Court Cannot Second Guess Divorce Agreement Reached by Conservator

Tennessee case summary on conservatorships in divorce.

In Re Conservatorship of John F. Ress

The wife in this Sullivan County, Tennessee, case filed for divorce in 2014.  The husband’s attorney made a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem for the husband, and the trial court appointed a local attorney to serve.  In 2016, the court approved the guardian ad litem’s report concluding that the husband was incapable of making important decisions due to his mental and physical health.

While the case was pending, the husband’s sister petitioned to be appointed conservator, and she was ultimately substituted for the husband in the divorce action. 

The case went to mediation, and in 2018, the parties reached a mediation agreement and marital dissolution agreement.  The wife was to pay $250,000 from her 401k, but upon the husband’s death, these funds would revert to the wife.  The husband died in late 2019.

In 2020, the wife filed an action against the conservator for civil contempt.  The wife alleged that the conservator had failed to draft the estate planning documents to ensure the entirety of his assets transferred to the wife.

The trial court ruled against the wife, and held that there was an ambiguity in the agreements, and that the conservator had complied with them.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The agreement specified that the assets “remaining” from the funds covered by the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) showed an intent that only those funds would be returned, and not the husband’s entire estate.  At the very least, she argued that there was an ambiguity, which allowed the trial court to consider extrinsic evidence.  But the wife argued that there was no ambiguity, and that the trial court had departed from the clear language of the agreement.

The appeals court agreed with the wife, that there was no ambiguity.  In particular, it ruled that the marital dissolution agreement was the controlling document, and that an ambiguity couldn’t be found based upon the earlier mediation agreement, which had not addressed all of the issues.   The appeals court held that a plain reading of the agreement did not yield any ambiguity.  Therefore, the lower court had erred in considering the extrinsic evidence.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed.  It remanded the case for further proceedings, consistent with the appellate opinion.

No. E2021–00134-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10,  2022).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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