Tressie G. Smith v. Michael Lee Smith
E2017-00515-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Husband and Wife married ~20 years; Wife was a homemaker; Husband worked. Wife filed for divorce in April 2013; litigation lasted ~3–4 years.
- Trial occurred March 4, 2016; trial court reserved property division and requested refinancing documentation from Wife.
- Temporary alimony during litigation was paid largely by wage assignment from Husband’s Social Security; Wife received $749/month via that assignment.
- Trial court’s subsequent Memorandum and final order awarded the marital home to Wife (upon refinancing), each party their vehicle, and six months of $1,000/month rehabilitative alimony; orders were otherwise vague about pensions, Social Security, asset values, and marital debts.
- Wife argued trial court failed to classify, value, and equitably divide marital property (including Husband’s TVA and sheriff’s-department pensions); Husband argued Wife failed to prove valuation at trial.
- Court of Appeals vacated the marital-property portion of the judgment and remanded for compliant factual findings and conclusions under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Michael Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly classified and divided marital property | Trial court failed to classify, value, and equitably divide marital property (including pensions and debts) | Wife failed to present valuation/proof at trial for pensions; court’s orders sufficient | Vacated in part; remanded for explicit findings of fact, valuation, and statutory-factor analysis under Rule 52.01 |
| Whether trial court erred in failing to set aside its June 27, 2016 Memorandum and Order | Memorandum and Order was ambiguous/incomplete and not a final judgment as to property | Order represented final equitable distribution; Wife shouldn’t supplement record post-trial | Trial court’s orders were ambiguous re: Social Security/pension treatment; remand required for clarification |
| Whether pensions had to be valued/divided | Pensions had a known value (based on monthly amounts) and should have been classified/divided | Pensions were not proved/valued at trial; some pension types lacked a divisible corpus; only income used for alimony | Remand to determine nature/value/classification of the pension benefits and whether divisible; trial court must state basis of its decision |
| Whether failure to include required Rule 7 table waived issues | Not argued as waiver of appeal here; requested relief on merits | Argued Wife failed to comply and cannot now submit additional proof | Court declined to waive issues despite Rule 7 noncompliance due to unique circumstances, but warned Rule 7 generally will be enforced; remanded for findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Luplow v. Luplow, 450 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (classification, valuation, and equitable division procedure for marital property)
- Baggett v. Baggett, 422 S.W.3d 537 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court’s broad discretion in equitable distribution and appellate deference)
- In re Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26 (Tenn. 2001) (trial court speaks through its written order, not transcript)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (requirement that findings of fact and conclusions of law facilitate appellate review)
- Forbess v. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (Rule 7 briefing requirements in domestic-relations appeals)
- Rountree v. Rountree, 369 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (failure to comply with Rule 7 waives property-division issues)