Tennessee case abstract on property division in divorce.
The husband and spouse on this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case divorced in 2017 after 23 years of marriage. That they had entered right into a marital dissolution settlement. However though the husband had within the army for 25 years, the settlement made no particular point out of his entitlement to army advantages. The settlement was authorized by the court docket, however lower than a month later, the spouse moved to put aside the settlement, and requested for a share of the army retirement advantages.
She argued that she was pressured to signal the settlement and was not represented by an legal professional, though the doc stated she was. The trial court docket set the settlement apart to the extent that it associated to retirement accounts and army advantages. After remaining judgment, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals. He argued that the trial court docket ought to have honored the marital dissolution settlement.
The trial court docket had not gone as far as to search out that there had been duress, however held that the husband exerted improper stress. The husband had defined that the events’ retirement accounts “cancelled out,” and downplayed the necessity for the spouse to have her personal legal professional. The appeals court docket did level out that earlier than approving an settlement in a case comparable to this, based mostly on irreconcilable distinction, the court docket had an obligation to have a look at the settlement to find out if it made sufficient provision for equitable settlement. On this case, the decrease court docket had agreed that it didn’t adjust to this requirement.
The appeals court docket additionally famous that the settlement was authorized partially based mostly upon the recitation that each events have been represented by counsel. Since this was not true on this case, this was another excuse to put aside the settlement.
For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals held that the decrease court docket had acted inside its discretion in setting apart the settlement. Subsequently, it affirmed the ultimate judgment.
No. M2020–00055-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2021).
See authentic opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.