### F I LED A p r i l 15, 1999 C eci l C r o w son, Jr . Appel l a t e Cour t C l e r k I N TH E CO U R T O F APPEALS OF TENN E S S E E

AT K N O X V I LLE

P A T R IC IA ANNE P E H L M AN, ) C / A N O . 03A 01- 9809- C V

- 00311 ) A ppel l ant, ) KNOX CI R C U I T ) v . ) HON. BI L L S W ANN, ) J UDGE GRE GORY LA W R ENCEP E H L M AN, ) ) A p p e l l ee, ) ) and ) ) S O B I ESK I , M ESSE R & A SSO C I A T E S , ) A FFI R M E D ) AND I n t e r venor . ) REM ANDE D

R O B E R T L . C R O S S L E Y , T H E C R O S S L E Y L A W FI R M , P. C . , K noxvi l l e ,fo r A ppel l ant . DANI E L L . T AYL OR,M e m p h i s , fo r Ap p e l l e e . W A N D A G . SO B I E S K I , SO B I E S K I , M E S S E R & A S S O C I A T E S , K noxvi l l e ,fo r I n t e r venor .

O P I N I O N F r anks , J . I n t h i s act

i o n P a t r i c i a A n n e P ehl m an essenti a l l y seeks a decl a r a t i o n t hat m a r i t a l pr oper t y a w a r ded t o her i n a di vor c e i s nots ubj e c t t o a l

i en i n favor of t h e i n t e r venor . T he i n t e r ven or in i t i a l l y r epres ent ed G r ego r y P ehl m an i n t he P ehl m ans’ d i vor c e s u i t . D u r i ng pende

ncy of t he a c t i on i n t e r venor w i t hdr e w f

r o m r epr e s ent i n g2

G r ego r y and G r ego r y and i n t e r ven or agr eed o n t he am o u n t of at t orney’ s f

ees t hen du e i n t e r venor, asr e f

l e c t ed i n a N o t e s i gned by

G r egor y . I n t e r venor fi l ed a l i en lis penden s on t he p r o p e r t y i n t he R egi s t e r of D eeds O ffi ce and no t i ce of l i en i n t h e d i v o r ce act i o n . S u b sequen t l y , t he P ehl m ans w e r e di v o r ced an d t he D i v o r ce D ecr e e r e c i t e st hat

“[ t ] he pa

r t i e sannounced a

s e t t l e ment of t he i s s uesi n t h i s di vor c e l i t i gat i on, and upon

s a id announc em ent

t he C our t appr

oved t hei r i ncor por a t i on i n t o a fi nal decr e e of abs o l u t e divor c e ” ,and as t o t he m a r i t a l pr oper t y , t he D e cr e e

pr ovi ded: A s a div i s i on of

m a r i t a l pr oper t y pur s uant

t o T . C . A . §36- 4 - 121 w i fe shal l r ecei ve t he resi den ce of t he p a r t i es locat ed at 19 4 7 G r enad e B oul eva r d , K noxvi l l e ,T enne s s e e 37922. H u s band shall execut e a qui t c l a i m deed t r ansfe r r i n g hi s in t e r est i n sai d res i den ce t o t he w i fe , and said execut ed qui tcla im deed s hall be hel d by hus band’ s at t o r ney , i n es c r

o w , unt i l t h i s decr e e

of di vor c e bec o m e sfi nal . H u s band shall be s o l e l y r e spons i b l e f

o ri m m edi a t

e l y re s o l v i ng hi s di s put e w i t h W anda Sobi e s k i , so t hat her at

t orney l i en i s r

e m o v ed fr

o m t he resi den ce. S u b sequen t l y , P a t r i c i a f i l ed a M o t i o n t o Q uash Int e r ven or’ s Li en, and N o t i ce, w h i c h had been fi l ed pur sua

n t t o T . C . A . §23-2- 102, fo r l egals e rv i cesr ender ed G r egor y i n t he di vor c e act i on. Subsequent

l y , t he Tr i a l

C our t det

e r m i ned: T he sett l e m ent t hat r esul t ed i n a final decree of absol u t e di v o r c e vest ed t he p a r t i es m a r i t a l r esiden ce i n t he p l a i n t i ff / cou n t e r - defendan t . P l a in t i ff / count e r- def enda n tt ook s uch pr

oper t y w i t h f u l l know l edge

of t he r e c o r ded l i en a nd s ubj e c t t o s a id l i en,and t hat t he l i e n s u r v i ved t

he di vor c e decr e e . Patr i c i a a

ppea l ed t hat or der t o t h i s C our t and w e r

e m anded , upon det e r m i n i ng that

t he j udgm ent

or der ed t he husband t

o r e s o l ve hi s di s put e w i t h hi s forme r at t orney, and w e no t ed “t he j u d g m ent provi des, t o res o l ve h i s di sput e w i t h i n t e r ven or,no ton l y as to t he am o u n t of t he fee,bu t as t

o t he v a l i d i t y of t

he l i en”. U pon r e m and a

nd ar gum ent of couns e l and r e c e i p tof evidenc e t

he Tr i a l C our t r u l ed: T h i s C our tconf

i r m s t hat i t s i n t ent

w i t h r e spect t o l angua

ge “r e s o l ved hi s d i sput e” and t h i s C o u r t ’ s or der of A u g ust14 , 19 9 6 , w as s i m p l y t hat M r . Pehl m an pa

y hi s couns e l . T her

e i s no di s put e a s t o t he l i en,t h e proprie t y of t

he l i en, t he feescl a i m ed, or any ot her m a t t e r bet w een M r . Pehl m an a

nd the i n t e r venor .3

T he C our tt hen r

e affi r m ed i

t s fo r m e r hol d i ng “i

n al l r e spect s ” . P a tric i a h a s a g a i n a p p e a l e d to th i s C o u rt in s i s tin g th e lie n is in v a lid becau se t he h usban d d i d n o t “r ecov e r ” t he m a r i t a l r esiden ce, and t he st a t u t ory li e n f a i l ed b ecause i tw as not decl a r ed i n t he final decree.

N o t i ce of t

he st a t u t ory li en w as f

i l ed i n t he d i v o r ce act i o n , and t h e d i s p o s itio n o f th e m a rita l e s t a t e w a s a t is s u e in th a t a c tio n . G r e g o r y v o l u n t a rily deed ed h i s in t e r est

t o P a t r i c i a as a part of t he d i v o r ce set

t l e m ent , and she accept ed as t he Tr i a l J udge f ound “w i t h f

u l l know l edge

of t he r e c o r ded l i en,and subj e c t t o s a id lie n ” . T h e o p e r a tio n a l e f f e c t o f th i s lie n is n o t u n lik e th e c irc u m s t a n c e s in Thi r d Na t i onalB ank i

n Na s hvil l e v. Nobl e r

, 789 S. W . 2d 254 ( T enn. 1990) . I n Nobl e r, d u r i n g t he p end ency o f

an act i o n for di v o r ce bet w een t he N o b l e r s ,a cr edi t or of t h e hus band l

evied on s o m e r

e a l pr oper t y w h i ch t

he N obl e rs ow ned as t ena n t s by t h e ent i r e t y . T he T r i a l Judg e order ed t he p r o p e r t y sol d i n t he d i v o r ce act i o n , and t h e Supr e m e C our tul t i m a t

e l y he l d t hat

t he r i ghtof s u r v i vor s h i p pr evious l y c onvey ed or a t t a ched by

a j udgm ent

cr edi t o rw a snotdest r oye d by t he di s s o l u t i on of

t he t ena ncy by t he en t i r e t

i e s , and c oncl

uded t hat t he j udgm ent

cr edi t o rw a sent

i t l ed t o t h e sur v i v o r shi p i n t e r est

i n t he p r o p e r t y t o t he ex t ent of t he credi t or’ s in t e r est . I ti s general

l y hel d t hat t he t r ansfe r of pr o p e r t y subsequ ent t o t h e a t t achm ent of a l

i en d oes no taffectt he l i en. SeeM i chi gan v. U n i t ed St

a t e s , 31 7 U . S . 338, 340 63 S. C t . 302, 303, 87 L . E d . 312. A s pous e m a y conve y he r r i ghtof s u r v i vor s h i p w i t houtcons ent of t he ot her . SeeR obi n s on v. Trous dal e C ount y , 516 S . W . 2d 626 ( 1974) . A c c o r d i ngl y , a l i en m a y at t a ch t o a spous e ’ s r i ghtof s u r v i vor s h i p , w i t houtt he c ons ent of t he ot her s pous e . W e t her e f o r e c oncl ude t hat t he i n t e r venor ’ s l i en a

t t a ched t o t h e G r ego r y ’ s r

i g h tof s urvi v o r shi p , and sur v i ved t he t r ansfe r of t i t l e t o P a t r i c i a . W e a ffi r m t he j udgm ent

of t he Tr i a l C our t and r

e m and w i t h t he c o s t of4

app eal ass ess ed t o t he ap pel l ant .

_____________________ _____ H e rs chel P. Fr anks , J . CONC UR:

_____________________ ______ H o u s t o nM . G o d d a

r d ,P. J .

_____________________ ______ W illi a m H . In m a n , S r.J .