Cofer v. Cofer
This text of Cofer v. Cofer (Cofer v. Cofer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTION AT KNOXVILLE FILED October 30, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Ap pellate Co urt C lerk
RONALD STEPHEN COFER, ) BRADLEY CIRCUIT ) Plaintiff/Appellee ) NO. 03A01-9705-CV-00173 ) v. ) ) LYNDA SUSAN DAVIS COFER, ) HON. STEPHEN BEBB Defendant/Appellant ) JUDGE ) Defendant/Appellant ) AFFIRMED
D. Mitchell Bryant, Cleveland, for Appellant.
Ron D. Powers, Chattanooga, for Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
INMAN, Senior Judge
The appellant argues that (1) the Court erred in awarding both parties a
divorce, insisting that she should have been awarded a divorce; (2) the Court
failed to award her sufficient alimony; (3) the Court should have awarded the
entire interest in the marital residence to her, rather than a 50 percent interest;
(4) the Court failed to award her a reasonable attorney fee.
The record reveals that the marital estate was equitably and fairly divided
and that the award of alimony was likewise equitable and in keeping with the
circumstances of the parties. Since the allowance of attorney fees is ordinarily a
matter of judicial discretion, the record reveals no abuse of this judicial
prerogative. This case is peculiarly adaptive to the application of RULE 10, RULES OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS,1 and the judgment is accordingly affirmed at the costs
of the appellant.
_________________________________ William H. Inman, Senior Judge
CONCUR:
_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge
_______________________________ Herschel P. Franks, Judge
1 10. Affirmance Without Opinion - Memorandum Opinion. (b) Memorandum Opinion. The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. [As amended by order filed April 22, 1992.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cofer v. Cofer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cofer-v-cofer-tennctapp-1997.