Lynn E. Harrison v. Edwin B. Harrison, Jr.
E2016-00672-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 22, 2017Background
- Parties married ~8 years; Wife (longtime ORNL employee) retired 2012; both ~60 at trial. Parties had an agreed order about the marital home and certain vehicles; remaining issues proceeded to bench trial.
- Disputed issues included division of marital portion of Wife’s pension/IRAs, allocation of IRS liability for 2011–2013, several reimbursement claims for insurance/medical/prescription charges, valuation of personalty, COBRA notification, and QDRO preparation.
- Trial court found Wife credible and Husband’s credibility "highly suspect," noting lack of documentation for Husband’s claimed contributions and finding Wife’s steady income to be the primary marital contribution.
- Applying Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121 factors, trial court apportioned marital assets/liabilities 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband, awarded Husband $1,000 in attorney fees and directed preparation of a QDRO for the pension; later fixed court reporter fees at $180.42.
- Husband appealed multiple points (pension calculation date/amount, Roth IRA classification and IRA valuation, tax allocation, valuation of personalty, COBRA/QDRO failures, attorney fees); appellate court affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Division of marital portion of Wife’s pension (percent and effective date) | 60/40 split as applied by trial court using ORNL formula; pension payments during pendency were accounted for in estate valuation | Entitled to 50% or to share pension payments received during pendency | Affirmed 60%/40% split; pension payments during pendency were part of marital estate and already accounted for |
| Classification/value of Wife’s Roth IRA and traditional IRA marital portion | Roth funded with premarital funds and thus separate; parties stipulated $82,335 as marital portion of traditional IRA | Roth funded during marriage; Roth value should reduce premarital 401(k) baseline for marital calculation | Court credited Wife’s testimony, treated Roth as separate property, and accepted parties’ stipulation on $82,335 marital value—affirmed |
| Allocation of federal income tax liability for 2011–2013 | Liability incurred during marriage and arose from Husband’s failure to timely file; debt is marital and should be apportioned 60% Wife/40% Husband | Wife voluntarily filed separately and thus solely responsible | Liability is marital; trial court’s allocation (40% to Husband) affirmed given Husband’s failure to timely file and credibility findings |
| Attorney’s fees, COBRA notice, and QDRO enforcement | Trial court awarded Husband fees ($1,000) and court reporter costs for delays; COBRA/QDRO enforcement issues not adjudicated at trial | Sought greater fees and damages for counsel’s failures; sought enforcement regarding QDRO and COBRA | Fee award and reporter fees affirmed (no abuse of discretion); COBRA and QDRO issues were not decided by trial court and thus are not addressable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of appellate review for marital-property division and deference to trial court findings)
- Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (trial-court discretion in equitable division and appellate review focus)
- Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (treatment of pro se litigants and permissible leeway)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Smith v. Smith, 93 S.W.3d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (treatment of separate retirement accounts and appreciation)
- Alford v. Alford, 120 S.W.3d 810 (Tenn. 2003) (definition and division of marital debts)