Wife Goes Through Multiple Attorneys, Fails to Get Continuance

In 2019, the husband in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case filed for divorce from his wife of ten years.  His allegations included adultery and habitual drunkenness or abuse of narcotics.

The case dragged on over a number of years due to discovery disputes and multiple withdrawals of attorneys.  The wife’s first attorney withdrew based upon a breakdown of client communication, but this attorney later resumed the representation.  But a few months later, he asked to withdraw again due to the wife’s lack of cooperation in completing discovery.

A new attorney attempted to comply with discovery, but the husband objected to their adequacy.  The court agreed, granted the husband the divorce, and dismissed the wife’s counterclaim.

A hearing was set to determine the remaining issues.  After a postponement, it was set for May 2023.  At this time, the wife’s new attorney moved to withdraw, citing escalating attorney-client conflict.  The wife objected, and filed a lengthy filing expressing her dissatisfaction with the attorney.  Finding that it was impossible and unethical for the lawyer to continue, the trial court granted the motion.

The wife scheduled a motion for a continuance, but when the scheduled time came, only the husband and his attorney were in court.  “After a fruitless search for Wife,” the court denied her motion.  Later, she claimed that she misunderstood, and thought that only a written motion was necessary.  Unmoved, the trial court conducted the final hearing as scheduled.  During the trial, the wife’s speech and mannerisms prompted the court to order a drug test, to which she tested positive for various drugs.  The trial court found her incompetent to testify, but still allowed her to present evidence, which she declined.  The wife also declined the opportunity to make a closing argument.

As might be expected, the hearing did not go well for the wife.  The court found that she had abandoned the children and granted custody to the father.  With few exceptions, the trial court found that the husband’s proposed distribution of property was fair and equitable.  It awarded the marital residence to the husband, since it was the only home the children had known.  It divided the home equity and other property equally.

The court also found that the husband’s unpaid attorney’s fees were marital debt, and allocated payment to the wife.  The wife was ordered to pay $661 in child support, basing this upon imputed income, since it found the wife voluntarily unemployed.  Child support was retroactive.

The wife was able to obtain a lawyer in Elizabethton who filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The wife first argued that the trial court should have granted a continuance.  She noted that she was a legally blind amputee.  The appeals court held that the lower court had acted within its discretion.  The lower court had allowed the wife to file a motion, and “set it for an in-person hearing,” but the wife failed to show up.   The appeals court found that she forfeited the motion.

The wife also appealed the property division and child support.  On the property division, the wife had failed to include in her brief a table listing all property.  Since this table is required by the rules, the appeals court held that the argument could not be considered.

On the issue of child support, the lower court had based its ruling on the wife’s voluntary unemployment.  Once again, the appeals court held that the wife had failed to include sufficient information in her brief to decide the issue.

The wife did have a minor victory when it came to retroactive support.  The appeals court held that the lower court had not made sufficient factual findings to set the start date.  Therefore, it vacated this portion of the order and remanded.

The appeals court also denied the husband’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and sent the case back for additional findings.

No. M2023-01038-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2025).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.