George H. Richardson v. Joyce R. Richardson
This text of George H. Richardson v. Joyce R. Richardson (George H. Richardson v. Joyce R. Richardson) 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
GEORGE H. RICHARDSON, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9507-CH-00304 v. ) ) Maury Chancery JOYCE R. RICHARDSON, ) No. 94-274 ) Defendant/Appellee. ) FILED Nov. 29, 1995 COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR MAURY COUNTY
AT COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE
THE HONORABLE JIM T. HAMILTON, CHANCELLOR
TRACY W. MOORE Moore & Peden, P.C. 29 Public Square P. O. Box 981 Columbia, Tennessee 38402-0981 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
DANIEL L. MURPHY Fleming, Holloway & Flynn, P.C. 207 W. 8th Street Columbia, Tennessee 38401 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION In this divorce action, plaintiff/appellant, George H.
Richardson, appealed and presented three issues: (1) "Whether the
trial court erred in failing to eliminate appellant's alimony
obligation in the form of making the monthly mortgage payment on
the marital residence occupied by appellee as well as paying
appellee's car payments[,]" (2) "Whether the trial court erred in
failing to relieve appellant of his obligation to pay for
appellee's attorney's fees[,]" and (3) "Whether the trial court
erred in failing to adopt appellant's proposed division of marital
property."
Our review of this case is pursuant to Tennessee Rule of
Appellate Procedure 13(d) which provides, in pertinent part, that
this court review the trial court's findings of fact with a
presumption of correctness and that this court affirm those
findings unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
The parties were married for approximately seventeen years
and had two minor sons, ages ten and fourteen. The parties moved
to Maury County from Michigan so that husband could accept a job
with the Saturn Corporation in Spring Hill. They purchased a home
in Spring Hill for $126,900.00. They financed $96,900.00 of the
purchase price. The house payments were $677.54 a month with a
balloon payment of $88,157.01 due on 1 October 2001. The Maury
Court of Appeals Rule 10(b): 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.
2 County Tax Assessor appraised the home at $110,700.00. Appellee
testified that keeping the house was very important to her because
she wanted to have a proper atmosphere in which to raise her
children.
Since appellant went to work for General Motors in August
1978, appellee worked sporadically. At the time of trial, appellee
had not been able to find employment. She had no special work
skills, but had previously worked as a plumber. Nevertheless, she
was unable to find employment as a plumber in the Maury County area
because, according to her, no one would hire a woman plumber.
Appellant's income in 1993 was $57,649.29. His income for
1994 was $52,430.05. During the appellant filed an income and
expense statement calculated as of 15 June 1994. The statement
provided the court with estimates of appellant's future income
based on his income and expenses for the six previous months. It
indicated that appellant had a gross monthly income of $2,974.60.
Under expenses, he included the monthly house and car payments
which the court ordered he pay as alimony. The statement also
showed that appellant had a surplus of some $265.00 per month. Pay
statements from Saturn, however, indicated that appellant's average
gross monthly income for the first five and a half months of 1994
was $5,213.74.
Appellant insisted that his income had decreased because
overtime was no longer available. There was evidence, however,
that others in appellant's team at Saturn had continued to work
overtime.
Appellant admitted to his adultery and stipulated that
grounds for divorce existed. Appellant also admitted that appellee
was a fit and proper person to have custody of the minor children.
3 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court divided the
marital assets and awarded alimony and child support as follows.
The court awarded appellee custody of the minor children.
In addition, it ordered appellant to pay 32% of his net income as
child support until the oldest child obtains the age of eighteen or
until the child or his class graduates from high school, whichever
occurs first. The order then reduced the appellant's obligation to
21% of his net income at that time. The order also required
appellant to maintain medical, dental, and optical insurance on the
minor children and to pay one-half of the medical, dental,
chiropractic, psychiatric, psychological, or optometry expenses of
the children not covered by insurance. Appellant is to maintain
life insurance on himself in the amount of $75,000.00 designating
the parties' minor children as the sole and equal beneficiaries.
The court awarded appellee the 1993 Saturn automobile and
ordered appellant to make the bi-monthly automobile payments as
alimony. Appellee also received the personal property identified
on her proposed list of personal property.
Finally, the court ordered appellant to pay various forms
of alimony to appellee. First, the order provided that he pay all
the house payments for the marital residence until the final
balloon payment becomes due and payable. Thereafter, the parties
will sell the property. Out of the proceeds, the parties shall pay
the expense of the sale and the final balloon payment. Next, they
will split the remaining proceeds with appellee receiving 55
percent and appellant receiving 45 percent. Second, the order
provided that appellant pay $500.00 per month to appellee for three
years to enable appellee to obtain a better education or to
increase her earning capacity through continued employment.
Finally, the court ordered appellant to pay other credit card and
4 individual debts incurred by appellee.
Appellant filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and
showed that appellee had secured employment with Saturn Corporation
since the date of the trial and that she earned $12.05 per hour.
Upon this showing, the trial court discontinued the $500.00 per
month alimony.
In their briefs, the parties showed almost no disagreement
over the division of personal property. Their real disagreement
concerned the disposition of the marital residence.
We have reviewed this record pursuant to Tennessee Rule of
Appellate Procedure 13(d) and find that the evidence does not
preponderate against the findings of the trial court except in one
particular. We are of the opinion that the evidence preponderates
against the trial court's judgment that the appellant should make
all payments on the marital residence and that, at the time the
balloon payment becomes due and payable, the parties should sell
the house and split the proceeds in favor of appellee.
On remand, the court should amend the decree to provide that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
George H. Richardson v. Joyce R. Richardson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-h-richardson-v-joyce-r-richardson-tennctapp-1995.