Res Ipsa Loquitur Loses Husband’s Divorce Appeal Argument

Tennessee case summary on divorce after 21 years married.

Timothy Eugene Keeble v. Crystal Yvonne Keeble

The husband and wife in this Loudon County, Tennessee, case were married in 1998 and had one child, born in 2002.  The husband owned a business as a manufacturing representative, and the wife was a stay-at-home parent for most of the marriage.  They owned three pieces of real estate together, and the husband inherited a fourth during the marriage.  In 2009, the husband signed a promissory note on behalf of his company to his parents, and a balance of about $70,000 remained at the time of the divorce.  This was secured by one of the pieces of marital real estate.

The husband filed for divorce in 2017, and the wife filed a counter-petition.  In 2019, the trial court, Judge Rex Alan Dale, granted the divorce and divided the property.  The wife was awarded two properties, and the husband was awarded the one securing the note, with offsetting the amount owing.  The husband was ordered to pay $1000 per month transitional alimony and $14,000 to cover her attorney’s fees.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that he was entitled to credit for payments made on the promissory note.  He argued that he had contributed separate funds in making these payments.  However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded that the husband had failed to present any evidence in support of his claim that he had used separate property.  For that reason, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling on this issue.

The husband raised a number of other issues in his appeal, but the Court of Appeals pointed out that parties are supposed to argue their issues in a certain manner in their briefs.   In particular, they are supposed to cite their authorities and make references to the record.   The husband instead merely claimed, in Latin, res ipsa loquitur, meaning that the thing speaks for itself.  But the appeals court pointed out that the invocation of this phrase, which is a negligence doctrine, had no applicability in the case.

The husband also argued that the trial court shouldn’t have awarded attorney’s fees, but once again, failed to present the legal argument or cite to the record.  He argued merely that it was “truly excessive,” which the court held was insufficient.

The husband also argued that some of the properties awarded to the wife were his separate property, and not marital property.  But the appeals court reviewed the evidence and held that it supported the lower court’s conclusion.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case.  It assessed the costs of the appeal against the husband.

No. E2019-01168-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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