Court Opinion

ID: 9858244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:19:15.250076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:40.783945
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
McAMIS, P. J.
Counsel for Norman H. Thomas have filed a petition seeking clarification as to whether it was intended by onr former opinion to divide between the parties any amount allowed counsel for Mrs. Thomas for services rendered on appeal and asking that the Court be convened en banc to resolve an asserted conflict between onr holding and Russell v. Russell, 3 Tenn. App. 232.
We see no reason for dividing counsel fees on the appeal merely because the trial court did so and it was not our intention to charge Mrs. Thomas with any part of the fee to be allowed on the remand.
As to convening the Court en banc, as pointed out in our original opinion Russell v. Russell was not a case, like the present, where the court is called upon under the statute to modify a former decree based upon a property settlement. The question in the Russell case was whether the court, in fixing alimony, could disregard a prenuptial property settlement. As pointed out in Doty v. Doty, cited and followed in our former opinion, it is beyond the power of the court to deprive itself of the authority conferred by T. C. A. sec. 36-820. The fact that Russell v. Russell was not a proceeding under the statute is sufficient to distinguish it from the present case. Accordingly, the petition to convene the Court en banc is disallowed.
Tax cost of petition to petitioner Norman H. Thomas.
Hale and Howard, JJ., concur.