Evidence of Bigamy on Wife’s Foreign Marriage Not Enough

Tennessee case summary on attorney’s fees in divorce.

Cecilia Gonzalez v. Mauricio Gonzalez

Shelby County, Tennessee Courthouse

The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were married in Florida in 2001 and had one child, born in 2002.  The wife filed for divorce in 2010.  The husband answered and alleged that they were never legally married.  He alleged that the wife had been married in Chile in 1991 and that marriage never ended.  The court initially ruled in the husband’s favor and dismissed the case.

The wife, however, filed a motion to reopen the case.  She submitted a 2005 Chilean court ruling which stated that the earlier marriage was “null and void.”  She also submitted the report of a Chilean attorney explaining the matter.  The trial court denied the motion.  The wife brought a first appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded.  The trial court once again considered the motion to reopen in 2014.   The court granted the motion and reopened the divorce case.

In 2017, the parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement which awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony.  The agreement also provided that if there was a breach of the agreement, the other party would be responsible for reasonable attorney fees.

The husband later changed his mind and disavowed the agreement.  A hearing was held in 2018, and the court enforced the agreement.  The husband then brought a second appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals identified one of the more difficult issues in the case—even though the marriage was void under Chilean law, the retroactive effect of that nullity applied only to the parties to the marriage, and not to third parties such as the husband.  One Chilean attorney’s affidavit made clear that if the wife had remarried in Chile, then she would have been guilty of bigamy.  Unfortunately, the husband did not bring this evidence forward until 2018, even though he knew the issue as early as 2012.  Therefore, the appeals court ruled that the trial court properly disregarded the evidence.  Based upon the evidence that was properly before the court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Since the marital dissolution agreement was valid, the court next had to consider whether the wife was entitled to her attorney’s fees under the agreement.  The husband argued that the attorney fee provision did not apply, because there had been no non-compliance with the agreement.  The trial court agreed with the wife that the attorney’s fees were necessary because of non-compliance.  Therefore, it awarded the wife $7,000.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning.  However, it did not find any reasoning in the record for the computation of the amount.

For this reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, but vacated the amount of the attorney’s fees.  It remanded the case for a computation of the amount.

No. W2018-01673-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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