Tennessee Fraud Claim in Old Divorce Denied

Tennessee law case summary on post-divorce fraud claim in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Athena H. Melfi v. Joseph Thomas Melfi – Tennessee post-divorce fraud claim denied

Athena H. Melfi, the wife, filed a complaint for divorce against the husband, Joseph Thomas Melfi, in March 2009.  The wife lived in Tennessee and the husband lived in Florida.  The couple had two minor children.   The wife attached to her complaint a Uniform Civil Affidavit of Indigence which showed that her monthly expenses exceeded her income.  The divorce decree was entered in December 2009 and included the Marital Dissolution Agreement.  The husband was ordered to pay rehabilitative alimony and also received the marital home.  Personal property and debts were divided.  The agreement also said that it “constitutes the entire understanding of the parties”.

In June 2011, the husband filed a motion asking to alter the final decree so that a limited partnership owned by the wife could be equitably divided, since it was acquired during the marriage.  The husband claimed the wife notified him about the limited partnership in November 2010 but had not mentioned it in her Affidavit or before the final divorce decree was given.  In November 2010, the wife offered him $12,500 from the proceeds of the partnership in exchange for him signing a release document.  The husband made efforts to contact the wife’s lawyer, without success and the wife later claimed there was actually no money.

In his motion, the husband made several claims.  He first claimed that the final Decree of Divorce was not a final judgment because the Agreement contained within it did not say that it was a final settlement of all property rights.  The husband also relied on Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to relieve a party from final judgment under certain circumstances.  Using this rule, the husband claimed that the decree was void because the wife’s failure to disclose the limited partnership constituted fraud.  The wife responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss, because the court had no lawful authority (subject matter jurisdiction) to rule in the matter since the decision from December 2009 was a final judgment.

The trial court dismissed the husband’s motion.  The trial court ruled that the Final Decree was final and long over (since an appeal on it was permitted only within one year and 18 months had already passed) and that the husband had conceded this fact earlier on.    The court rejected the husband’s claim that because the wife’s affidavit of indigency was false, the Court was deprived on jurisdiction and the Final Decree was void. The Court stated that this was incorrect and that there was no law to support this claim.  The Court also rejected the husband’s claim that because the wife contacted the husband 11 months after the final decree, this created an exception to the one year rule.  The court said no such exception exists.

Divorce Decree is a Final Judgment

The court of appeals rejected the husband’s appeal on the matter.  The court found that the final divorce decree was a final judgment and the trial court therefore had no subject matter jurisdiction, that is, it could not hold a hearing or allow discovery, which is what the husband requested.  The court also noted that in a hearing on the June 2011 motion, the parties agreed that the only issue at hand was the wife’s response to the motion, which was to dismiss the case because the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on it.   Since the trial court said it had no jurisdiction, it could not rule on the question of discovery.

The appeals court also dismissed the husband’s claims that the final divorce decree is not a final judgment.  The husband claimed it was not final because the agreement within the decree did not positively state that it was a final settlement of property issues and discharged all claims arising out of the marriage.  He also argued that it did not state that the parties warranted that they had disclosed all information about their assets.  The appeals court disagreed with the husband, citing specific examples within the marital agreement which state that it is a final agreement regarding division of property.  They also stated that the trial court found the agreement to be fair and equitable.  The appeal was rejected.

No. M2011-02553-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2012).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation.  Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce.  A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.