Court Opinion

ID: 9954580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:11:42.390299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:54.127601
License: Public Domain

03/26/2024
                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                                     AT NASHVILLE
                                   Assigned on Briefs November 1, 2023

            TRAVIS JASON VANDENBERG v. ASHLEY KAY VANDENBERG

                      Appeal from the Chancery Court for Montgomery County
                     No. MC-CH-CV-DI-21-700      Matthew Joel Wallace, Judge
                              ___________________________________

                                     No. M2023-00479-COA-R3-CV
                                 ___________________________________

This appeal arises from a divorce after a short marriage. The husband appeals from the ruling of
the trial court as it relates to the division of marital assets, the number of days he was awarded in
the parenting plan, and the alimony award to the wife. Upon our review, we find the order appealed
from is nonfinal and must be dismissed.

                        Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. NEAL MCBRAYER and
KENNY W. ARMSTRONG, JJ., joined.

G. Michael Casey, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travis Jason Vandenberg.

Steven C. Girsky, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ashley Kay Vandenberg.

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                               I. BACKGROUND

1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Tennessee 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OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
      The parties, Travis Jason Vandenberg (“Husband”) and Ashley Kay Vandenberg (“Wife”),
were married on December 23, 2015, in Michigan. They share two minor children, ages four and
seventeen months at the time of trial. At the time of these proceedings, Husband was in the U.S.
Army stationed at Fort Campbell.
        In the instant action, Wife was awarded a divorce on March 3, 2023, based on inappropriate
marital conduct. The trial court assessed the parties’ overall demeanor and the ability of the parties
to pay fees and Wife’s request for alimony and attorney fees. However, the court was silent on
the attorney fees issue in its written order. Husband filed a timely notice of appeal.
       It is unclear whether the trial court overlooked the attorney fee request or found Wife
should pay the fees from the small amount of equity she received from the property division. Wife
did not mention her request for attorney fees in the pretrial brief and no opening/closing statements
are of record. The final decree, which appears to have been prepared by Wife’s counsel, states
“[t]he parties shall be responsible for all debts in their individual names and hold the other party
harmless thereon.”
         A failure to fully adjudicate the issue of attorney fees renders the trial court’s order
nonfinal, thus depriving this court of subject matter jurisdiction. “[A]ppellate courts have
jurisdiction over final judgments only.” Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn.
1990); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). A final judgment adjudicates all “claims, rights, and
liabilities of all the parties” and “resolves all the issues [leaving] ‘nothing else for the trial court
to do.’” E Sols. for Bldgs., LLC v. Knestrick Contractor, Inc., No. M2018-00732-COA-R3-CV,
2018 WL 1831116, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2018) (citing Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363
S.W.3d 479, 488 n. 17 (Tenn. 2012). Because we are not confident that the language in the trial
court’s order was intended to deny attorney fees, we find the order appealed from is not “a final
judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all parties.” Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a).
        Accordingly, “we dismiss this appeal and remand to the trial court for disposition of the
entire claim and for collection of costs below.” Headrick v. Headrick, No. E2004-00730-COA-
R3-CV, 2005 WL 524807, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2005). We express no opinion as to the
trial court’s decision on the amount, if any, of attorney fees. Id. As we noted in Headrick, the
attorney fee issue must be resolved before we can review all the issues in this matter, particularly
as an award of attorney fees is treated as an award of alimony. Id.
       Costs of the appeal are assessed to the appellant, Travis Jason Vandenberg, for which
execution may issue if necessary.

                                                   _______________________________________

                                                   JOHN W. MCCLARTY, JUDGE