Joseph Spottswood Crowell v. Mayme Modena Roberson

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Joseph Spottswood Crowell v. Mayme Modena Roberson

DecidedJuly 13, 2000

DocketE1999-00348-COA-R3-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Joseph Spottswood Crowell v. Mayme Modena Roberson (Joseph Spottswood Crowell v. Mayme Modena Roberson) 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

Joseph Spottswood Crowell v. Mayme Modena Roberson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

JOSEPH SPOTTSWOOD CROWELL v. MAYME MODENA ROBERSON CROWELL

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County No. 13,202 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor

No. E1999-00348-COA-R3-CV - Decided July 13, 2000

OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

SUSANO, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GODDARD , P.J., and SWINEY , J., joined

The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. In the first ground of his petition, he asserts that we made a mistake in computing the “[a]djustment re: North Carolina property” reflected on page 8 of our opinion. The appellee is in error in this assertion. We purposely utilized an adjusting figure of $141,915 rather than $140,447.50 -- the latter figure being fifty percent of the value of the marital property share of the North Carolina property. The larger figure was a “plug” figure used to achieve equality in the overall division of the parties’ marital property. Since it will be necessary to transfer funds to consummate this division, we deemed it equitable in this case to equally divide the parties’ marital estate. The trial court found that equality was equitable and the evidence does not preponderate against this finding.

As a second basis for his petition, the appellee contends that we did not award him an offsetting credit for his share of the $10,000 in marital funds that the appellant used in the creation of her family’s partnership. He is also wrong in this assertion. We ignored the appellant’s use of the $10,000 in marital funds just as we ignored the marital funds used by the appellee in connection with the North Carolina property. This latter amount, i.e., $10,400, was a part of the $55,800 that was awarded to the appellee as his separate property interest in the North Carolina property. Since these two payments essentially offset one another, we chose to ignore them.

The appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file his petition for rehearing is granted. The petition for rehearing is denied at the costs of Joseph Spottswood Crowell.

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

JOSEPH SPOTTSWOOD CROWELL v. MAYME MODENA ROBERSON CROWELL

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County No. 13,202 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor

No. E1999-00348-COA-R3-CV - Decided July 13, 2000

OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

SUSANO, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GODDARD , P.J., and SWINEY , J., joined

The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. In the first ground of his petition, he asserts that we made a mistake in computing the “[a]djustment re: North Carolina property” reflected on page 8 of our opinion. The appellee is in error in this assertion. We purposely utilized an adjusting figure of $141,915 rather than $140,447.50 -- the latter figure being fifty percent of the value of the marital property share of the North Carolina property. The larger figure was a “plug” figure used to achieve equality in the overall division of the parties’ marital property. Since it will be necessary to transfer funds to consummate this division, we deemed it equitable in this case to equally divide the parties’ marital estate. The trial court found that equality was equitable and the evidence does not preponderate against this finding.

As a second basis for his petition, the appellee contends that we did not award him an offsetting credit for his share of the $10,000 in marital funds that the appellant used in the creation of her family’s partnership. He is also wrong in this assertion. We ignored the appellant’s use of the $10,000 in marital funds just as we ignored the marital funds used by the appellee in connection with the North Carolina property. This latter amount, i.e., $10,400, was a part of the $55,800 that was awarded to the appellee as his separate property interest in the North Carolina property. Since these two payments essentially offset one another, we chose to ignore them.

The appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file his petition for rehearing is granted. The petition for rehearing is denied at the costs of Joseph Spottswood Crowell.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph Spottswood Crowell v. Mayme Modena Roberson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-spottswood-crowell-v-mayme-modena-roberson-tennctapp-2000.