1 Cons o l i d a t i on Co a l Co mp a ny wa s ma d e a pa r t y i n t h e pet i t i on now on

a ppe a l t o enj o i n t h e t r a n s f e r of any f unds or as s e t s hel d f o r t h e bene f i t of

Mr . Ch a d we l l and t o r e qui r e a f u l l ac c ount i ng of s u c h f unds .

FILED

October 1, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

FAYE LOUI SE TAYLOR CHADWELL ) CAMPBELL COUNTY

) 03A01- 9601- GS- 00007

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e )

)

)

v. ) HON. BI LLY J OE WHI TE,

 ) CHANCELLOR

 ) ( Si t t i ng by I nt e r c ha nge )

ALBERT CHADWELL a nd )

CONSOLI DATI ON COAL COMPANY1)

 )

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

J ERROLD L. BECKER a nd LUCI NDA M. ALBI STON OF KNOXVI LLE FOR

APPELLANTS

J OHNNY V. DUNAWAY OF La FOLLETTE OF KNOXVI LLE FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

 Godda r d, P. J .

I n t hi s pos t - di vor c e pr oc e e di ng, t he Cha nc e l l or f ound

t ha t c e r t a i n a s s e t s owne d by Al be r t Cha dwe ll a t the time of the

pa r t i e s ’ di vor ce we r e ma r i t a l as s e t s and t ha t hi s f or me r wi f e ,
2

Fa ye Loui s e Ta yl or Cha dwe l l , wa s e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a ga i ns t

hi m of $94, 320 whi c h i nc l ude d i nt e r e s t f r om t he da t e of t he

di vor ce. The Cha ncel l or al s o i mpr e s s e d a l i e n aga i ns t cer t a i n

r e a l e s t a t e or i gi na l l y owne d by Mr . Cha dwe l l , who l a t e r pur por t e d

t o tr a ns f e r a n int e r e s t to hi s pr e s e nt wi f e . Bot h the r e a l

e s t a t e and t he home Mr . Cha dwe l l er ect e d t he r e on we r e pa i d f or i n

pa r t with the a s s e t s in di s put e in thi s a ppe a l .

The pr i nc i pa l que s t i on t o be de c i de d i n t hi s a ppe a l i s

whe t he r a n or de r e nt e r e d i n a pr e vi ous pr oc e e di ng be t we e n t he

pa r tie s f ound tha t Mr s . Cha dwe ll wa s not e ntitle d to the s e

s pe c i f i c f unds , t hus ba r r i ng he r c l a i m unde r t he t he or y or r e s

j udi c a t a .

The pa r t i e s we r e ma r r i e d on Oc t obe r 8, 1966.

Thr oughout t he i r 18- ye a r ma r r i a ge , Mr . Cha dwe l l wa s e mpl oye d by

Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny. By 1984, Mr . Cha dwe l l ha d t hr e e

a c c ount s t hr ough hi s e mpl oyme nt a t Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny: a n

Empl oye e Re t i r e me nt of Cons ol I nc . ( r e t i r e me nt pl a n) whi c h be c a me

ve s t e d J une 1, 1983; a Conoc o Empl oye e s St oc k Owne r s hi p Pl a n

( CESOP) c ompos e d e nt i r e l y of DuPont s t oc k; a nd a n I nve s t me nt Pl a n

f or Sa l a r i e d Empl oye e s of Cons ol ( i nve s t me nt pl a n) .

The ma r r i a ge wa s t e r mi na t e d by a Fi na l Decr ee of

Di vor c e e nt e r e d on J une 11, 1984. The Fi na l De c r e e pr ovi de d i n

pa r t :
3

5. Tha t Fa ye Loui s e Ta yl or Cha dwe l l i s a wa r de d t he

1974 Gr a nd Pr i x a ut omobi l e a nd a l l ot he r pe r s ona l

pr ope r t y a c qui r e d by t he pa r t i e s , e xc e pt t he s t oc k

accumul a t e d by Al be r t Cha dwe l l at hi s pl ace of

e mpl oyme nt , whi c h s t oc k i s a wa r de d 50% t o Al be r t

Cha dwe l l a nd 50% t o Fa ye Loui s e Ta yl or Cha dwe l l , wi t h

e a c h pa r t y t o be r e s pons i bl e f or hi s r e s pe c t i ve s ha r e

of i nc ome t a x due at s uc h t i me as any t a xe s ar e due on

t he s a i d r e s pect i ve pa r t y’ s s t oc k.

The s t oc k me nt i one d i n t he De c r e e wa s not f ur t he r

i de nt i f i e d or de f i ne d by t he De c r e e . The r e wa s no va l ua t i on of

t he s t oc k a t t he t i me of t he di vor c e . Howe ve r , Ms . Cha dwe l l

a ve r r e d i n he r or i gi na l c ompl a i nt f or di vor c e t ha t t he s t oc k wa s

wor t h a ppr oxi ma t e l y $50, 000. The r e wa s no di s t r i but i on of t he

s t oc k or t he pr oc e e ds t he r e of t o Ms . Cha dwe l l .

A he a r i ng wa s c onduc t e d on J une 4, 1986, i n t he Ge ne r a l

Se s s i ons Cour t f or Ca mpbe l l Count y. The Cour t f ound t ha t Mr .

Cha dwe l l "owns an i nt e r e s t i n a r e t i r e me nt i nve s t me nt account or

s t oc k a c c ount i n hi s e mpl oye r , " a nd t ha t t he a c c ount ha d dr a wn a

mi ni ma l of 10 pe r c e nt i nt e r e s t s i nc e t he e nt r y of t he Fi na l

De c r e e . The Cour t or de r e d hi m t o pr ovi de ve r i f i c a t i on of t he

a mount s i n t he i nve s t me nt a c c ount s , t o de t e r mi ne t he pr e s e nt

va l ue of t he a c c ount s , a nd t o pr ovi de Ms . Cha dwe l l wi t h a c c e s s t o

t he r e c or ds pe r t a i ni ng t o t he a c c ount s .

On Fe br ua r y 19, 1988, t he Cour t a t t e mpt e d t o de t e r mi ne

Ms . Cha dwe ll’ s int e r e s t in the r e tir e me nt pl a n unde r the Fi na l

De c r e e . The Cour t f ound t ha t " [ t ] he r e t i r e me nt pl a n f unds whi c h

a r e a t i s s ue i n t hi s a c t i on a r e not me nt i one d pe r s e i n t he

de c r e e . . . . Gi ve n t he di s t i nc t i ve na t ur e a nd l a r ge a mount of
4

t he r e t i r e me nt pl a n i n 1984 i t woul d s e e m l ogi c a l t ha t i t woul d

be a ddr e s s e d i n i t s own t e r ms r a t he r t ha n l umpe d i n wi t h t he t e r m

s t oc k. " The Cha ncel l or s t a t e d t ha t t he i s s ue of Ms . Cha dwe l l ’ s

i nt e r e s t i n t he r e t i r e me nt a c c ount c oul d a nd s houl d ha ve be e n

l i t i ga t e d i n 1984 a t whi c h t i me t he pa r t i e s ha d knowl e dge of i t

but di d not i nc l ude i t i n a di vi s i on of t he i r ma r i t a l pr ope r t y.

Thus , t he Cha nc e l l or he l d t ha t unde r t he Fi na l De c r e e , Ms .

Cha dwe l l ha d no i nt e r e s t i n t he r e t i r e me nt a c c ount . Ms . Cha dwe l l

di d not a ppe a l t he Cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs . 

I n t he f ol l owi ng ye a r s , Mr . Cha dwe l l f a i l e d t o pr ovi de

ve r i f i c a t i on of t he s t oc k or i nve s t me nt a c c ount s a nd he f a i l e d t o

ma ke a ny di s t r i but i ons t o Ms . Cha dwe l l a s or de r e d by t he c our t i n

1984 a nd 1986. Ms . Cha dwe l l f i l e d a pe t i t i on f or c ont e mpt on

Nove mbe r 23, 1993, s e e ki ng va l ua t i on of t he he r i nt e r e s t i n Mr .

Cha dwe l l ’ s hol di ngs wi t h hi s e mpl oye r a nd a j udgme nt f or he r one -

ha l f int e r e s t. The Cour t he l d tha t Mr . Cha dwe ll wa s in c ont empt

f or f a i l i ng t o pr ovi de ve r i f i c a t i on of t he a c c ount s a nd f or

f a i l i ng t o di s t r i but e 50 pe r c e nt of t he va l ue of t he a c c ount s a s

he wa s or de r e d t o do by t he Cour t i n 1984 a nd 1986. The Cour t

a l s o ma de a f i ndi ng t ha t t he va l ue of t he a c c ount s wa s no l e s s

t ha n $84, 927. 99, one ha l f of whi c h wa s owe d t o Ms . Cha dwe l l .

On Ma r c h 9, 1995, Ms . Cha dwe l l f i l e d a n a me nde d

pe t i t i on f or c ont e mpt a ddi ng Mr . Cha dwe l l ’ s c ur r e nt wi f e , Donna

Ma r i e Cha dwe ll. Ms . Cha dwe ll c ompl a i ne d tha t Mr . Cha dwe ll a nd

hi s pr e s e nt wi f e ha d us e d Ms . Cha dwe l l ’ s por t i on of t he s t oc k
5

f unds t o pur c ha s e r e a l pr ope r t y a nd c ons t r uc t a hous e . The

pe tition a lle ge d tha t Mr . Cha dwe ll ha d a ttempt e d to a voi d Ms .

Cha dwe l l ’ s c l a i ms a s a j udgme nt c r e di t or by c onve yi ng t he r e a l

pr ope r t y a nd t he hous e t o hi s c ur r e nt wi f e . Mr . Cha dwe l l

r e s ponde d t o t he pe t i t i on by a n a ns we r i n t he f or m of a ge ne r a l

de ni a l a l l e gi ng no a f f i r ma t i ve de f e ns e s .

At t r i a l on J ul y 12, 1995, Mr . Cha dwe l l ’ s r e t i r e me nt

pl a n, t he i nve s t me nt pl a n a nd t he CESOP we r e i de nt i f i e d t hr ough

t he t e s t i mony of t he s upe r vi s or of qua l i f i e d be ne f i t s a t

Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny. I t wa s e s t a bl i s he d t ha t a l l t hr e e

account s we r e i n exi s t e nce at t he t i me of t he Fi na l Decr ee i n

1984. The r e t i r e me nt pl a n be c a me ve s t e d a s of 1983 a nd Mr .

Cha dwe l l woul d be a bl e t o dr a w be ne f i t s f r om i t i n 1998. Mr .

Cha dwe l l ’ s i nve s t me nt pl a n wa s ma de up e nt i r e l y of s t oc k unt i l

1981 a t whi c h t i me i t wa s c onve r t e d i nt o a de pos i t s a vi ngs

a c c ount . The pl a n a l l owe d f or up t o t hr e e pa r t i a l wi t hdr a wa l s

pe r year and a t ot a l wi t hdr a wa l at any t i me . The CESOP wa s

c ompos e d e nt i r e l y of DuPont s t oc k a nd c oul d not be wi t hdr a wn

until Mr . Cha dwe ll te r mi na t e d hi s e mpl oyme nt .

Mr . Cha dwe ll te r mi na t e d hi s e mpl oyme nt with

Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny on De c e mbe r 31, 1990. He l i qui da t e d

hi s CESOP a c c ount on Nove mbe r 19, 1992, f or t he s um of

$14, 648. 37. He ma de no di s t r i but i on t o Ms . Cha dwe l l a f t e r t he

l i qui da t i on. The r e wa s e vi de nc e s ubmi t t e d t ha t Mr . Cha dwe l l

wi t hdr e w a t ot a l of $187, 044. 16 f r om t he i nve s t me nt pl a n a f t e r
6

t he Fi na l De c r e e . Fr om thi s a c c ount, Mr . Cha dwe ll di s t r i but e d

$1, 245 t o Ms . Cha dwe l l i n Fe br ua r y of 1986.

The r e wa s evi de nce at t r i a l t ha t Ms . Cha dwe l l wa s a

home ma ke r t hr oughout t he ma r r i a ge a nd di d not de a l wi t h t he

a c c ount s i n a ny wa y. Ms . Cha dwe l l t e s t i f i e d t ha t he r hus ba nd

a l wa ys r efer r e d t o t he a c count s ge neri c a l l y as "st oc k. " Al s o,

t he r e wa s t e s t i mony t ha t Mr . Cha dwe l l a dmi t t e d i n 1984 t ha t Ms .

Cha dwe l l ’ s s ha r e of t he a c c ount s he he l d wi t h hi s e mpl oye r wa s

$26, 000 a nd t ha t he pe r s ua de d he r t o l e a ve t he s t oc k i n t he

a c c ount s on t he r e pr e s e nt a t i on t he s t oc k woul d e a r n mor e i nt e r e s t

i f it wa s le f t with Mr . Cha dwe ll. Ms . Cha dwe ll c hos e not to

l i qui da t e or wi t hdr a w he r s ha r e a t t ha t t i me . 

Mr . Cha dwe ll a s s e r t e d a t tr i a l tha t he wa s onl y

r e qui r e d t o s ha r e wi t h Ms . Cha dwe l l t he hol di ngs i n t he CESOP

whi c h, at t he t i me of t he Fi na l Decr ee, he s t a t e d wa s wor t h

$2, 000. Mr . Cha dwe l l a s s e r t e d t ha t he pa i d Ms . Cha dwe l l a l l

f unds due t o he r f r om t he CESOP i n 1986 by c he c k. Ms . Cha dwe l l

t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he c he c k wa s f r om t he i nve s t me nt pl a n a nd wa s f or

t he i r c hi l dr e n. Mr . Cha dwe l l a dmi t t e d dur i ng c r os s - e xa mi na t i on

t ha t he al t e r e d t he check af t e r i t wa s r e t ur ne d t o hi m s o t ha t i t

woul d e r r one ous l y i ndi c a t e t ha t i t c a me f r om t he CESOP r a t he r

t ha n t he i nve s t me nt a c c ount . 

Mr . Cha dwe ll te s tif i e d tha t the inve s t me nt pl a n wa s

pa r t of hi s r e t i r e me nt pl a n. Howe ve r , t he r e wa s t e s t i mony f r om
7

t he s upe r vi s or of qua l i f i e d be ne f i t s a t Cons ol i da t i on Coa l

Compa ny t ha t t he i nve s t me nt pl a n a nd t he r e t i r e me nt pl a n we r e t wo

s e pa r a t e and di s t i nc t account s .

The Tr i a l Cour t f ound t ha t Ms . Cha dwe l l ha d a one - ha l f

i nt e r e s t i n t he CESOP a nd i n t he i nve s t me nt pl a n. The Cour t

f ound t ha t l i t i ga t i on of t he r e t i r e me nt a c c ount wa s ba r r e d by r e s

j udi c a t a a r i s i ng f r om t he 1986 he a r i ng. The Tr i a l Cour t a wa r de d

Ms . Cha dwe l l a j udgme nt of $94, 320 r e pr e s e nt i ng he r s ha r e of t he

CESOP a nd t he i nve s t me nt pl a n a nd i mpos e d a l i e n upon Mr .

Cha dwe l l ’ s r e a l pr ope r t y t o s e c ur e pa yme nt of t he j udgme nt .

Af t e r t r i a l , t he Cha ncel l or s e t as i de t he deed f r om Mr . Cha dwe l l

t o hi s c ur r e nt wi f e a s a f r a udul e nt c onve ya nc e . 

I n t hi s appeal , Mr . Cha dwe l l ha s r a i s e d s e ve r a l i s s ue s ,

a l l of whi c h a r e ba s e d on t he doc t r i ne of r e s j udi c a t a . Howe ve r ,

Ms . Cha dwe l l as s e r t s t ha t becaus e Mr . Cha dwe l l f a i l e d t o

a f f i r ma t i ve l y pl ead t he de f e ns e of r e s j udi cat a hi s access t o

t hi s de f e ns e ha s be e n wa i ve d. Mr . Cha dwe l l ’ s onl y r e s pons i ve

pl e a di ng wa s i n t he f or m of a ge ne r a l de ni a l a nd he f a i l e d t o

s t a t e any af f i r ma t i ve de f e ns e s .

Rul e 8. 3 of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e

r e qui r e s tha t a pa r t y a f f i r ma tive l y s e t f or t h f a c t s r e lie d upon

t o e s t a bl i s h a n a f f i r ma t i ve de f e ns e i n a r e s pons i ve pl e a di ng.

The r ul e e xplic itly me ntions r e s j udi c a t a as s uc h an af f i r ma t i ve

de f e ns e . Rul e 12. 08 of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e
8

pr ovi de s t ha t de f e ns e s not pr ope r l y r a i s e d a r e wa i ve d. Thus ,

f a i l ur e t o r a i s e t he de f e ns e of r e s j udi c a t a i n a r e s pons i ve

pl e a di ng will a c t a s a wa i ve r of a pa r t y’ s a bility to r a i s e tha t

de f e ns e . 

Howe ve r , Rul e 15. 02 of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l

Pr oc e dur e s t a t e s " [ w] he n i s s ue s not r a i s e d by t he pl e a di ngs a r e

t r i e d by e xpr e s s or i mpl i e d c ons e nt of t he pa r t i e s , t he y s ha l l be

t r eat e d i n al l r e s pect s as i f t he y ha d been r a i s e d i n t he

pl e a di ngs . " The Rul e s t a t e s t ha t t he pl e a di ngs ma y be a me nde d a t

a ny t i me s o a s t o c onf or m t o t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a t t r i a l but

f a ilur e to a me nd the pl e a di ngs will not a f f e c t the r e s ult of the

t r i a l of the is s ue s . An is s ue is tr i e d by implie d c ons e nt whe n

t he pa r t y oppos i ng t he i s s ue kne w or s houl d r e a s ona bl y ha ve known

of t he e vi de nc e r e l a t i ng t o t he ne w i s s ue , di d not obj e c t t o t he

e vi de nc e , a nd wa s not pr e j udi c e d by t he i nc l us i on of t he

e vi de nce. Zack Cheek Bui l de r s , I nc . v. Mc Le od, 597 S. W. 2d 888

( Te nn. 1980) . Se e a l s o Chi s hol m v. Boha nnon, 558 S. W. 2d 446

( Te nn. App. 1977) .

Al t hough Mr . Cha dwe l l di d not s pe c i f i c a l l y pl e a d r e s

j udi c a t a a s r e qui r e d by Rul e 8. 3, t he i s s ue wa s r a i s e d t hr ough

t e s t i mony a t t r i a l . The r e wa s no obj e c t i on ma de on be ha l f of Ms .

Cha dwe l l t ha t t he e vi de nc e wa s be yond t he s c ope of t he pl e a di ngs .

I n hi s opi ni on, t he Cha nc e l l or ma de a s pe c i f i c r ul i ng a s t o t he

i ssue of r e s j udi c a t a . Fi na l l y, t he i s s ue wa s a r gue d on be ha l f
2 We ex p r ess n o o p i n i o n as t o wh e t h e r t h e i s s u e co u l d h a v e b een

r a i s e d i n a mo t i on f o r new t r i a l . Ra t h e r , we me r e l y r e c ogni z e t h a t t h e i s s u e

was bef o r e t h e Co u r t b o t h d u r i n g t h e t r i a l st a g e an d p o s t - t r i a l .

9

of Mr . Cha dwe l l i n a mot i on f or ne w t r i a l .

2

 Thus , we f i nd t ha t

t he i s s ue wa s t r i e d by i mpl i e d c ons e nt a nd Mr . Cha dwe l l ha s not

wa i ve d hi s r i ght t o a s s e r t t hi s de f e ns e .

Mr . Cha dwe l l as s e r t s t ha t , ba s e d on a r e s j udi c a t a

t he or y, t he Tr i a l Cour t s houl d ha ve be e n pr e c l ude d f r om

litiga ting the is s ue of whe t he r Ms . Cha dwe ll ha d r i ght s in the

CESOP a nd t he i nve s t me nt pl a n. He a r gue s t ha t t he i s s ue s we r e

pr e vi ous l y l i t i ga t e d i n 1984 a nd 1988. 

The de f e ns e of r e s j udi c a t a will be a va ila bl e if the

pa r t y a s s e r t i ng t he de f e ns e c a n s how t ha t t he pr i or j udgme nt wa s

by a c our t of c ompe t e nt j ur i s di c t i on, t ha t t he s a me pa r t i e s we r e

i nvol ve d i n bot h s ui t s , t ha t t he s a me c a us e of a c t i on wa s

i nvol ve d i n bot h s ui t s , a nd t ha t t he unde r l yi ng j udgme nt wa s on

t he me r i t s . Lee v. Ha l l , 790 S. W. 2d 293 ( Te nn. App. 1990) . A

pr i or judgme nt will pr e c l ude onl y ma tte r s tha t we r e a t is s ue in

t he pr i or j udgme nt . " [ T] he a dj udi c a t i on, t o be c onc l us i ve ,

s houl d be upon t he ve r y poi nt br ought di r e c t l y i n i s s ue by t he

pl e a di ngs . " White v. White , 876 S. W. 2d 837 ( Te nn. 1994) .

As s t a t e d a bove , t he Cour t i n 1984 e nt e r e d a Fi na l

De c r e e s e t t i ng f or t h t he r i ght s a nd dut i e s of t he pa r t i e s . As

a l r eady not e d, t he Fi na l Decr ee ge ne r i cal l y s t a t e d t ha t Ms .

Cha dwe l l wa s t o r ecei ve 50 pe r cent of t he "s t oc k" t ha t Mr .
10

Cha dwe l l ha d i n Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny. The r e wa s e vi de nc e

a t tr i a l tha t Mr . Cha dwe ll r e f e r r e d to a ll inve s t me nt a nd

r e t i r e me nt a c c ount s wi t h hi s e mpl oye r a s " s t oc k. " The de f i ni t i on

a nd e xt e nt of t ha t t e r m we r e not a t i s s ue a nd we r e not l i t i ga t e d.

I t s eems axi oma t i c t ha t t he i s s ua nce of a di vor ce decr ee wi l l not

be r e s j udi c a t a as t o an i s s ue t ha t ar i s e s as t o t he

i nt e r pr e t a tion of the de c r e e its e l f . Mr . Cha dwe ll a r gue s tha t

t he i s s ue c oul d ha ve a nd s houl d ha ve be e n l i t i ga t e d whe n t he

decr ee wa s i s s ue d. But , i t s eems cl ear t ha t t he r e wa s no i s s ue

unt i l t he i nt e r pr e t a t i on of t he t e r m " s t oc k" be c a me di s put e d. 

At is s ue in the 1988 litiga tion wa s , a s s t a t e d by the

Cha nc e l l or i n t ha t pr oc e e di ng, " whe t he r Fa ye Cha dwe l l wa s

e ntitle d to a f ull or pa r tia l int e r e s t or s ha r e in a r e tir e me nt

pl a n of Al be r t Cha dwe l l . " The i s s ue of Ms . Cha dwe l l ’ s i nt e r e s t

i n t he CESOP a nd t he i nve s t me nt pl a n we r e not a ddr e s s e d. The

Tr i a l Cour t in tha t a c tion he l d tha t the is s ue of Ms . Cha dwe ll’ s

i nt e r e s t i n t he r e t i r e me nt a c c ount s houl d ha ve be e n l i t i ga t e d i n

1984 a nd he de c l i ne d t o r e a d t he Fi na l De c r e e br oa dl y e nough t o

i nc l ude t he r e t i r e me nt pl a n. The Tr i a l Cour t i n t he pr e s e nt c a s e

a ppl i e d r e s j udi c a t a wi t h r e s pect t o t he r e t i r e me nt account

a l t hough t he Cha nc e l l or e xpr e s s e d doubt s a s t o t he s oundne s s of

t he 1986 de c i s i on. Ne ve r t he l e s s , it is c l e a r tha t the is s ue of

t he e xt e nt of Ms . Cha dwe ll’ s int e r e s t in the CESOP a nd the

i nve s t me nt pl a n we r e not r a i s e d or de c i de d i n t he 1988

pr oc e e di ng. 
11

Al s o, the litiga tion in 1988 a r os e f r om a pe tition

f i l e d by Ms . Cha dwe l l s e e ki ng t o c ompe l Mr . Cha dwe l l t o pr ovi de

ve r i f i c a t i on of t he va l ue of t he " s t oc k" whi c h he ha d f a i l e d t o

do i n vi ol a t i on of a c our t or de r i s s ue d i n 1984 a nd 1986. Al l

s ubs e que nt a c t i on be t we e n t he pa r t i e s c ha r ge d Mr . Cha dwe l l wi t h

c ont e mpt f or f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de ve r i f i c a t i on of hi s hol di ngs wi t h

Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny a nd f or f a i l ur e t o ma ke di s t r i but i ons

f r om t hos e hol di ngs t o Ms . Cha dwe l l . Wi t h t he e xc e pt i on of

s e e ki ng t o c ompe l Mr . Cha dwe l l t o c ompl y wi t h t he pr i or c our t

or de r s , none of t he i s s ue s pr e s e nt e d i n t he 1995 l i t i ga t i on ha d

be e n r a i s e d i n t he pr i or l i t i ga t i on, by t he pl e a di ngs or

ot he r wi s e . Thus , we hol d t ha t t he pr i or l i t i ga t i on di d not ba r

Ms . Cha dwe l l f r om s e e ki ng a c our t t o de c l a r e t he e xt e nt of he r

i nt e r e s t i n t he CESOP a nd t he i nve s t me nt pl a n.

Ne xt , Mr . Cha dwe l l as s e r t s t ha t t he Cha ncel l or er r e d i n

f i ndi ng t ha t t he i nve s t me nt pl a n wa s s e pa r a t e a nd di s t i nc t f r om

t he r e tir e me nt pl a n. Mr . Cha dwe ll s e e ks to inc l ude the

i nve s t me nt pl a n wi t hi n t he r e t i r e me nt pl a n be c a us e t he Cour t

be l ow ga ve r e s j udi c a t a ef f ect t o t he i s s ue of t he r e t i r e me nt

pl a n.

The f i ndi ngs of f a c t of t he t r i a l c our t c ome s t o t hi s

Cour t a c c ompa ni e d by a pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s whi c h mus t be

honor e d unl e s s t he " pr e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e i s ot he r wi s e . "

Rul e 13( d) , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e ; Uni on Ca r bi de

Cor p. v. Huddl e s t on, 854 S. W. 2d 87 ( Te nn. 1993) . We f i nd t ha t t he
12

Cha nc e l l or ha d a mpl e e vi de nc e upon whi c h t o ba s e a f i ndi ng t ha t

t he pl a ns we r e s e pa r a t e . The r e wa s t e s t i mony f r om t he s upe r vi s or

of qua l i f i e d be ne f i t s of Cons ol i da t i on Coa l Compa ny a nd a n

a c c ount a nt s t a ting tha t Mr . Cha dwe ll ha d a n int e r e s t in the

r e tir e me nt pl a n, the inve s t me nt pl a n, a nd the CESOP. Al s o,

a l t hough Mr . Cha dwe l l t e s t i f i e d t ha t he onl y ha d a n i nt e r e s t i n

t he CESOP a nd t he r e t i r e me nt pl a n hi s c r e di bi l i t y ha d be e n c a l l e d

i nt o que s t i on whe n he a dmi t t e d t o a l t e r i ng a c he c k t o Ms .

Cha dwe l l t ha t wa s pa i d wi t h f unds f r om t he i nve s t me nt a c c ount .

The Cha nc e l l or ma de a s pe c i f i c pos t - t r i a l r ul i ng t ha t Mr .

Cha dwe l l ha d e nga ge d i n f r a ud a nd pe r j ur y i n r e l a t i on t o t hi s

l i t i ga t i on. Thus , t he f i ndi ngs of t he Cha nc e l l or di d not

pr e ponde r a t e a ga i ns t t he e vi de nc e . Cons e que nt l y, we a f f i r m t he

c onc l us i on of t he Cha nc e l l or on t hi s i s s ue .

Mr . Cha dwe ll’ s f i na l is s ue a s s e r t s tha t the Tr i a l Cour t

e r r e d i n f i ndi ng t ha t Ms . Cha dwe l l ha d a one - ha l f i nt e r e s t i n a l l

a c c ount s be l ongi ng t o Mr . Cha dwe l l a t t he t i me of t he di vor c e .

Thi s a r gume nt i s wi t hout me r i t be c a us e t he Cha nc e l l or di d not

hol d t ha t Ms . Cha dwe l l ha d a one - ha l f i nt e r e s t i n a l l of Mr .

Cha dwe l l ’ s a c c ount s . Ra t he r , t he Cha nc e l l or e xpr e s s l y he l d t ha t

Ms . Cha dwe l l ha d a one - ha l f i nt e r e s t i n t he CESOP a nd t he

i nve s t me nt pl a n, but no int e r e s t i n the r e t i r e me nt pl a n. 

For t he f or e goi ng r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l

Cour t i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or s uc h f ur t he r

pr oc e e di ngs , i f a ny, a s ma y be ne c e s s a r y a nd c ol l e c t i on of t he
13

j udgme nt a nd c os t s be l ow. Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t

Mr . Cha dwe l l a nd hi s s ur e t y.

_______________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

CONCUR:

________________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

________________________________

Cl i f f or d E. Sa nde r s , Sp. J .