Court Opinion

ID: 9963319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 20:12:51.488148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:45.660724
License: Public Domain

04/24/2024
                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                             AT NASHVILLE
                                      April 2, 2024 Session

                     LAURA ADAMS v. TIMOTHY ADAMS, SR.

                  Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County
                 No. 74CC1-2021-CV-228         Adrienne G. Fry, Judge
                        ___________________________________

                              No. M2023-00069-COA-R3-CV
                          ___________________________________

Laura Adams (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court for Robertson
County (“the Trial Court”) against Timothy Adams, Sr. (“Husband”). In its final judgment
of divorce, the Trial Court determined that real estate in Lawrence County (“Lawrence
County property”), purchased by Husband prior to the marriage, was marital property
because it had become “inextricably commingled.” The Trial Court awarded Wife “40%
of the total proceeds” from the Lawrence County property. The Trial Court further
awarded Wife the marital residence and any and all equitable interests in the marital
residence. Husband has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

        Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court
                            Affirmed; Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G.
CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and ANDY D. BENNETT, J., joined.

Brandi L. Jones, Springfield, Tennessee, for the appellant, Timothy Adams, Sr.

Laura Adams, Greenbrier, Tennessee, Pro Se.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                           Background

1
 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides: “This Court, with the concurrence of all judges
participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum
opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum
opinion it shall be designated ‘MEMORANDUM OPINION,’ shall not be published, and shall not be cited
or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.”
        On September 7, 2021, Wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Trial Court against
Husband, raising the following grounds: (1) Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, (2)
Husband’s cruelty and inhuman treatment, (3) Husband’s abandonment, or alternatively,
(4) irreconcilable differences. The parties were married on March 2, 2019, and have three
children together, born prior to the marriage. A week prior to filing her complaint, Wife
obtained an ex parte temporary order of protection against Husband in the General Sessions
Court for Robertson County (“General Sessions Court”).

        On October 1, 2021, Wife filed a motion for emergency ex parte relief, alleging that
Husband had brandished a handgun and fired the weapon through the front windshield of
Wife’s vehicle while Wife was in the vehicle. Wife stated that the bullet passed right by
her right ear. After Husband’s arrest, Husband’s family reached out to Wife in order to
facilitate Husband’s release from jail via a bond secured by the marital residence. Wife
asked the Trial Court to “impose restrictions from any and all contact — essentially that
this Court impose the conditions of the Temporary Order of Protection” and to “grant
immediate relief from Husband and/or Husband’s family from encumbering the parties’
real estate.” The Trial Court granted Wife’s motion and entered an ex parte order of
protection, enjoining Husband from contacting Wife or their three children and from
encumbering the parties’ real estate.

       After Wife filed a motion for default judgment, Husband filed an answer to the
divorce complaint on November 1, 2021. Husband counterclaimed for divorce, alleging
grounds of Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct and adultery, or alternatively,
irreconcilable differences.

        A trial was held on September 13, 2022. Wife and Husband were the only witnesses.
Wife testified that she wished to continue residing in the marital residence or to be able to
sell the home. She questioned whether she could maintain the mortgage. She requested
that she be awarded all of the equity in the home. With respect to the Lawrence County
property, Wife did not dispute that Husband had paid for the property out of his retirement
account in 2015, prior to the marriage. She explained that it was used as a rental property
and that rental income was “deposited into accounts; sometimes it was just cash, which
was then spent, groceries, gas, kids, sports. I mean, just whatever was needed for the
family.” She further testified that, in the past, she would “go down there” with Husband
to check on the property and that she had paid taxes on the property online. She also
explained that they paid the property taxes with funds from their joint account.

        Husband testified that he purchased the Lawrence County property in 2015. He
could not remember Wife paying any costs related to the property and only recalled that
she went to the property once with him. He further testified that his uncle had paid the
property taxes for the property in 2020 and 2021. He also stated that he earned only $600
in rental income from the property, which he put back into the house in the form of repairs.

                                            -2-
       In a final judgment of divorce, entered on December 13, 2022, the Trial Court
determined that the Lawrence County property had become “inextricably commingled”
and deemed it marital property. As to the Lawrence County property, the Trial Court
awarded Husband 60% of the “total proceeds” and Wife 40% of the “total proceeds” and
found that this was an equitable division. The Trial Court further awarded Wife the marital
residence and all of the equity therein. Husband timely appealed.

                                        Discussion

       Although not stated exactly as such, Husband raises the following issues on appeal:
(1) whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Wife the marital residence and all the equity
therein and (2) whether the Trial Court erred in classifying the Lawrence County property
as marital property and awarding a portion to Wife. However, Husband did not include a
Rule 7 table in or appended to his appellate brief.

      Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides in relevant part:

      (a) In any domestic relations appeal in which either party takes issue with the
      classification of property or debt or with the manner in which the trial court
      divided or allocated the marital property or debt, the brief of the party raising
      the issue shall contain, in the statement of facts or in an appendix, a table in
      a form substantially similar to the form attached hereto. This table shall list
      all property and debts considered by the trial court, including: (1) all separate
      property, (2) all marital property, and (3) all separate and marital debts.

      (b) Each entry in the table must include a citation to the record where each
      party’s evidence regarding the classification or valuation of the property or
      debt can be found and a citation to the record where the trial court’s decision
      regarding the classification, valuation, division, or allocation of the property
      or debt can be found.

      This Court has previously explained the importance of Rule 7 and its application
when a party fails to comply with the rule:

      Therefore, “in all cases where a party takes issue with the classification and
      division of marital property, the party must include in its brief a chart
      displaying the property values proposed by both parties, the value assigned
      by the trial court, and the party to whom the trial court awarded the property.”
      Akard v. Akard, No. E2013-00818-COA-R3CV, 2014 WL 6640294, at *4
      (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014).

             We previously have held that “where an appellant fails to comply with
      this rule, that appellant waives all such issues relating to the rule’s
                                          -3-
       requirements.” Stock v. Stock, No. W2005-02634-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL
       3804420, at *5, n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2006). This Court succinctly
       explained the importance of the requirements of Rule 7 in Harden v. Harden:

              [I]t is essential that the parties comply with Rule 7 in order to
              aid this Court in reviewing the trial court’s decision. The table
              required by Rule 7, allows this Court to easily and correctly
              determine the valuation and distribution of the marital estate as
              ordered by the trial court. Further, the Rule 7 table, allows this
              Court to ascertain the contentions of each party as to the correct
              valuations and proper distribution, as well as the evidence in
              the record which the party believes supports its contention.
              Consequently, a table, in full compliance with Rule 7, is vital
              as this Court must consider the entire distribution of property
              in order to determine whether the trial court erred. Moreover,
              this Court is under no duty to minutely search the record for
              evidence that the trial court’s valuations may be incorrect or
              that the distribution may be improper.

       No. M2009-01302-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 2612688, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App.
       June 30, 2010) (citations omitted).

Kanski v. Kanski, No. M2017-01913-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 5435402, at *6 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Oct. 29, 2018).

        In Kanski v. Kanski, this Court found that the husband had waived “issues related
to the classification, valuation, and division of the marital property and debt” due to his
failure to include a Rule 7 table in his principal appellate brief. Id. at *7. “This Court has
repeatedly held that the failure to comply with Rule 7 results in waiver of ‘all issues relating
to the rule’s requirements.’” Hopwood v. Hopwood, No. M2015-01010-COA-R3-CV,
2016 WL 3537467, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016) (quoting Forbess v. Forbess, 370
S.W.3d 347, 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011)) (in turn quoting Harden v. Harden, No. M2009-
01302-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 2612688, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2010)); see also
Greene v. Greene, No. M2022-01171-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 6619209, at *2 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Oct. 11, 2023) (“[C]ompliance with Rule 7 is mandatory, and the failure to comply
with the specific requirements of the Rule generally will result in waiver of issues regarding
the trial court’s division of property.”).

       We acknowledge that we may suspend the requirements of Rule 7 for “good cause”,
see Tenn. R. Ct. App. 1(b); however, we discern none here and elect not to suspend the
requirements of Rule 7. See Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 54-55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)
(“[T]he Supreme Court has held that it will not find this Court in error for not considering
a case on its merits where the plaintiff did not comply with the rules of this Court.”).
                                           -4-
Husband’s two issues on appeal involve issues of classification and division of property,
issues that fall squarely within the parameters of Rule 7. We accordingly find that Husband
has waived the only two issues on appeal by failing to comply with Rule 7, and we affirm
the Trial Court’s judgment.

                                       Conclusion

       We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment, and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court
for collection of costs below. Costs on appeal are assessed against appellant, Timothy
Adams, Sr., and his surety, if any.

                                                 _________________________________
                                                 D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE

                                           -5-