Tennessee divorce case abstract.
Leslie Burnett Montgomery v. Gary Alan Montgomery
Divorce After Husband Charged w/ Attempting to Have Spouse Murdered
The husband and spouse on this Davidson County, Tennessee, case have been married in 2002 and had no kids. It was the husband’s second marriage and the spouse’s first. The spouse filed for divorce in 2016, alleging amongst different issues an try on her life.
The husband was incarcerated on costs of soliciting the spouse’s first diploma homicide. He requested for a keep of the divorce continuing till the legal case was resolved. He argued that as a way to reply to the spouse’s allegations, he would want to decide on between his proper to confront his accuser and his proper in opposition to self-incrimination. Whereas the case was pending, the husband was charged once more with solicitation of homicide.
The divorce case was assigned to Decide Philip E. Smith, and the husband additionally moved to have Decide Smith recused, on the grounds that he was charged with soliciting the homicide of his judicial colleague, the choose within the legal case.
Decide Smith denied all the motions. He first famous that the husband was mistaken, and he was not charged with soliciting the homicide of the legal choose. As an alternative, he was charged with soliciting the homicide of the primary alleged hitman.
Not surprisingly, the spouse was granted a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial courtroom labeled and divided the marital property, however denied the spouse’s request for alimony and legal professional charges.
The husband then filed a professional se enchantment with the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals. Though the spouse identified that his transient was very poor, the appeals courtroom addressed all the points he raised.
The husband first argued that the trial courtroom ought to have lifted the automated injunction in order that he might use marital belongings to safe his bond. After analyzing the information, the appeals courtroom held that this argument was with out advantage.
The husband additionally argued that the trial courtroom ought to have stayed the case whereas the legal costs have been pending. However after reviewing the information, the appeals courtroom held that the decrease courtroom had acted inside its discretion in permitting the case to proceed.
As to the recusal movement, the appeals courtroom held that the husband had not demonstrated any bias or prejudice. Due to this fact, there was no error in denying the movement.
The husband additionally argued that the classification and division of marital property was improper. Right here, nonetheless, the appeals courtroom held that the difficulty was not correctly preserved. Specifically, the husband had failed to offer a correct assertion of proof describing the precise points raised. With out this, the Courtroom of Appeals wanted to uphold the decrease courtroom’s ruling.
For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s ruling and taxed the prices of enchantment in opposition to the husband.
No. M2020-00314-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2020).
TN divorce case doesn’t go effectively for husband accused of making an attempt to kill spouse.
See unique opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
