Mary Wagoner-Angelin v. Randall Jon Angelin
E2016-01850-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Aug 29, 2017Background
- Mary Wagoner-Angelin and Randall Jon Angelin divorced in 2012; the divorce decree incorporated a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) and a permanent parenting plan. Mother was primary residential parent; Father obligated to pay $1,500/month alimony (non‑modifiable for 10 years) and $1,000/month child support with an upward deviation for private school tuition; parents to share 50% of extracurriculars and pro rata uninsured medical expenses and to make joint decisions on extracurriculars/non‑emergency healthcare.
- Father later moved to Oregon (2015), returned, and Mother filed to modify the parenting plan and later amended to assert contempt claims for MDA and parenting plan breaches; Father counterclaimed seeking modification of alimony.
- Trial evidence: handyman estimated $12,710 to remedy chronic flooding at the marital residence; Father had performed some DIY work and paid some expenses earlier, but later stopped paying for extracurriculars and medical bills claiming lack of money and lack of agreement.
- Trial Court denied Father’s Rule 60.02 relief to modify non‑modifiable alimony, found Father in contempt for failing to resolve flooding, termite inspection/treatment, and repair/stain obligations (entering judgments including $12,710), ordered an upward deviation requiring Father to pay one‑half of Rachel’s private school tuition, and entered judgments for half of certain medical and extracurricular expenses.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed enforcement of the MDA (including alimony), affirmed the upward deviation for tuition, affirmed contempt for failure to fix flooding, but vacated and remanded the awards for unpaid medical/extracurricular expenses and related attorney’s fees for further factual findings about whether those expenditures were agreed (joint decisions) and whether Father owes one‑half of Mother’s prior divorce attorney’s fees under the MDA.
Issues
| Issue | Wagoner‑Angelin (Plaintiff) Argument | Angelin (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60.02 relief should modify the MDA alimony provision | MDA is valid; alimony non‑modifiable and enforceable | Alimony is inequitable; he signed unrepresented and misunderstood terms; seeks relief | Denied — no fraud or basis for Rule 60.02 relief; parties bound by clear MDA |
| Whether trial court erred in ordering an upward deviation (private school tuition) | Parents historically sent children to private school; upward deviation reflects original agreement and practice | Mother’s increased income and one child aging out negate need for upward deviation | Affirmed — upward deviation (one‑half of Rachel’s tuition) appropriate and within discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in finding contempt for MDA breaches (flooding, termite, deck/jungle gym) | Father failed to satisfy clear MDA obligations; remedy cost is $12,710 for flooding; contempt and judgment appropriate to secure compliance | MDA language ambiguous; handyman lacked credentials; DIY efforts showed compliance | Affirmed — MDA unambiguous; contempt and $12,710 judgment to secure compliance upheld; Riley’s testimony admissible |
| Whether trial court erred in finding contempt and awarding judgments for unpaid extracurricular and medical expenses and related attorney’s fees | Mother entitled to half of unpaid extracurricular and medical bills and fee award for collection | Father disputed amounts and contends many expenditures were unilateral or he previously paid similar sums; challenged judgments | Vacated and remanded — trial court must make specific findings whether each expense was a joint decision (agreement vs unilateral); attorney’s fee award vacated pending those findings; also remand to decide contempt claim re: half of Mother’s divorce attorney fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Nails v. Aetna Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. 1992) (Rule 60.02 relief is an exceptional remedy)
- Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275 (Tenn. 1976) (balance between finality and justice in Rule 60.02 relief)
- Furlough v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 60.02(5) construed narrowly; relief in extraordinary cases)
- McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) (trial court discretion on admissibility and qualifications of expert testimony)