $40,000 estimate speculative. | Tractor (purchased new for ~$44,000) worth ~$40,000 per Wife’s testimony. | Affirmed: $26,000 lies within the range of the evidence and trial court valuation will not be disturbed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Memphis Publ. Co. v. Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303 (Tenn. 1998) (discusses the law-of-the-case doctrine).
- State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010) (articulates standards for finding abuse of discretion).
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review and deference to trial court).
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (orders construed by plain meaning).
- Woodward v. Woodward, 240 S.W.3d 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court valuation of marital assets afforded deference and must stand if within evidentiary range).