Gladstone Ralph Hobbs v. Mollie Jane Hobbs - Concurring

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: June 6, 1997
• Docket: 03A01-9702-CV-00063
• Status: Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk GLADSTONE RALPH HOBBS, ) GREENE CI RCUI T ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9702- CV- 0006 3 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CHESTER M AHOOD ) J UDGE BY DESI GNATI ON ) ) ) ) ) MOLLI E J ANE HOBBS, ) REVERSED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

KENNETH CLARK HOOD, Roge r s , La ughl i n, Nunna l l y, Hood & Cr um, P. C. , Gr e e n e v i l l e , f or Appe l l a nt .

ROGER A. WOOLSEY, Gr e e ne vi l l e , f or Appe l l e e .

M ORANDUM OPI NI ON EM

M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s i s a di vor c e a c t i on. The de f e nda nt ( wi f e ) a s s e r t s o n

t hi s a p p e a l , a mong ot he r t hi ngs , t ha t t he t r i a l c our t a bus e d i t s

d i s c r e t i on i n de nyi ng a c ont i nua nc e of t he t r i a l . The r e c o r d

r e f l e c t s t ha t t he r e wa s a gr e a t de a l of c onf us i on a s t o t he wa y a nd

ma n n e r t he c a s e wa s s e t f or t r i a l be c a us e of t he r e s i gna t i on of t h e

f or me r Ci r c ui t J udge . The wi f e ' s c ouns e l c l a i ms t o ha ve ha d n o

n o t i c e o f t he t r i a l da t e unt i l t he da y t he c a s e wa s s e t f or t r i a l .

On t h a t d a t e , he a ppl i e d t o t he c our t f or a c ont i nua nc e . The c o u r t

c o n t i n u e d t he c a s e u nt i l t he f ol l owi ng mor ni ng a t 7: 00 a . m. Pr i o r

t o t he t r i a l , t h e c our t a l l owe d t h e wi f e ' s a t t or ne y t o ma ke a

mo t i o n f or a c ont i nua nc e on t he r e c or d, wi t h a wr i t t e n mot i on, t o

b e f i l e d a s e xhi bi t No. 1. Couns e l ' s a f f i da vi t s uppor t i ng t h e

mo t i o n f or a c ont i nua nc e wa s a l l owe d t o be f i l e d a s e xhi bi t 2.

Up on c ons i de r a t i on of t he r e c or d, we a r e of t he opi ni on t h a t

t he wi f e ' s mot i on s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d. I t i s de mons t r a t e d i n

t he r e c or d t ha t t he wi f e ' s c ouns e l ha d not r e c e i ve d i nf or ma t i o n

a bout t he va l ue of t he h us ba nd' s be ne f i t s unde r t he Te nne s s e e

Co n s o l i da t e d Re t i r e me nt Pl a n. W a r e of t he opi ni on, e t ha t un d e r

t he c i r c ums t a nc e s of t he case, c ouns e l f or t he wi f e wa s du l y

d i l i g e n t i n t r yi ng t o ge t t he i nf or ma t i on a nd i t a ppe a r s t ha t s h e

wa s p r e j udi c e d by t he f a i l ur e t o t i me l y r e c e i ve t he i nf or ma t i o n .

2 W a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he mot i on f or c ont i nua nc e s ho u l d e

h a v e b e e n gr a nt e d. Ac c or di ngl y, we va c a t e t he j udgme nt of t he

t r i a l c our t i n i t s e nt i r e t y.

Si nc e t hi s i s s ue i s di s pos i t i ve of t he c a s e , we de c l i ne t o

a dd r e s s t he r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s r a i s e d by t he pa r t i e s . Thi s c a s e i s

r e ma nd e d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or a r e t r i a l of a l l i s s ue s . In so

d o i n g , we e xpr e s s no opi ni on on a ny i s s ue r e ma i ni ng t o be he a r d b y

t he c o u r t . I n our di s c r e t i on, we t a x t he c os t s e qua l l y be t we e n t h e

pa r t i e s .

___________________________ _ _ _ Don T. M M r a y, J . c ur

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ He r s c h e l P. Fr a nks , J udge

3 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

GLADSTONE RALPH HOBBS, ) GREENE CI RCUI T ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9702- CV- 0006 3 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CHESTER M AHOOD ) J UDGE BY DESI GNATI ON ) ) ) ) ) MOLLI E J ANE HOBBS, ) REVERSED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

ORDER

Thi s a ppe a l c a me o n t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t h e

Ci r c u i t Cour t of Gr e e ne Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .

Up o n c o n s i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t h e r e

wa s r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

` Ac c or di ngl y, we v a c a t e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t i n i t s

e n t i r e t y. Thi s c a s e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or a r e t r i a l o f a l l i s s ue s . I n our di s c r e t i on, we t a x t he c os t s e qua l l y be t we e n

t he p a r t i e s .

PER CURI AM