Faye Louise Taylor Chadwell v. Albert Chadwell and Consolidation Coal Company

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedOctober 1, 1996
Docket03A01-9601-GS-00007
StatusPublished

This text of Faye Louise Taylor Chadwell v. Albert Chadwell and Consolidation Coal Company (Faye Louise Taylor Chadwell v. Albert Chadwell and Consolidation Coal Company) 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.

Bluebook
Faye Louise Taylor Chadwell v. Albert Chadwell and Consolidation Coal Company, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED October 1, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

FAYE LOUI SE TAYLOR CHADWELL ) CAMPBELL COUNTY ) 03A01- 9601- GS- 00007 Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) v. ) HON. BI LLY J OE W TE, HI ) CHANCELLOR ) ( Si t t i ng by I nt e r c ha nge ) ALBERT CHADW ELL a nd ) CONSOLI DATI ON COAL COMPANY1 ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

J ERROLD L. BECKER a nd LUCI NDA M ALBI STON OF KNOXVI LLE FOR . APPELLANTS

J OHNNY V. DUNAW OF La FOLLETTE OF KNOXVI LLE FOR APPELLEE AY

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

I n t hi s pos t - di v or c e pr oc e e di ng, t he Cha nc e l l or f oun d

t ha t c e r t a i n a s s e t s o wne d by Al be r t Cha dwe l l a t t he t i me of t he

p a r t i e s ’ d i vor c e we r e ma r i t a l a s s e t s a nd t ha t hi s f or me r wi f e ,

1 Co n s o l i d a t i o n Co a l Co mp a n y wa s ma d e a p a r t y i n t h e p e t i t i o n n o w o n a ppe a l t o enj oi n t he t r a ns f e r of any f unds or as s e t s hel d f or t he bene f i t of M . Ch a d we l l a n d t o r e q u i r e a f u l l a c c o u n t i n g o f s u c h f u n d s . r Fa y e Lo u i s e Ta yl or Cha dwe l l , wa s e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a ga i ns t

h i m o f $94, 320 whi c h i nc l ude d i nt e r e s t f r om t he da t e of t he

di vor c e . The Cha nc e l l or a l s o i mpr e s s e d a l i e n a ga i ns t c e r t a i n

r e a l e s t a t e or i gi na l l y owne d by M . Cha dwe l l , who l a t e r pur por t e d r

t o t r a n s f e r a n i nt e r e s t t o hi s pr e s e nt wi f e . Bot h t he r e a l

e s t a t e a nd t he home M . Cha dwe l l e r e c t e d t he r e on we r e pa i d f or i n r

p a r t wi t h t he a s s e t s i n d i s put e i n t hi s a ppe a l .

The pr i nc i pa l que s t i on t o be de c i de d i n t hi s a ppe a l i s

wh e t h e r a n or de r e nt e r e d i n a pr e vi ous pr oc e e di ng be t we e n t he

p a r t i e s f ound t ha t M s . Cha dwe l l wa s not e nt i t l e d t o t he s e r

s p e c i f i c f unds , t hus ba r r i ng he r c l a i m unde r t he t he or y or r e s

j ud i c a t a .

The pa r t i e s we r e ma r r i e d on Oc t obe r 8, 1966.

Th r o u g h out t he i r 18- ye a r ma r r i a ge , M . Cha dwe l l wa s e mpl oye d by r

Co n s o l i da t i on Coa l Compa ny. By 1984, M . Cha dwe l l ha d t hr e e r

a c c o u n t s t hr ough hi s e mpl oyme nt a t Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny: a n

Emp l o y e e Re t i r e me nt of Con s ol I nc . ( r e t i r e me nt pl a n) whi c h be c a me

v e s t e d J une 1, 1983; a Conoc o Empl oye e s St oc k Owne r s hi p Pl a n

( CESOP) c ompos e d e nt i r e l y of DuPont s t oc k; a nd a n I nve s t me nt Pl a n

f o r Sa l a r i e d Empl oye e s of Cons ol ( i nve s t me nt pl a n) .

The ma r r i a ge wa s t e r mi na t e d by a Fi na l De c r e e of

Di v o r c e e nt e r e d on J une 11 , 1984. The Fi na l De c r e e pr ovi de d i n

pa r t :

2 5. Tha t Fa ye Loui s e Ta yl or Cha dwe l l i s a wa r de d t he 1 9 74 Gr a nd Pr i x a ut omobi l e a nd a l l ot he r pe r s ona l p r ope r t y a c qui r e d by t he pa r t i e s , e xc e pt t he s t oc k a c c umul a t e d b y Al be r t Cha dwe l l a t hi s pl a c e of e mpl oyme nt , whi c h s t oc k i s a wa r de d 50% t o Al be r t Ch a dwe l l a nd 50% t o Fa ye Loui s e Ta yl or Cha dwe l l , wi t h e a c h pa r t y t o be r e s p ons i bl e f or hi s r e s pe c t i ve s ha r e o f i nc ome t a x d ue a t s uc h t i me a s a ny t a xe s a r e due on t h e s a i d r e s pe c t i ve pa r t y’ s s t oc k.

The s t oc k me nt i one d i n t he De c r e e wa s not f ur t he r

i d e n t i f i e d or de f i ne d by t he De c r e e . The r e wa s no va l ua t i on o f

t h e s t o c k a t t he t i me of t he di vor c e . Howe ve r , M . Cha dwe l l s

a v e r r e d i n he r or i gi na l c ompl a i nt f or di vor c e t ha t t he s t oc k wa s

wo r t h a ppr oxi ma t e l y $50, 000. The r e wa s no di s t r i but i on of t he

s t o c k o r t he pr oc e e ds t he r e of t o M . Cha dwe l l . s

A he a r i ng wa s c onduc t e d on J une 4, 1986, i n t he Ge ne r a l

Se s s i o n s Cour t f or Ca mpbe l l Count y. The Cour t f ound t ha t M . r

Ch a dwe l l " o wns a n i nt e r e s t i n a r e t i r e me nt i nve s t me nt a c c ount o r

s t o c k a c c ount i n hi s e mpl oye r , " a nd t ha t t he a c c ount ha d dr a wn a

mi n i ma l of 10 pe r c e nt i nt e r e s t s i nc e t he e nt r y of t he Fi na l

De c r e e . The Cour t or de r e d hi m t o pr ovi de ve r i f i c a t i on of t he

a mo u n t s i n t he i nve s t me nt a c c ount s , t o de t e r mi ne t he pr e s e nt

v a l u e o f t he a c c ount s , a nd t o pr ovi de M . Cha dwe l l wi t h a c c e s s t o s

t h e r e c or ds pe r t a i ni ng t o t he a c c ount s .

On Fe br ua r y 19, 1988, t he Cour t a t t e mpt e d t o de t e r mi n e

M . Ch a dwe l l ’ s i nt e r e s t i n t he r e t i r e me nt pl a n unde r t he Fi na l s

De c r e e . The Cour t f ound t ha t " [ t ] he r e t i r e me nt pl a n f unds whi c h

a r e a t i s s ue i n t hi s a c t i on a r e not me nt i one d pe r s e i n t he

de c r e e . . . . Gi ve n t he di s t i nc t i ve na t ur e a nd l a r ge a mount o f

3 t h e r e t i r e me nt pl a n i n 1984 i t woul d s e e m l ogi c a l t ha t i t woul d

b e a d d r e s s e d i n i t s own t e r ms r a t he r t ha n l umpe d i n wi t h t he t e r m

s t o c k. " The Cha nc e l l or s t a t e d t ha t t he i s s ue of M . Cha dwe l l ’ s s

i n t e r e s t i n t he r e t i r e me nt a c c ount c oul d a nd s houl d ha ve be e n

l i t i g a t e d i n 1984 a t whi c h t i me t he pa r t i e s ha d knowl e dge of i t

b u t d i d not i nc l ude i t i n a di vi s i on of t he i r ma r i t a l pr ope r t y .

Th u s , t he Cha nc e l l or he l d t ha t unde r t he Fi na l De c r e e , M . s

Ch a d we l l ha d no i nt e r e s t i n t he r e t i r e me nt a c c ount . M . Cha dwe l l s

d i d n o t a ppe a l t he Cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs .

I n t he f ol l owi ng ye a r s , M . Cha dwe l l f a i l e d t o pr ovi d e r

v e r i f i c a t i on of t he s t oc k or i nve s t me nt a c c ount s a nd he f a i l e d t o

ma k e a n y di s t r i but i ons t o M . Cha dwe l l a s or de r e d by t he c our t i n s

1 9 8 4 a n d 1986. M . Cha dwe l l f i l e d a pe t i t i on f or c ont e mpt on s

No v e mb e r 23, 1993, s e e ki ng va l ua t i on of t he he r i nt e r e s t i n M . r

Ch a d we l l ’ s hol di ngs wi t h hi s e mpl oye r a nd a j udgme nt f or he r o n e -

h a l f i nt e r e s t . The Cour t he l d t ha t M . Cha dwe l l wa s i n c ont e mp t r

f o r f a i l i ng t o pr ovi de ve r i f i c a t i on of t he a c c ount s a nd f or

f a i l i n g t o di s t r i but e 50 p e r c e nt of t he va l ue of t he a c c ount s a s

h e wa s or de r e d t o do by t he Cour t i n 1984 a nd 1986. The Cour t

a l s o ma de a f i ndi ng t ha t t he va l ue of t he a c c ount s wa s no l e s s

t h a n $ 8 4, 927. 99, one ha l f of whi c h wa s owe d t o M . Cha dwe l l . s

On M r c h 9, 1995, M . Cha dwe l l f i l e d a n a me nde d a s

p e t i t i o n f or c ont e mpt a ddi ng M . Cha dwe l l ’ s c ur r e nt wi f e , Donn a r

M r i e Cha dwe l l . a M . Cha dwe l l c ompl a i ne d t ha t M . Cha dwe l l a nd s r

h i s p r e s e nt wi f e ha d us e d M . Cha dwe l l ’ s por t i on of t he s t oc k s

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lee v. Hall
790 S.W.2d 293 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1990)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston
854 S.W.2d 87 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Zack Cheek Builders, Inc. v. McLeod
597 S.W.2d 888 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1980)
White v. White
876 S.W.2d 837 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1994)
Chisholm v. Bohannon
558 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Faye Louise Taylor Chadwell v. Albert Chadwell and Consolidation Coal Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faye-louise-taylor-chadwell-v-albert-chadwell-and--tennctapp-1996.