Wife motion in Tennessee

2016See Davis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 23 S.W.3d 304, 313 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

2002See Davis, 23 S.W.3d at 313 .

2024See Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that a court may place a value on property that is within the range of values represented by the evidence); see also Barton v. Barton, No. E2019-01136-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 6580562 , at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2020) (“There were two conflicting values presented with respect to the real property: Husband’s opinion and the tax appraisal values presented by Wife, which were admitted into evidence without objection.

2017“Dividing a marital estate necessarily begins with the systematic identification of all of the parties’ property interests.” Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 485 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2019Wife argues that both awards are 11 See, e.g., (Cooley) v. Cooley, 543 S.W.3d 674, 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (concluding that a professional’s steady increase in income was not unanticipated and therefore not a material change); Jekot, 362 S.W.3d at 83-84 (concluding that the wife’s receipt of rental income from a medical office building she was awarded in the division of marital property was not an “unanticipated or unforeseen” circumstance); Seal v. Seal, 802 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing that stocks or bonds received in the division of marital property might produce inc

2000See Seal v. Seal, 802 S.W.2d 617, 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)(holding that wife was entitled to attorney’s fees incurred in defending her entitlement to alimony).

2001“The motion to alter or amend allows the trial court to correct any errors as to the law or facts that may have arisen as a result of the court overlooking or failing to consider matters.” Chadwell v. Knox County, 980 S.W.2d 378, 383 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).

2000“The motion to alter or amend allows the trial court to correct any errors as to the law or facts that may have arisen as a result of the court overlooking or failing to consider matters.” Chadwell v. Knox County, 980 S.W.2d 378, 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

2022In its order, the trial court stated that it was basing its decision on the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121.4 “When a trial court decides a case without a jury, its 3 There are statements in Wife’s brief where she appears to acknowledge that the matter has been transferred to Juvenile Court. 4 Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121(i) provides that: In determining whether the granting of an order for payment of support and maintenance to a party is appropriate, and in determining the nature, amount, length of term, and manner of payment, the court shall consid

2001In support of this argument, Husband relies upon the case of Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), in which this Court held that “[t]rial courts may act upon requests for legal expenses without a fully developed record as long as the party opposing the request has been afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine the requesting parties' witnesses and to present proof of its own on the issue.” Id. at 785 .

2019“A table that comprehensively lists the trial court’s division of a divorced couple’s assets is essential because the issue on appeal is ‘whether the overall property distribution was equitable’ not ‘whether the division as to particular assets was equitable.’” Blount v. Blount, No. E2017-00243-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 1433198 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2018) (quoting Morton, 182 S.W.3d at 834 ) (underlining added, italics in original).

2007Finally, we consider Wife’s issue regarding whether this is a frivolous appeal. “ ‘A frivolous appeal is one that is ‘devoid of merit,’ or one in which there is little prospect that [an appeal] can ever succeed.’” Morton v. Morton, 182 S.W.3d 821, 838 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Industrial Dev.

2018Thus, the trial court properly complied with the mandates of Rule 10B, § 1.02. 4 Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-103(c) provides: The plaintiff spouse may recover from the defendant spouse, and the spouse or other person to whom the custody of the child, or children, is awarded may recover from the other spouse reasonable attorney fees incurred in enforcing any decree for alimony and/or child support, or in regard to any suit or action concerning the adjudication of the custody or the change of custody of any child, or children, of the parties, both upon the original divorce hearing and

2018Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure permits this Court to waive the briefing requirements if good cause exists.4 Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d at 489 .

2026“Subject matter jurisdiction involves a court’s lawful authority to adjudicate a controversy brought before it.” Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996); Standard Sur. & Cas.

2026“Subject matter jurisdiction involves a court’s lawful authority to adjudicate a controversy brought before it.” Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996); Standard Sur. & Cas.

2026“The classification of particular property as either separate or marital is a question of fact to be determined in 3 Husband acknowledges Wife’s issue regarding waiver in his reply brief but concedes that she “cannot unilaterally modify a final judgment through appellate representations, and child support belongs to the children and cannot be waived by parents.” - 11 - light of all relevant circumstances.” Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Tenn. 2009).

2024See id. (“Rule 60.02 affords a party a means to seek relief from a final, non-appealable judgment.

2024Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (“Because the trial court may award spousal support only after the court has equitably divided the parties’ marital property, the awards of alimony are vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of a proper valuation and distribution of the marital estate.”); Beyer v. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59, 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (“In light of our remand to the trial court to reconsider its distribution of the parties’ marital estate, however, the trial court must reconsider its awards of alimony as well.”).

2024GOLDIN, JUDGE 10 “If one spouse is economically disadvantaged compared to the other, the courts are generally inclined to provide some type of support.” Batson v. Batson, 769 S.W.2d 849, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). 11 As to Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees specifically, we note that, whereas Wife’s brief’s argument section concerning her request for appellate fees does not directly pinpoint the statutory legal authority undergirding her request, the cases she cites to relate to the attorney’s fee provision in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-103(c).

2024Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (“Because the trial court may award spousal support only after the court has equitably divided the parties’ marital property, the awards of alimony are vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of a proper valuation and distribution of the marital estate.”); Beyer v. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59, 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (“In light of our remand to the trial court to reconsider its distribution of the parties’ marital estate, however, the trial court must reconsider its awards of alimony as well.”).

2022“Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment -2- by the courts.” Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Paehler v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)).

2022“Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment -2- by the courts.” Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Paehler v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)).

2022“Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment -2- by the courts.” Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Paehler v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)).

2021Specifically, Wife’s issue is [w]hether the Trial Judge erred in adopting arguments and claims from [Husband’s] Response in opposition to [Wife’s] Rule 10B Motion incorporating it into and making it a part of his Order denying recusal as Exhibit A, showing that his deliberation and decision not to recuse was not the exercise of the Trial Judge’s own Independent Judgment, in violation of Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303, 314-16 (Tenn. 2014). 8 In the Third 10B Petition, Wife alleges that the trial court’s reliance on Guo is misplaced.

2020Rule 54.02 serves as “an exception to Rule 3 that permits the trial court, without permission from the appellate court, to certify an order as final and appealable, even if parts of the overall litigation remain pending in the trial court.” Johnson v. Nunis, 383 S.W.3d 122, 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).

2019“Courts frown upon the manipulation of the impartiality issue to gain procedural advantage and will not permit litigants to refrain from asserting known grounds for disqualification in order ‘to experiment with the court . . . and raise the objection later when the result of the trial is unfavorable.’” Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Holmes v. Eason, 76 Tenn. 754 (Tenn. 1882)).

2019Wife argues that both awards are 11 See, e.g., (Cooley) v. Cooley, 543 S.W.3d 674, 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (concluding that a professional’s steady increase in income was not unanticipated and therefore not a material change); Jekot, 362 S.W.3d at 83-84 (concluding that the wife’s receipt of rental income from a medical office building she was awarded in the division of marital property was not an “unanticipated or unforeseen” circumstance); Seal v. Seal, 802 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing that stocks or bonds received in the division of marital property might produce inc

2019Wife argues that both awards are 11 See, e.g., (Cooley) v. Cooley, 543 S.W.3d 674, 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (concluding that a professional’s steady increase in income was not unanticipated and therefore not a material change); Jekot, 362 S.W.3d at 83-84 (concluding that the wife’s receipt of rental income from a medical office building she was awarded in the division of marital property was not an “unanticipated or unforeseen” circumstance); Seal v. Seal, 802 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing that stocks or bonds received in the division of marital property might produce inc

2019Wife did not challenge Mr. Bratton’s qualifications on appeal. - 14 - credibility of witnesses, the trial court is the best judge of the credibility and its findings of credibility are entitled to great weight.” Tenn-Tex Properties v. Brownell-Electro, Inc., 778 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Tenn. 1989).

2019ISSUE PRESENTED This appeal involves a single issue: whether the trial judge erred in denying Wife’s motion to recuse.3 Recusal should be granted “whenever the judge has any doubts about his or her ability to preside impartially” or “when a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position, knowing all of the facts known to the judge, would find a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.” Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810, 820 (Tenn. Crim.

2018Thus, the trial court properly complied with the mandates of Rule 10B, § 1.02. 4 Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-103(c) provides: The plaintiff spouse may recover from the defendant spouse, and the spouse or other person to whom the custody of the child, or children, is awarded may recover from the other spouse reasonable attorney fees incurred in enforcing any decree for alimony and/or child support, or in regard to any suit or action concerning the adjudication of the custody or the change of custody of any child, or children, of the parties, both upon the original divorce hearing and

2018As the trial court pointed out in its order denying Wife’s motion for recusal, however, “[t]rial courts possess inherent, common- law authority to control their dockets and the proceedings in their courts,” and “[t]heir authority is quite broad . . . .” Hodges v. Attorney Gen., 43 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); see also TENN.