Tennessee case abstract on divorce.
Douglas D. Dailey v. Violet L. Dailey
The husband and spouse on this Blount County, Tennessee, case had been married for about 40 years, and had divorced and remarried in 1978. Throughout the marriage, the husband had bought gold cash. Throughout one ten-year span, he had bought about 400 ounces. At his deposition, the husband testified that the whole spent had been a couple of half million {dollars}, however at trial, he toned down the estimate. The spouse testified that he had given estimates of $750,000 and one million {dollars} as the whole worth.
The gold cash have been stored in a gun secure. When the events’ son (who was 32 on the time of trial) was in his teenagers, there was proof that he had taken a number of the cash out of the unlocked secure after the husband allegedly destroyed a number of the son’s collectible playing cards. The son testified that he took 2 or 3 cash, however the husband testified that the son took virtually 50 ounces.
The spouse testified that after the 1978 divorce, she took 3 to five cash to pay authorized charges, however the husband alleged that she had taken about 100 ounces.
Finally, the husband began storing the gold in a secure deposit field, and he estimated that there have been 200 ounces within the field.
In 2016, their church had a prophecy that President Obama would refuse to depart workplace, and consequently, they wouldn’t be capable of get the gold out of the financial institution. On the spouse’s request, they moved the gold into the secure room of their residence.
Late within the marriage, the husband lived within the downstairs portion of the house (with the gold), and the spouse lived upstairs. The spouse admitted that she sometimes got here to the decrease degree to get meals from the freezer. There was dispute as as to whether the spouse had entry to the important thing to the secure room.
Concerning the time he filed for divorce, he found the gold was lacking, however he by no means contacted legislation enforcement.
Most points have been resolved, however a trial was held earlier than Decide Tammy M. Harrington on the problem of what occurred to the gold. After listening to testimony for 2 days, Decide Harrington concluded that the gold was in any respect related occasions within the husband’s management, and that he was accountable if it was lacking. Subsequently, the husband was ordered to pay the spouse half the worth of the gold. The courtroom held that the lacking gold was value $600,000, and ordered the husband to pay the spouse $300,000. Dissatisfied with this consequence, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.
The appeals courtroom started by noting that in a non-jury case, assessment is de novo, with a presumption of correctness of the trial courtroom’s factual findings.
The trial courtroom had made a discovering that the husband was not credible, primarily based upon his cavalier angle and inconsistent and imprecise testimony.
The appeals courtroom characterised the husband’s case as that he had not taken the gold. In some unspecified time in the future through the marriage, each the spouse and son had taken some gold. Subsequently, he surmised, they will need to have taken the gold this time. The appeals courtroom, nevertheless, identified that the husband had no proof of the alleged theft. It additionally famous that through the marriage, the gold was marital property, and any taking by the spouse wouldn’t be a theft.
The appeals courtroom agreed that the husband had management of the gold in any respect related occasions. There was no proof that the spouse had a key to the secure room. Moreover, the husband had by no means talked about the alleged theft to legislation enforcement, and even within the divorce filings.
For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s ruling. It awarded the spouse her lawyer’s charges on enchantment and despatched the case again for a calculation of these charges.
No. E2019-00928-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2020).
See unique opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To study extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.
