Roy D. Cox v. Carolyn Ellen Cox
E2016-01097-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- After 11 years of marriage, Husband (Roy D. Cox) sued for divorce and later amended to assert tort claims against Wife (Carolyn E. Cox) for stabbing him; Wife stipulated to the assault and Husband to entitlement to divorce.
- Parties disputed classification/value of several real properties (Sullivan County — titled to both after marriage; Hawkins County — inherited by Wife but purchased sister’s interest and improved with marital funds) and ownership of several Eastman Credit Union accounts (some pledged as loan collateral).
- Husband claimed recurring post-stab infection, medical expenses, and lost business income; he submitted limited medical bills after trial and no expert medical testimony; Wife presented limited documentation for her insurance-related claims.
- Trial court awarded Husband an absolute divorce, found Hawkins and Sullivan properties marital, valued them, divided assets (equalizing sale proceeds in part), denied Wife interest in Husband’s business, awarded Husband $15,000 compensatory and $10,000 punitive damages, and made several ancillary rulings.
- On appeal Wife challenged property classification/division and the damages amounts; the Court of Appeals affirmed classification of Hawkins County property and the compensatory award but vacated and remanded the marital-division and punitive-damages portions for inadequate findings under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 and Hodges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Hawkins County property | Marital funds used to buy sister’s interest and improve property, so it is marital | Property was Wife’s separate inheritance and thus separate | Court: Affirmed Hawkins property is marital (transmutation/commingling) |
| Equitable division of marital estate | Trial court intended to equalize; values set by court should control | Division unfairly favored Husband; court failed to address statutory factors/dissipation and credit-union account claims | Court: Vacated and remanded division because the order lacked Rule 52.01 findings addressing Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4-121(c) factors |
| Compensatory damages for tort (medical expenses, lost income) | Wife’s stabbing caused recurring infection, lost work and medical costs; modest evidence supports damages | Insufficient proof: no expert testimony, medical bills not timely presented, and lost income speculative | Court: Affirmed $15,000 award — evidence sufficient for modest compensatory damages despite weak documentary proof |
| Punitive damages amount | Punitive award appropriate given intentional assault | Amount excessive and court failed to apply Hodges factors in findings | Court: Vacated $10,000 punitive award and remanded for reassessment with specific findings on each Hodges factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for nonjury bench findings)
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (commingling and transmutation principles)
- Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (conditions and factors for punitive damages)
- Culbreath v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 44 S.W.3d 518 (Tenn. 2001) (requirement to analyze Hodges factors in punitive awards)
- Borner v. Autry, 284 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2009) (burden to prove medical expenses are necessary and reasonable)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (remedies when trial court’s findings are insufficient)
- Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (classification step in marital estate division)