### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON January 20, 201 0 S es sio n JAC K MA RLE R VANHOOSE R v. SU SA N M CC REIGH T VANHOOSE R

D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T
- 002691- 06, D i v. V I Jerr y St okes , Judge

N o. W 2009- 01191- C O A
- R 3- C V - F i l ed F ebruary 22, 2010

T hi s i s an appe al fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s aw ar d of al i m ony , di vi s i on of m ar i t al pr oper t y , and gr antof di vor ce. H us band fi l ed t he i ni t i al compl ai ntfordi vor ce. Subse quent l y , w i fe f i l ed a co u n ter-com p lai n t se ek ing a d ec ree o f lega l se p ara ti o n . W ife later am en d ed h er c o u n tercompl ai ntt o al l ege f

r aud and s oughtdamages b ased on herfr aud cl ai m . B eca us e t he t r i al c o u rt f a iled to ru le o n th e w if

e ’s c laim o f f

ra u d , n o f

in a l ju d g m e n t ex ists. A c c o rd in g ly , this c o u rt la c k s s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n a n d th e a p p e a l is d is m is s e d

. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3. A ppe al as of R i ght ; A ppeal D i s m i s s ed and R em anded
J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W

. S. and D AV I D R. F AR MER , J

. , j oi ned.
M itch e ll D . M o sk o v itz a n d A d a m N . C o h e n , M e m p h is, T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llan t, S u san M cC reigh t V an H o o ser. R i char d F. V aughn and W i l l i am C r ai g H al l , C ol l i er vi l l e, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ee, J ack M arler V an H o o ser. OP I NI ON O n M ay23, 2006, A ppel l ee, J ack M ar l erV an H oos er( “M r . V an H oos er ”) , fi l ed a compl ai ntfordi vor ce. W hen he f i led fordi vor ce, M r . V an H oos erand hi s w i fe, Susa n M c C re ig h t V a n H o o se r (“ M rs. V an H oo ser ”), A pp el l an t, ha d b e e n m a rrie d f o r a p p ro x im a tely t hi r t een y ear s . M r . V an H oos eral l eged gr ounds of i r r econc i l abl e di ffe r en ces and i nappr opr i at e mar i t al conduct

. M r s . V an H o o ser f i l ed an a ns w ert o t he compl ai nton J une 28, 2006 deny i ng al l al l egat i ons an d ask ing tha tt he compl ai ntbe di s m i s s ed. Pr i ort o t he m ar r i age a ti s s ue, M r . V an H oos er had been m ar r i ed and di vor ced, w i t h one chi l d r es ul t i ng f ro m th e m a rr ia g e .We no te that while Mrs. Van Hoo ser’s amended com plaint s tates tha tt he t r i a l court granted her 1 permission, no ord er grantingpermission appears in the rec or d. Ho we ver , at no place in the reco rd o r on appea l, d oes Mr. Van Hoo ser ob j ect to the amendm ent.

-2- M r s . V an H oos er fi l ed a m ot i on w i t h t he t r i al cour t on N ovember 7, 2007, r eques t i ng per m i s s i on t o fi l e a Count er - C om pl ai ntfora D ecr ee of L egal Separ at i on. B ycons ent , t he par t i es ent ere d into an orde ron N ovember 27, 2007, al l ow i ng M r s . V an H oos ert o fi l e a C ount er - C om pl ai nt

. O n D ece m ber 6, 2007, M r s . V an H oos erfi l ed herC ount er - C om pl ai nt forD ecr ee of

L egal Separ at i on al legin g g r ounds of i r r econc i l abl e di ffe r ence s and in a p p ro p ria te m a rital c o n d u c t, as se rtin g th a t sh e is d e p e n d e n t o n M r. V a n H o o s e r ’s h e a lth i ns ur ance pol i cy , and r eques t i ng t hat s he be gr ant ed a D ecr ee of Separ at e M ai nt enanc e and S u p p o rt. O n Ja n u a ry3 , 2 0 0 8 , M r. V a n H o o se r f ile d a n a n sw e r to th e c o u n ter -c o m p lain t, d en y ing that h e is g u il tyo f in ap p rop ri ate m arit al co n d u ct, an d req u esti n g that the c o u rt d is m is s th e c o u n te r- c o m p la in t. O n A ugus t 22, 2008, M r s . V an H oos erfi l ed a mot i on r eques t i ng per m i s s i on t o amend hercount er - compl ai ntt o al l ege frau d. O n D ece m ber5, 2008, M r s . V an H oos erfi l ed an amendm entt o hercount er - co m pl ai nt , i ncorpor at i ng heror i gi nal count er - compl ai ntand all eg ing f

r aud. Speci fi cal l y , M r s . V an H oos eral l eged: ( 1) one w eek pr i ort o t he hea r i ng 1 befor e t he D i vor ce Refe ree , M r. V an H oos erent er ed i nt o a C ons entO r derR educi ng Ar r e a r a g e t o J u d g me n ta n d Or d e r M o d i f y i n g Ch i l d S u p p o r t wi t h h i s f i r s twi f e ; ( 2 ) a tn o t i me pr i ort o ent er i ng i nt o t hi s or der w as a pet i t i on for cont empt fi l ed aga i ns tM r . V an H oos er ; ( 3) s he bel i eved M r . V an H oos ercons pi r ed w i t h hi s first w i fe pr i ort o t he hea r i ng befor e t he D i vor ce Refer ee t o r educe hi s i ncome a nd t her efor e hi s obl i gat i on fort empora r ys uppor tand al i m ony ; ( 4) M r . V an H oos er vol unt ar i l y as s um ed expens es not cont ai ned i n t he origi nal M ar i t al D i s s ol ut i on A gr eementi n an ef for tt o r educe hi s i ncome and t o pr event i t fr om bei ng us ed foral i m ony ; and ( 5) no w age a s s i gnm entw as eve r i s s ued i n compl i ance w i t h t he con sent order as of a y ear aft er the en t ryof the con sent order. P ursuant t o these al l egati on s, M r s . V an H oos er as ked t he t r i al cour tt o fi nd t hatM r . V an H oos erhad enga ged i n fr aud and a w a rd d a m a g e s a n d o th e r r e lie f a c c o rd in g ly.
M r . V an H oos erfi l ed an a ns w eron D ece m ber8, 2008, as s er t i ng the defe ns es of fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef m ay be gra nt ed, l ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, and s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . M r . V an H oos eradmi t t ed havi ng ent er ed i nt o a cons entor der , and th a t n o c o n tem p t p e tit io n h a d b e e n f iled a g a in st h im , b u t av e rre d th a t h is f irst w if e h a d to ld h im sh e w as g o ing to f il e a p eti ti o n to m o d ifych il d su p p o rt , that the a rreara g es w ere l egi t i m at e bas ed on t he uni for m chi l d s uppor t gui del i nes , and t hathe ent er ed i nt o t he cons ent or dert o avoi d needl es s l i t i gat ion

. Fur t her , M r . V an H oos eradmi t t ed t hatno w age as s i gnm enthad bee n i s s ued, buts ubm i t t ed t hathe had be en i n compl i ance w i t h t he cons ent o rd e r s in c e its e n tr y .We no te that in the Fin al D ecree t hi s a c c ou nt is referred to as a 34 01(k) plan

. How ev er, in the 2 transcripts from

the trial court’s rulingand in both parties’ b riefs this account is referred to as the State of Tennessee 401(k) plan

. -3- A t r i al w as hel d on M ar ch 11 and 12, 2009. T he t r i al cour tr ul ed fr om t he benc h and a Fi nal D ecr ee of D i vor ce w as ent er ed on A pr i l 17, 2009, r efl ect i ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng. I n t he F i nal D ecr ee t he t r i al cour tdecl ar ed t he par t i es di vor ced, di vi ded mar i t al pr oper t yand pr ovi d e d f

o r a l i mon y f

o r M r s . Van Hoo s e r . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t he m ar t i al hom e be s ol d, t hatM r . V an H o o s erbe r es pons i bl e form aki ng nece s s ar yand r e a s o n a b l e r e p a i r s t o t h e h o me , t h a th e b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g t h e mo r t g a g e u n t i l t h e h o me s el l s , and t hatt he par t i es s har e equal l y i n t he pr ofi t or l os s fr om t he s al e of t he hom e. T he tr ial co u rt fo u n d that the w ife w as c u rren tl yu n em p loy ab le an d fin an ciall yd ep en d en t on M r. V an H o o ser, and acc or di ngl yaw ar ded hert r ans i t i onal al i m onyi n t he amount of s even hundr ed and f

i ft ydol l ar s for t hi r t y - s i x m ont hs

. T he t r i al cour tor der ed t hatupon t er m i nat i on o f t h e t r a n s i t i o n a l a l i m o n y, M r . V a n H o o s e rs h a l l p a y a l i m o n y i n fut uro i n t he amount of fi ve h u n d red d o ll ars a m o n th. Fu rt h er, th e tri al co u rto rde red that M r. V an H o o ser p ay h is w ife’s C O B R A heal t h i ns ur ance pr emi um s fort hi r t y - s i x m ont hs

. M r s . V an H oos er w as aw ar ded al l of herhus band’ s St at e of Tennes s ee 3401( k) pl an. M r . V an H oos err ece i ved exc l us i ve 2 o w n e rsh ip o f

h is T e n n e ss e e C o n so lid a ted R e tirem e n t S y ste m P e n sio n A c c o u n t. E a c h p a rty re tain ed t heir i nd i vidual check i ng and savi ng s accou nts and t he car t hat w as in th e ir pos s es s i on. T he t r i al cour tdi vi ded per s onal pr oper t ypur s uantt o t he agr eementof t he p a rties . T h e trial c o u rt h e ld th a t M r. V a n H o o se r w a s re sp o n sib le f o r th e d e b t o w e d to h is father , t he debtow ed on mar i t al cr edi t car ds , and M r s . V an H oos er ’ s m edi cal bi l l s i ncur r ed befor e t r i al

. T he t r i al cour t hel d M r s . V an H oos err es pons i bl e forl oans fr om herfr i end, J ohn A l ongi , and cha r ges m ade on he rm ot her ’ s cr edi t car d. Fi nal l y , t he t r i al cour thel d t hateac h p a rt yw o u ld b e re s p o n s ib le f o r t h e ir o w n a tto rn e yf

e e s . O n Apr i l 9 , 2 0 0 9 , M r s . Van Hoo s e r f i l e d a mot i o n t o a l t e r o r a me n d t he fi nal j udgm ent

. M r s . V an H oos eras ked t he cour t t o i ncr eas e t he al i m onyaw ar ded and t o al t eror amend t he prope r t y di vi s i on. Fur t her , M r s . V an H oos ers ubm i t t ed t hatt he t r i al cour tfai l ed t o m ake a fi ndi ng on her cl ai m of fr aud and di s s i pat i on and as ked t he cour t t o al t eroramend t he Fi nal D ecr ee t o r efl ectt he di s s i pat i on. M r . V an H oos erfi l ed a r es pons e o n A p ri l 16, 2009, r eques t i ng t hat t he t r i al cour t denyt he mot i on t o al t eroramend. T he t r i al cour tent er ed an or der on M ay 4, 2009, i ncr eas i ng M r s . V an H oos er ’ s t r ans i t i onal al i m onyt o one t hous and d o l l a r s a m o n t h a n d a l i m o n y i n fut uro t o sev en hundre d and fi ft ydol l ar s a mont h, and d e n y in g th e re m a in d e r o f M rs . V a n H o o s e r’ s m o tio n . M rs . V a n H o o s e r t h e n a p p e a le d

. On a p p e a l , M r s . Va n Ho o s e rr a i s e s t h e f o l l o wi n g i s s u e s f

o ro u rr e v i e w: 1. D i d t he t r i al cour ter rbyaw ar di ng W i fe a n i ns uffi ci ent-4- a m o u n to f

a l i m o n y? 2. D i d t he t r i al cour ter ri n i t s pr oper t ydi vi s i on? 3. D i d t he t r i al cour t er rbygr ant i ng a di vor ce, as oppos ed t o a l egal s epar at i on?
M r. V a n H o o se r ra ise s th e f o llo w in g iss u e o n a p p e a l:
1. W het her t he t r i al cour t er r ed in aw ard ing tr an sit ion al al i m onyi n exce s s of t he H us band’ s abi l i t yt o payand by a w a r d i n g a l i m o n y i n fut uro ? Subj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on co n ce rns t he author i t yof t he cour tt o heara mat t erand c a n n o t b e w a iv e d

. Mei ghan v. U

. S. Sprint

C om m c’ns Co. , 924 S

. W

. 2 d 632, 639 ( T enn. 1996 ). T h e co u rtm aycons i ders ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on su a sp o n te

. Ten n. R. A pp . P. 1 3 (b ); R u ff v . S ta te , 9 7 8 S. W

. 2 d 9 5 , 9 8 ( Te n n . 1 9 9 8 )

. Th e Te n n e s s e e Su p r e me Cou r thas hel d t hat“[u] nl es s an appe al fr om an i nt er l ocutory o rde r is pr ovi ded byt he rul es orby s t atut e, appel l at e cour t s have j ur i s di ct i on over fi nal j ud g m en ts onl y . ” B ayber r y A s s ocs . v. Jones , 7 8 3 S .W .2 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 0 ). R u le 3 (a ) of th e T e n n e ss e e R u les o f A p p e llate P rocedu re l i m i t s t he subj ect m at t er j uri sdi ct i on of ap pell at e cou rt s t o final j ud gm ents :

I n ci vi l act i ons everyfi nal j udgm ent ent er ed by a t r i al cour tfr om w h ich a n a p p e a l li e s to th e S u p re m e C o u rt o r C o u rt o f A p p e a ls is a p p e a lab le a s o f rig h t. E x c e p t a s o th e rw ise p e rm itt e d in ru le 9 o r i n R u le 5 4 .0 2 o f th e T e n n e ss e e R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , if m ul t i pl e par t i es or m ul t i pl e cl ai m s for r el i ef ar e i nvol ved i n an act i on, any or der t hat adj udi cat es few ert han al l t he cl ai m s ort he r i gh t s a n d l i a b i l i t i e s o f f e wert h a n a l l t h e p a r t i e s i s n ot e n f o r c e a b l e o ra p p e a l a b l e a n d i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a ta n yt i me befo re en try o f

a fi nal j ud gm ent adj ud i cat i ng al l t he clai m s, ri g h ts , a n d lia b iliti e s o f a ll p a rt ie s . I d . I f t he t r i al c o u rt d i d notadj udi cat e al l of t he par t i es ’ cl ai m s , i tdi d notent era fi nal ju d g m e n t. W ith o u t a f

in a l ju d g m e n t, th is C o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . M r s . V an H oos erfor m al l yamended hercompl ai ntt o al l ege f rau d an d r eques t ed d a m a g e s an d a n y o th e r j u st relie f b a se d o n th is alle g a tio n . W h ile it m a yb e q u e s ti o n a b le w het herhercompl ai ntw as pr oper l yamended as no or dergr ant i ng per m i s s i on t o amend appea r s i n t he r ecor d, T enn. R

. C i v. P. 15. 02 r equi r es cons i der at i on of al l i s s ues t hatar e t r i ed-5-

byexpr es s ori m pl i ed cons ent , even i f notr ai s ed byt he pl eadi ngs . U pon r evi ew of t he re c o rd , w e f

in d th a t th e p a rt ie s a c tu a lly litig a te d th e is s u e o f f ra u d w ith o u t o b

je c tio n . T hi s C o u rt fi nds t hatt he t r i al cour tdi d notadj udi cat e M r s . V an H oos er ’ s cl ai m for fra u d

. T h ere is no ind icati o n in the F inal D ec ree o r fro m the tran script of the tri al co u rt ’s r ul i ng, fr om w h ich w e can fi nd t hatt he t r i al c o u r tr u l e d o n t h e f r a u d c l a i m . A d d i t i o n a l l y, M r s. V an H o o ser p o i nt ed outt hi s er r ort o t he t r i al cour ti n herm ot i on t o al t eroramend. W h ile th e trial c o u rt, i n re sp o n se to th e m o tio n , d id a lter th e a w a rd o f a lim o n y , itsim p ly deni ed t he r emai nderof t he mot i on, m aki ng no s t at ement w hat soeverconce r ni ng t he al l egat i on of fr aud orM r s . V an H oos er ’ s cont ent i on t h at th e tr i al cour tfai l ed t o m ake a fi ndi ng on t hi s cl ai m . A tor al ar gum en t, co u n sel forM r s . V an H oos ers t at ed t hatt he t r i al cour tdi d notaddr es s t he fr aud cl ai m . I n r es pons e, couns el forM r . V an H oos ers t at ed t hatt he t r i al cour ti m pl i edl yfound no cr edenc e i n M r s . V an H oos er ’ s cl ai m forfr aud bydecl i ni ng t o fi nd di s s i pat i on of as s et s . W e fi r s tnot e t hat t he t r i al cour tdi d notaddr es s di s s i pat i on of as s et s i n hi s r ul i ng fr om t he bench, t he Fi nal D ecr ee, ori n hi s O r deron t he mot i on t o al t er orame n d

. Fur t herw e have notbeen pr ovi ded, norhave w e found, anyaut hor i t yal l ow i ng u s to f in d a d ju d ica tio n o f

a c laim b y im p lica tio n a s a ss e rte d b yM r. V a n H o o se r’s c o u n se l. B eca us e t he t r i al cour tdi d notr ul e on M r s . V an H oos er ’ s cl ai m of fr aud, t he j udgm enti s not f in a l, a n d w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to a d ju d ic a te th e is s u e s ra is e d o n a p p e a l.
T h is ap p ea l i s d ism issed an d rem an d ed to the tria l c o u rt

. C o sts of this ap p ea l are t axed t o t he A ppel l ant , Susa n M cC r ei ght V an H oos er , and her s ur et y , forw hi ch exe cut i on m a yis s u e if

n e c e s s a ry.

_________________________________ J

. S T E VE N S T AF F OR D, J UDGE