Katie J. Rountree v. Joshua Rountree
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This is a Tennessee divorce case (Maury County) involving permanent parenting plan and division of marital property.
- Child born June 16, 2008; Father is paraplegic/disabled and uses a wheelchair; prior to trial he was the primary daytime caregiver while Mother worked.
- Before relocating to Tennessee, the parties lived in Texas; in April 2009 Mother moved with the child to Tennessee to pursue a career; Father remained in Texas briefly to sell the Texas home.
- After relocation, Mother’s parents cared for the child during the day; disputes arose over daytime care, preschool, and supervision.
- Trial court adopted Mother’s proposed permanent parenting plan (including preschool for the child) and awarded educational/extracurricular decision-making to Mother; the court also allocated certain marital debts and denied rehabilitative alimony.
- On appeal, the court vacated the permanent parenting plan, remanded for a new plan, reversed the assignment of attorney fees as marital debt, and partially reversed the property division while affirming it overall as equitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent parenting plan validity | Rountree argues the plan was based on unsupported motives and mischaracterizes Father. | Rountree contends preschool/daily care by Father is not in the child’s best interests. | Remand for a new plan; plan vacated. |
| Property division accuracy | Rountree asserts misclassification/valuation of assets and debtor allocations. | Rountree asserts the court’s division was equitable given earning capacities. | Correction of several misclassifications; overall division affirmed as equitable after adjustments. |
| Temporary order modification | Whether the temporary modification was proper given the final decision. | Arguments centered on consistency with permanent parenting plan. | Pretermitted on remand; issue not resolved on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyde v. Amanda Bradley, 2010 WL 4024905 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (cites deference to trial court custody findings (not an official reporter))
- Johnson v. Johnson, 169 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate review of custody decisions; de novo standard with respect to findings)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (limits on revising visitation orders; preference for maximum parenting time)
- Luke v. Luke, 651 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. 1983) (principles for evaluating best interests in parenting plans)
- Hogue v. Hogue, 147 S.W.3d 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (right to consider factors under custodial decision-making)
- Farrar v. Farrar, 553 S.W.2d 741 (Tenn. 1977) (wide latitude in property division and de novo review of findings)