### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 22, 200 8
CA THERINE S MITH

v. SA LLYBR ITTINGH AM SM ITH and JOHN MIC HAE L C HARLES S MITH

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 05D-2508 C arol Solom an, Jud ge

No. M2006- 01806-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Septem ber 24, 2008

This is an appea l from an or der joining a third par ty in a divorce action. Dur in g the husband a nd wife’ s marria g e, husband’ s mother gave the couple a substantial amount of money . The wife filed for a divorce in circuit cour

t. Soon after, the husba

nd’s mother filed a

lawsuit in ch an ce ry

court ag ainst the husband and w ife, a lleg ing br eac h of an a g ree ment to repa y the funds an dto gr ant her
a sec urity interest in the mar ital home. Simul taneously , she filed a lien lis pendens on t h e marital home. The marital home was sold, and the chanc ery court transfer red the husband’s mother’ s lien lis pendens to the pr oc e e ds of the sa le

. Th e hu sb and a llo we d a de fa ult jud g me nt t o b e take n a g a ins t him in his mother’s c hance ry court law suit. S ubsequently , the ci r cuit court g rante d the wife ’s motion to join the husband’s mot h er i n the divorce proce eding s as a ne cessa ry party . There afte r, the
c ha nc e ry c ourt c a se wa s tra

ns fe rr e d to the c ir c uit c ourt

. Th e c ir c uit c ourt he ld a tr ia l on the me ri ts; it found no ag ree ment by the wife to repa y the monies g iven to the couple by the husband’s mother , and dismissed her c laim ag ainst the wife. T he husband’ s mother was awa rded damag es aga inst the husband for

the full amount of the money loaned, to be pa id out of his sha re of the proc eeds f

rom t he sale of the mar ital home. The c ircuit court’ s distributi on of the mar tial estate, howe ver, eff ectively eliminated his share of the proc eeds. The husband’s mother appea ls, a rguing that she was improperly

joined in the divorce action , and that the circuit court did not g ive prope r ef fec t to her lienlis pe nd

e ns a g a ins t th e pr oc e e ds fr om t he sa le of the mari ta l ho me. On a pp e a l, w e a ff

ir m, finding that the joinder wa s proper and findingno err or in the application o f t he lien ag ainst the hu sb and ’s sh are of

the pr oc e e ds

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., delivere d the opinion of th e C o u rt , i n which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J ., W.S ., concur red; W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , J ., did not participate.
Joel H. Mo se le y , Sr ., Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Cathe ri ne Smit

h

Gr ant C . G la ssf

or d, F ra nk lin , T e nn e sse e , f

or the a pp e lle e , Sa lly

B ri tti ng ham Smi thM r

. Smi t h i s a l s o r ef er r ed t o a s “ M i ch ae l J oh n Cha r l es Smi t h ” i n pa r t s of t h e br i ef

s a n d t h e r ec or d. 1

S ec t i o n 2 0

- 3

- 1 0 1 st ates: 2

W hen any pe rs o n, i n any co urt of reco rd,

. . . shal l seek t o f i x a l i en l i s p end ens o n real est at e, o r any inte re st th e re in,

. . . t h a t p e rs o n sh a ll fil e fo r re c o rd in the re g ister ’s o ff ic e o f t h e c o u n ty an a b stra c t,
c e rtifi e d b y the c le rk , c o n ta inin g th e n a m e s o f th e p a rtie s to s u c h s u it, a d e sc rip tio n o f t h e re a l es ta te af f ec t ed, i t s own er s h i p, an d a br i ef s t at eme n t of

t h e n at u r e an d a mou n t of t h e l i en s ou g h t t o be f

i x ed.

T

. C

. A

. § 2 0

- 3

- 1 0 1 (a) (19 9 4 ).
-2- OP IN ION Ap pe lle e Sa lly

B ri tti ng ham Smi th ( “ Wif e ” ) a nd Ap pe lle e J oh n Mic ha e l Ch arl e s Smi th 1 (“H usband”) wer e married. Over a nearly five-year period between Febr uary 2000 and De cembe r 2004, during the par

ties’ marr iag e, Husba

nd and Wife re ceive d numerous pay ments totaling ove r $250,000 from Husba

nd’s mother, Appellant Cather ine Smith (“Mother-in-la w”) . Husband wa s out of work dur ing some or all of this time period, and the monies were used to pay family living expenses, including mor

tga g e pay ments on their marital home.

In J uly 2005, Wife filed a c omplaint for di v o rc e against Husband in the Circ uit Court for Davidson County , Tenne ssee. In the complaint for divor ce, Wife soug ht, inter alia , a n e qu ita ble distribution of the parties’ marital proper ty , including the parties’ marital home. An ag reedorder
was e ntere d, in which Husband a g ree d to keep c urre nt the mortg ag e pay ments on the home.

In September 2005, Mother -in-law f iled a lawsuit ag ainst Husband a nd Wife in the Chancer

y Court for Davidson County , Tenne ssee. In Mother-in-la w’s complaint, she alleg ed that the monies she had g iven to the couple w ere loans. She asserted that Husband a nd Wife ag ree d to repa

y the
amou nts loa ne d, and that the y a g re e d to se c ur e the loa n by g ra nti ng Mo the r- in- law a se c ur ity int e re st in the marital home. Mother -in-law alleg ed that the agr eed monthly pay ments had not been made,
and that H us ba

nd and Wif e ha d ta ke n n o ste ps tow ard g ra

nti ng he r t

he pr omi se d s e c ur ity

int e re st. Mother-in-la

w contende d that Husband a nd Wife had ag ree d to use a portion of the amounts loaned to satisfy a sec ond mortg ag e on the mar ital home, that this was not in fact done , and that the se cond
m o rt g a g e r e m a i n e d

ane n c u mb r an c e o nth e p r o p e rty.
Ba sed on these a lleg ed fa cts, Mother-in- law’s complaint asser ted claims for brea ch of a

n oral
a g re e me nt t o g ra

nt a se c ur ity int e re st i n th e mari ta l ho me and fo r b re a c h o f an ora l a g re e me nt t o repa y the loans. Mother- in-law soug ht an awa rd of damag es, an or der r equiringHusband a nd Wife to e xec ute a

se c ur ity a g re e me nt in he r fa

vo r a s to t he mari ta l ho me , a

nd an in jun c tio n a g a ins t sa le of the re sidence . On the same date that the lawsuit was filed, Mother -in-law f iled an abstra ct of he r complaint with the reg ister’s off ice pur suant to Tennesse e Code Annotated § 20-3-101, g iving 2 notice of he r lienlis pendens on the par ties’ marital home.R u le 1 9 .0 1 sta te s, in p e rtine n t p a rt: 3

A per s on wh o i s s ubj ect t o s er vi ce of proces s s hal l be j oi ned a s a par t y i f . . . the p er s on cl ai ms a n i nt erest rel at i ng t o t he subject of t he act i o n and i s so si t uat ed t hat t he d i spo si t i o n of t he act i o n i n t he pers on’ s abs enc e may ( i ) as a pr act i cal mat t er i mp ai r or i mp ede t he pers on’ s a b i l i t y t o prot ect t hat i nt er es t , or ( i i ) l eav e a ny of t he pers ons al r eady part i es s ubj ect t o a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of i ncu r r i ng doubl e, mul t i pl e, or ot her wi s e i ncons i s t ent obl i gat i ons by r ea sons of t he cl ai med i nt er es t

. I f t he pers on ha s
n o t b e e n so jo ine d , t h e c o u rt sh a ll o rd e r th a t t h e p e rs o n b e m a d e a p a rty. If the p e rs o n p ro p e rly sh o u ld j oi n a s a pl ai nt i f

f but r ef us es t o do s o, he or s he may be made a def en d an t , o r in a proper ca s e, an inv o lun ta ry p la intiff

.
T en n

. R. Ci v
. P. 19. 01.
-3- In Octob er 2 005, in the divorce litigation in Circuit Court, W ife filed a motion to s ell the
mari ta l ho me

. Th e mot ion wa s g ra nte d, and Wif e lis te d th e mari ta l ho me wi th a re a l e state a g e nt. Soon a buy er w as found a nd a contr act of

sale dra wn up.
On Novembe r 18, 2005, in the litigation filed by Mother-in-la w aga inst Husband a

nd Wife, the Chance ry

Court entere d an agree d order allowing the i mmediate sale of t he mar ital home. The Chance ry C o u rt o rd er ed that the proc eeds of the sale be held in escr ow, re moved the lien on the home, and tra

nsfer red the lien lis pendens to the proce eds fr om the sale.
The mar ital home was sold shortly t h er eaf ter, on Nove mber 21, 2005 for $580,000.00. B e c a us e Hu sb and

ha d f a ile d to c omp ly wi th the or de r re qu ir ing him to ke e p the mor tg a g e pa y me nts on the home curr ent, the proce eds rea liz ed upon the sale wer e reduc ed by $17,958.22, the amount
nece ssary to bring the pay

ments curr ent on the first a nd second mortg ag es on the home.

Meanwhile, in the Chance ry litigation, Husband ha d not f iled a re sponse to Mother-in-la w’s complaint. Mother-in-la w filed a motion for defa

ult judgment a gai nst her son, Husband. O n Dec ember

12, 2005, the C hance ry Court g rante d the m otion, stating ex plicitly that Mother-in-la w was g rante d a def

ault judgme nt only

as to Husband, a

nd only as to liability , with the amount of the d ef au l tj u d gm en tt o b e d et erm i n edata l at er h ea ri n g.
On Dec ember

2, 2005, in the di vorce litigation i n Circuit Court, W ife filed a motion pursuant to R ule 19 .0 1 of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s of Civi l Proc e dure to joi n Moth e r- in- law a s a ne c e ssa ry pa rt y 3 to the divorce proce eding s. I n the Chance ry Court liti g ation, Wife filed a motion for dismissal of Mo the r- in- law’ s com

pla int or tr ans fe r to the Cir c uit Court . M oth e r- in- law f

ile d a re sp on se in C ir c uit Court opposing Wife’s motion for joinder , arguing that joinder under Rule 19.01 was unnec essar y and ina pp ro pr iate . T he Cir c uit

Court dis a g re e d w ithMo the r-i n- law. On De c e mbe r 2 0, 20 05 , it g ra nte d Wif e ’s mot ion

fo r j oin de r, no tin g that Moth e r- in- law ha d c la ime d a n inte re st i n th e e qu ity
rea liz ed from the s ale of the m arital home, and finding, according ly , that joinder under Rule 19.01 was prope r.
Mother-in-la

w also filed a

response in the Chance ry

Court liti g ation opposing Wife’s motion for dismissal of her

lawsuit or transf

er to Circuit C o u rt . Upon lear ning that the Circuit Court hadR ule 2 1 st ates: 4

M i s j oi n der of

pa r t i es i s n ot g r o und f or di s mi s s al of

a n a ct i on

. Par t i es ma y be dr opped or a dded by order of t he cour t on mo t i on of any part y or of i t s own i ni t i at i ve at any s t age of t he act i on an d on s uch te rm s a s a re ju st. A n y c la im a g a ins t a p a rty m a y b e se v e re d a n d p ro c e e d e d w ith se p a ra te ly.

T en n

. R. Ci v
. P. 21.

M o the r-in-la w ’s d e c isio n no t t o se e k o r o b ta in inte rlo c u to ry re v ie w d o e s n o t l im it the sc o p e o f o u r re v ie w in 5
t hi s ap p eal

. T enn. R

. A p p

. P

. 9(a).
-4- order ed that Mother- in-law be joined in the divorce action, t h e C hance ry Court entere d an orde r transfe rringMother-in-la w’s lawsuit to the Circuit Court. The Chancer y Court directe d that the
or de r of tr ans fe r be ma de a fi na l ju dg me nt p ur su ant t o Ru le 54 .0 2 o f t he Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l P r o c e d ur e , th e r e b e i n g n o j u s tr e a s o nf o r d e l ay.
After beingforc ibly

joined as an involuntary

plaintiff in the divorce action, Mother- in-law filed a motion with the Circuit Court asking to be dropped from the suit pursua nt to Rule 21 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedure

. She reque sted that the Circuit Court’ s order on her motion be 4
ma de a fi na l ju dg me nt p ur su ant t o Ru le 54 .0 2. Th e Cir c uit Court de nie d M oth e r- in- law’ s r e qu e st to b e dr op pe d f

ro m th e div or ce a c tio n, and e nte re d it s o rd e r a s a

fi na l ju dg me nt, fi nd ingno jus t rea son for de lay

. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.

On Fe bruar

y 24, 2006, Mother-in-la

w filed two notice s of appe al. She ap p e a le d th e Chanc ery Court’s order

of transf er a nd the Circuit Court’s order denying he r re quest to be droppe d from the divorce action, both of which had been enter ed as final judgme nts. O n May 8, 2006, Mother-in-la

w voluntarily

dismiss ed both appe als, and the divorc e ac tio n p ro ce eded to tria l with Mother-in-law 5 as a pa rty -plaintiff.
The Circuit Court held a bench trial on J uly 17 and 20, 2006. Mother-in-la w testified at the outset of the trial, primar ily discussing the monies she paid to Husband a nd Wife during the five- y ear pe ri od be tw e e n F e br

ua ry 20 00 and F e br ua ry 20 05 . M oth e r- in- law s ub mitte d a pp ro ximate ly

sixty
canc elled che cks into evidenc e indi cating that, in total, she g ave the parties $280,671.08 dur ing that period of time. Most of the chec ks wer e made pay able to he r son, Husband, and the rema inder we re made pa y able to var ious r etailer s, cre dit c ard companies, and a mortg ag e compa ny . None we re ma de pay able to W ife. Mother-in-la w ex plained that she m ade these pay ments beca

use Husband ha d been out of work a

nd she wa nted to help Husband a

nd Wife meet family

expenses.
Mo the r- in-l aw testif

ie d th a t sh e c on sid e re d th e pa y me nts to H us ba

nd or to t he pa rt ie s’
c re dit or s to be loa

ns fo r wh ic h she wo uld e ve ntu a lly be re pa id. She c on c e de d, ho we ve r, that th e on ly
c onve rs a tio n s he ha d w ithe ith e r p art y a bo ut t he te rm s o f r e pay

men t wa s a

br ie f d isc us sio n w ith Husband in which the y

decide d that Husband would simply pay Mother-in-la w whatever a

mount he
c ou ld a ff or d o n a monthl y ba sis

.Lo ans mad e p ri o r t o t he O ct o b er 8 m eet i ng acco unt f o r $6 2 , 7 1 1

. 6 8 of t he $ 2 8 0 , 6 7 1

. 0 8 t o t al

. ( E xh. 1). 6

-5- Mo the r- in- law d e sc ri be d a me e tin g on Oct ob er 8, 2 00 2, wi th H us ba nd , Wif e , a nd Do tsy Br ittingham, who is Wife’s mother. The purpose of the mee ting wa s to discuss Husband and Wife’s incre asing fi n ancial problems. Mother-in-la w desc ribed the discussion in the mee ting a bout the amounts that she had g iven to Husband a nd Wife: Q (by Mother-in-la

w’s counse l): Ms. Sm ith, did [ Wife] t ell y ou on October 8th that she wa s g oing to pa

y y ou back the money

that y ou loaned? A ( by Mo the r- in- law) : N o, sh e did n’ t c ome out and

sa y that. Q : W h a td i d

s h e s ay? A: I t w a s a g re e d amon g us that th e y wo uld re pa y thi s. Q: Whe n you

say a g re e d amon g us , h owis that di ff e re nt t ha n [Wif e ] sayingit? A: Wel l, I

do n’ t th ink

sh e a c tua lly

sa id, Iwi ll r e pa

y the se . Sh e did

no t. * * * Q: Who a c tua lly

ta lke d w ithy ou

a bo ut t he se loa ns ? A: Well, all four of us talked, but basic ally it was my son Michael a

nd me. I believe [W ife’s] mother said some thing s, too. Q: B ut a s f

ar a s the loa

n dis c us sio n, wh o a c tua lly dis c us se d w ithy ou

the pa rt ic ula rs ? A: My son did.

Mo the r- in- law t e sti fi ed th at, althou g h p ri or to t he Oc tob e r 8 me e tin g sh e ha d d e a lt s ole ly wi th Husband, she w as under

the impression that Husband was also ac ting on be half of Wife. H oweve r, beca use she ha d had no discussion of re pay ment of thes e m o n i es wi th Wi fe be fore the Octobe r 8 meeting , Mother-in-la

w said that she wa s not se eking repa y ment from Wife of loans that wer e made prior to the mee ting. Mother-in-la w admitted that her

only conver sation with either Husba nd or 6 Wife about g iving he r a se curity interest in the mar ital home was with Husband. She could not specify the date on which this discussion occurre d, saying only that it happene d sometime in 2004.
After Mot h er -in-law’ s testimony , the Circuit Court hear d testimony from Wife’s mother, Dotsy Br ittingham (“ Br ittingham”) . Br ittingham testified that she had no rec ollection of a me eting on October

8, 2002, but rec alled beingat another meetingin 2004 with Husba n d an d W i fe but wi th o u tM o th er -i n -l aw p re s en t

. E v en t h o u ghM o th er -i n -l aw wa s n o tat t h e 2 0 0 4 m ee t i n g, Br ittingham, Husba

nd, and Wife neve rtheless took the o p p o r tu n it y to d is c u ss the money

that Motherin-law ha d been g iving to Husba nd and Wife. Ac cordingto Britting ham, Husband de scribed the monies as an inher itance f rom his gr andmother.
Wife testified afte r her

mother’s testimony . Wife ackno w le d g e d th e O ctober

8, 2002 meeting and explained that it was prompted by impending f

orec losure proc eeding s on the parties’ marital home. She said that Mother- in-law a g ree d at the m ee t ing to he lp Husband and Wife br ing the mortg ag e pay

ments curr ent. Wife maintained that the m onies g iven t o them by Mother-in-la

w wer e never descr ibed as a

loan, that she ne ver ma de an a g ree ment with Mother-in -l aw t o re pay theT he C i rcui t C o urt d ed uct ed fr o m H usband ’ s shar e o f the p roce ed s t he $ 1 7 , 9 5 8

. 2 2 ne ed ed t o bri ng t he f i rs t and 7

se c o n d m o rtg a g e s c u rr e n t, a n d a d d e d this a m o u n t t o W ife’s sh a re . T h e c o u rt a lso d ivid e d b e tw e e n H u sb a n d a n d W ife (c o n tinu e d ...)
-6- amounts loaned, a

nd that she neve r agree d to gr ant Mother- in-law a secur ity interest in the mar ital home: Q: No w, te ll the Court wh a t [Hu sb and ] ha d to ld you a bo ut t his mon e y

fr om h is mother that’s at the core of this case

. A: He told me that this was inher itance f rom his grandmother ’s trust that she had lef t to him. That’s what he told me 100 perc ent of the t ime. There was never a ny loan.
Husband testifi ed last. He asser ted that, althoug h he neve r sig ned any loan documents or promissory notes, he had no doubt that the money from his mother was intended a s a l o an

. L at er duringhis testimony , howeve r, Husband sa id that he thoug ht that the money was pa rt of an i n heritanc e fr om his gra

ndmother. He testified that he told Wife that the money was a loan that neede d to be re paid, but conce ded that he co u l d n ot rec all whether Wife ag ree d to such an
arr ang ement.
At the conc lusion of all of the evide nce, the Circuit Court enter ed its fina l de cre e of divorce

. Re g ard ingMo the r- in- law’ s c la ims , th e Cir c uit Court f ound Hu sb and no t to be a

c re dib le wi tne ss, but c re dit e d th e te sti mony of bo th Mo the r- in- law and Wif e

. Th e c ourt fo un d that H us ba nd ha d to ld Wife that the money he had rec eived from his mother was inheritanc e money , and that Wife had no kn ow le dg e that the mon e y re c e ive d wa s any thi ngbut a

g if t. T he c ourt

fo un d th a t th e e vid e nc e did not support a findingthat Husband a cted a s Wi fe’ s ag ent, and that Mother -in-law ne ver discusse d te r ms o f r e p ay

me n t w it h Wi f e

. T h e c o urt th e r e f

o r e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e r e w a s n o c o n trac t of repa y ment betwee n Mother-in-la w and Wife a

nd dismiss ed Mother- in-law’s c laim ag ainst Wi fe.
As to Mothe r-in-law’s cla im ag ainst Husband, the Circuit Court ac knowledg ed that the Chance ry Court had pre viously

rende red a

defa ult judgment in favor of his m other, with the amount of dama g es to be de cided late r. The Circ uit Court found that Mother-in-lawwas e ntit l ed t o a judgme nt in the amount of $280,671.08 ag ainst Husband indi vidually . Howeve r, the Circuit Court did not order Husba

nd to execute a se curity

ag reem ent in favor

of Mother- in-law, a s she had reque sted in her or igina l Chancer y Court complaint.

In connec tion with the divorce be tween H usband and Wife, the Circ uit Court distributed the proce eds real i z ed upon the sa le of the ma rital home. As noted a

bove, the Chanc ery

Court had previously

transfe rre d Mother-in-la

w’s lien lis pendens on the hom e to the proc eeds of the home’s
sa le . T he Cir c uit Court fo un d that the sa le of the ho me yie lde d $ 18 9, 12 0. 54 , w hic h w a s b e inghe ld in tr u s t at F ir s t T e n n e s s e e b an k

. T h e Ci r c u it Co urt i n it ia ll y

d iv id e d th e p r o c e e d s b y

a lloc ating $1 41 ,8 40 .4 1 o f t

he pr oc e e ds to Wi fe and

$4 7, 28 0. 13 to Hu sb and

. Af te r a pp lic a tio n o f c e rt a in c re dit s in Wi f e ’ s f av o r , H u s b an d ’ s aw ar d o f th e p r o c e e d s f r o m th e s a le w a s r e d

u c e d to $ 3 1,452.91, and Wife’s was incr ease d to $157,667.63. The Ci rcuit C ourt also awa rded a $5,000.00 attorney ’s lien 7(

. . . con t i n u ed) 7
t h e v a l u e of

a r e t i r e me n t a c c ou n t h e l d w i t h W i f e ’ s e mp l oy e r

. Hu s ba n d’ s s h a r e of t h e pr oc e e ds f r om t h e s a l e of

t h e h om e
w a s inc re a se d in the a m o u n t o f $ 2 ,1 3 1 .0 0 , w h ic h re p re se n te d ha lf o f t h e va lue o f t h e re tire m e n t ac c o u n t.

T hese cal cul at i o ns are ba sed o n t he A ugust 14 , 20 0 6 Final D ecree and O rder o f t he C i rcui t C o urt

. T he January 8 5, 2007 Amen ded Fi n al D ec r ee an d O r der con t ai n s ca l cu l at i on s t h at v ar y s l i g h t l y f r om t h e or i g i n al or der

. T h e v ar i at i on seem s t o be t he res ul t of a cal cul at i o n err o r. -7- ag ainst the proce eds in favor of Husband’ s attorney . Finally , it awar ded Wife $26,452.92 as a limony in solido , to be paid fr om the rema ining pr ocee ds awa rded to Husba

nd. 8

After entry of the fina l decr ee, Wife f iled a motion for additional finding s of fa ct or to alter
or ame nd the final de cre e. She re quested, inte r a lia , that the Circuit Court make further f indings of fa c t on the iss ue of Mo the r- in- law’ s cla ime d sec ur ity int e re st in th e mari ta l r e sid e nc e . T he Cir c uit Court gr anted Wife’s motion and e ntere d an ame n d ed fi n al decree , stating, “ [T] here was no dis c us sio n, or

a g re e me nt t

hat Cathe ri ne Smith [Mo the r- in- law] w ou ld b e g ra nte d a se c ur ity int e re st in the marital re sidence .” The court a lso found that “Cather ine Smith [ Mother-in-la w] did not dis c us s a se c ur ity int e re st in the fo rm e r [mari ta l re sid e nc e ] w ith Mik e Smit h un til an uns pe c if

ie d d a te in 2004.”
Mother-in-la

w fil ed a timely notice of appea l. She also filed a motion to stay enfor ceme nt of the judg ment pendingappea l. Wi fe f iled a motion to relea se the proc eeds of the sale of

the marital ho me . T he Cir c uit Court de nie d Moth e r- in- law’ s mo tio n to sta y and or de re d r e le a se of

the pr oc e e ds

. I t or de re d r e le a se of

$5 ,0 00 .0 0 ma de pa

y a ble to H us ba

nd ’s a tto rn e y and

$1 50 ,0 00 .0 0 ma de pa

y a ble to Wi fe. On appe al, Mother- in-law argues that the Circuit Court err ed in or deringthat she be joined as a pa rty in the divorce action and in failing to rec og nize and g ive ef fec t to Mother-in-law’ s lien lis pendens a g a ins t th e pr oc e e ds fr om t he sa le of the mari ta l r e sid e nc e . O n a pp e a l fr om a be nc h tr ia l,
we re vie w q

ue sti on s o f f

a c t de novo on the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness. Tenn. R. App. P. 1 3( d) ; Cam

pbell v. Fla. Steel Corp. , 919 S.W .2d 26, 28-29 (Tenn. 1996). We reviewquestions of law de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Campb e ll , 919 S.W .2d at 28-29.
We first addre ss Mother-in-law ’s contention that the Circuit Court e rre d in orderingthat she be join ed as a p ar t y

to the divorce action. Mother- in-law a rgues first that, under

the doctrine of former suit pending, the Circuit Court’s joinder of her as a party improperly usurped the jurisdiction of the Chanc ery

Court, the court in which Mother-in-la w orig inally

filed her lawsuit. She also argues that, by joining her

to the divorce action, the Circuit Court misapplied Rule 19.01 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil P roce dure.
The doc trine of f

ormer suit pendinghas longbeen a pplied by Tenne ssee c ourts. Se eCla rk
v . G arre tt , 74 Te nn . 262 , 2 66 -6 7 ( 18 80 ); see also Me tro. D ev. and Hous. Agency v . Brown Stove Works, Inc. , 637 S.W .2d 876, 8 7 8 (T en n. Ct. App. 1982). The doc trine has be en desc ribed a s follows: “When courts have conc urre nt jurisdiction, the one that first ac quires jurisdiction there by-8-

acquir es exclusive jurisdiction.” Am. La v a Co rp . v . Sa v e na , 476 S.W .2d 639, 640 (Tenn. 1972) (citation omitted). Stated another way , “It is elementa ry that when two courts have co n curr ent jurisdiction of a par

ticular subjec t matter, that tribunal which f irst obta i n s j urisdiction retains it.” Kizer v. Bellar , 2 4 1 S

. W

. 2 d 5 6 1 , 5 6 3 (T en n

. 1 9 5 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Cas one v . St ate , 140 S.W .2 d1 0 8 1, 1 0 8 3 (T en n

. 1 9 4 0 ))

. T h e T en n es s ee S u p re m e C o urt h as m ad e i tcl ea r, h o we v er , th at th e l an gu age in former suit pending c ases g iving pr iority to the court that first acquir es jurisdiction does not mean that the pende ncy

of an a ction beg ins with service of proce ss. West v. V

ought Aircraft Indu s., Inc. , 256 S.W .3d 618, 624-25 (Te nn. 2008). Rather , “the pe ndency of an a ction beg ins w ith the f iling of a complaint.” Id. at 624.
Wife filed her

complaint for divorc e in C i rc u i t Court on J uly 13, 2005. Wife’s divorce complaint asks the Circuit C ourt to equitably distribute the m arital property

. The Circuit Court was there fore authorized to “e q uitably divide, distribute or assig n the marital prope rty betwee n the parties” and “to e ffe ctuate its decree by divesting and reinve sting title to such prope rty and, whe re deeme d nece ssary , to order a sale of suc h proper

ty and to orde r the p ro ce ed s d i v i ded betwe en the pa rt ie s. ” T. C.A . § 36 -4 -1 21 (a )( 1) , ( 3) (2 00 5) . Thu s, up on the fi lin g of

Wif e ’s c omp la int , th e Cir c uit Court ga ined jurisdiction over the ma rital estate, inc luding the ma rital home. Two months later, on September 16, 2005, Mother -in-law f iled her la wsuit in the Chancer

y Court, alleg ing that Husband and Wife we re in bre ach of a contr act to g rant he r a security interest in the m arital home and to re pay the funds loane d.
Under these fa cts, the Circuit Court acquir ed jurisdiction ove r the marital home when Wife’s divorce comp l ai n t wa s fi led; Wife’s divorce suit was the prior suit pending . Under the doctrine , there fore , when Mother-in-la w subsequently

filed her lawsuit in Chancer

y Court, the Circuit Court reta ined its jurisdiction over the marital home. Am . Lava Corp. , 476 S.W .2d at 640. The a rgument that the Circuit Court improperly usurped the jur isdiction of the Chance ry C o u rt b y o rdering that Mo the r- in- law b e joi ne d a s a pa rt y in t he div or c e a c tio n is wh oll y wi tho ut m e ri t.
Mother-in-la

w also conte nds that the Circu i t Court misapplied Rule 19 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil P roce dure, which g overns the “ J oinder of Per sons Neede d for Just Adjudi cation.” Rule 19.01 states that a pe rson subject to the court’s jurisdiction “ sh all be joined as a

party” under
c e rt a in c on dit ion s. Te nn . R. Civ . P. 19 .0 1 ( e mph a sis a dded). Th us , the langua g e of the Rul e is direc tive and mandatory . Among the c o n ditions m andatingjoinder ar e if the pe rson to be joined “c laims an interest re lating to the subje ct of the a ction.” Id. a t 1 9

. 0 1 ( 2 )

. In h e r Ch ance ry Court lawsuit, Mother-in-la

w clea rly claimed an interest in the marital estate , and in par ticular the ma

rital ho me . M or e ov e r, Mo the r- in- law w a s “ so sit uate d that the dis po sit ion ” of the div or c e lit ig a tio n in he r a bs e nc e c ou ld h ave “ imp a ir [ed ] o r imp e de [d]” Mo the r- in- law’ s a bil ity to p ro te c t he r i nte re st i n th e m ar i t al h o m e, o r i tco u l d h av e l ef tHu s b an d o r W i fe “s u

b j ec t t o a s u

b s t an t i al ri s k

o f i n cu rr i n g .

. . inconsistent obligations by rea sons of [Mot her- in-law’s] claimed inter est.” Id. The Rule provide s specific ally

that, if these conditions are met, a person such as Mother-in-law “ may be made . . . an involuntary

plaintiff.” Id. at 19.01. Moreove r, Mother- in-law fa ils to articulate how she wasR ule 3 6 (b ) o f t he T en ne ssee R ules o f A p p ell ate P ro ce d ure st ates: 9

( b) E f

fect of E rror. A f

i na l jud gm en t f

ro m wh i ch reli ef i s ava i la b l e a nd o t he rw i se appropri at e s hal l not be s et as i de un l es s , cons i deri ng t he whol e r ecor d, er r or i nv ol vi ng a s ubs t ant i al right m o re p ro b ab l y t ha n no t aff ec t ed t he jud gm en t o r w o uld resu l t i n pre jud i ce t o t he jud i cial p ro ce ss.

T enn. R

. A p p

. P

. 36 (b).

M ot h er - i n - l aw ’ s f

i l i n g i n t h e cou n t y r eg i s t er ’ s of f i ce w as pu r s u an t t o T en n es s ee Code A nno t at ed § 20- 3- 10 1 0 1 (a ). See s upr a n ot e 2.

T h e t e r m “ l i s pe ndens ” m ean s “ a pen di ng l aws ui t

. ” See B L ACK ’ S L A W D I C T I ONA R Y 942- 43 (7th ed

. 19 9 9 ). 11

-9- prejudice d by

the Circuit Court’s joinder of he r in the divorce litigation. She d oes not argue that 9 her ability to submit evidenc e or cross-e x amine witnesses was somehow impede d by proce edingas pa rt of the Cir c uit

Court lit ig a tio n. Thus , und e r a ll o f the se c ir c ums tanc e s, the Cir c uit Cou rt pr op e rl y order ed that Mother- in-law be joined as an involuntary plaintiff. Id.
Mother-in-la

w next arg ues that the Circuit C ourt err ed by failingto rec og nize and g ive ef fec t to her lien lis pendens . She contends that she should ha ve had a lien ag ainst the Husband’ s share of the proc eeds f

rom the sale of

the marital home prior

to t he Cir c uit Court ’s de du c tio ns fo r e qu ita ble d i s tr i b u t i o no f

th e m ar i t a l p r o p e rty, a l i m o n y in solido and Husba nd’s attorne y ’s fe e.
On the same date that she filed her lawsuit in Chancer

y Court, Mother-in- l aw fi led in the county reg ister’s off

ice a n abstrac t of her c omplaint in order to establish a lien lis pendens a g a ins t the mari ta l ho me

. Th e te rm lis pendens is d e fi ne d a s a “ no tic e , re c or de d in the c ha in of tit le to 10 11
rea l property

. . . to war

n all persons that cer

tain proper

ty is the s ubject matter of litigation, and that any interests ac quired duringthe pende ncy of the suit are subject t o i ts outcome.” B LACK ’ S L AW D I C TI ONAR Y 942-43 (7th ed. 1999). Thus, the filingof the a bstract doe s not establish that the person fi lin g the a

bs tr a c t ha s a va lid

ri g ht t o th e lie n; r a the r, it m e re ly pr ov ide s notice to t

ho se wh o w ou ld acquir e the pr operty that the person filing the abstra ct is assertinga cla im ag ainst the proper ty

. See 51 A M

. J UR

. 2 D Lis Pendens §§ 1, 3 (2000). It is designe d primarily to protect unidenti fi ed third parties by aler ting them a s to lit igation that may aff ect the title of the proper

ty

. Id. § 2.

He re , th e Cir c uit Court dis mis se d M oth e r- in- law’ s c la im a g a ins t Wif e fo r t he loa ne d mo nie s. I t then distributed the marital estate , including but not limited to the proce eds from the sale of the marital hom e. Fr om the porti on of t he procee ds initially allocate d to Husband—$47,280.13—the Cir c uit Court fi rs t de du c te d $1 5, 82 7. 22 a s pa rt of the e qu ita

ble dis tr ibutio n o f m ari ta l pr op e rt y . T his reduc ed Husba

nd ’s s hare to $31,452.91. A $5,000.00 lien was a war ded ag ainst the rema ining p r o c e e d s i nf

av o r o f H u s b an d ’ s a t t o r

n e y
. F i n a l l y, W i f

e w a s aw ar d e d

$ 2 6 , 4 5 2

. 9 2 a s a l i m o n y in solido to be paid fr om Hu s b an d ’s share of the proc eeds. The se deduc tions entirely depleted Husband’s sha

re of the proc eeds f

rom the sale of

the marital home.-10-

Mother-in-la

w asser ts that her lien lis pendens on the re sidence , which wa s transfe rre d to the pr oc e e ds of

its sa le , to ok

pr ior ity ov e r the int e re sts of

tho se pa rt ie s w ho re c e ive d th e pr oc e e ds , namely , Wif

e as well as Husband’s attorne y . She cites no authority supporting he r asse rtion of pr ior ity a s to Wif e . A s n ote d a

bo ve , th e Cir c uit Court fo un d that Moth e r- in- law ha d no cla im a g a ins t Wife for re pay

ment of the loan. Thus, Mother-in-lawhad no cla im ag ainst monies awar ded to Wife in the Circui t Court’s distributi on of the mar ital estate, re g ardle ss of whethe r those monies orig inated from the pr ocee ds from the marital hom e. Mot her- in-law likewise c ites no authority for he r asse rtion of priority over the claim of Husband’s attorney for his fee s. We find no err or by the Circuit Court in ref using to awa

rd Mot her- in-law a portion of t he procee ds from the sale of the mar ital home, and note that Mother-in-la

w reta ins he r awa

rd for damag es ag ainst her son for r epay ment of the monies loaned dur ing the marria g e. Wife reque sts that she be awarde d her attorney ’s fe es in defe nding this appe al. An aw ard of appellate attorney ’s fe es is a matter within this Court’s sound discretion. Archer v. Archer , 907 S.W. 2d 41 2, 41 9 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. 19 95 ). Whe n c on sid e ri ng a re qu e st f or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s o n a

pp e a l,
we c on sid e r t

he re qu e sti ngpa

rt y ’s a bil ity to p ay su c h f e e s, the re qu e sti ngpa

rt y ’s su c c e ss o n a

pp e a l, whether the re questing party soug ht the appea l in g ood faith, and any other equitable f actor s releva

nt i na gi ven ca se. Darvarman esh v. Gharacholou , No. 2004-00262-COA -R3-CV, 2005 WL1684050, at *16 (Te nn. Ct. App. J uly 19, 2005). Consideringthe re levant fa ctors , we decline to a war d appellate attorney ’s fe es to Wife in this case.

Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is a ff ir me d. Cos ts f

or thi s app e a l ar e ta xed to t

he Ap pe lla

nt, Catherine Smith, and her

surety , for whic h execution may issue, if nec essar

y
.

___________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE