Tennessee Court Upholds Property Settlement After Brutal Assault

Tennessee law case summary on divorce, assault, property division and alimony in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Victor R. Peterson v. Kathleen A. Peterson – Tennessee divorce alimony and assault.

Victor and Kathleen Peterson were married in 1983.  It was a second marriage for both, and they had no children.  In 2008, they separated after Victor assaulted Kathleen.  It was not a minor assault.  He stabbed her, beat her head against a dresser, and then set fire to the house with her still inside.  She required surgery, since one of the stab wounds had perforated her heart.  She was scarred and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.  Since the attack, she has had nightmares and panic attacks.  Victor eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Unsurprisingly, the wife filed for divorce, which was granted.  A trial was held in Morgan County, Tennessee, before Judge Michael A. Davis.  After Judge Davis decided the case, Victor brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which sent the case back to the trial court.  In that first appeal, the Court of Appeals had ordered the lower court to classify the parties’ property as marital or separate and divide it according to the Tennessee statutes.  It also asked the lower court to determine whether alimony was appropriate.

On remand, the court made the division.  In doing so, it took into account the fact that the husband had dissipated marital assets to pay his attorney fees in the criminal case.  The court awarded the wife $10,000 alimony in solido to cover her attorney fees.  The wife then brought a second appeal, and argued that the lower court had improperly calculated the amount of dissipated assets.  She also argued that the alimony award was inadequate.

On appeal, the wife argued that the husband had spent $90,000 for his criminal defense, and that the court should have taken account of this entire amount as having been dissipated.  The husband had claimed that $34,000 of this amount had actually been from funds inherited from his mother.

The trial court had largely agreed with the husband that he had dissipated only $32,300 of the marital funds.  This was the balance of a marital investment account which he had used to pay the expenses of the criminal case.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, since it found that the lower court had essentially accepted the husband’s testimony as to the source of the funds.  This was a credibility determination which was best left to the trial court.

The Court of Appeals looked at the overall division, and noted that the wife had received most of the assets.  Overall, it concluded that the trial court’s approach was fair and reasonable.  The court also concluded that the lower court’s alimony award was appropriate.

No. E2013-00878-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.