Unclean Hands Doctrine Prevented Property Transfer Before TN Divorce

Tennessee law case summary on property transfer in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Connie Lou Jolley v. Ronald Van Jolley — unclean hands prevented husband from asserting relief from the court

Connie Lou Jolley (“wife”) and Ronald Van Jolley (“husband”) were married in 1981 and separated after 28 years of marriage.  Wife filed a complaint for divorce in March 2010, and husband answered and filed a counter-complaint for divorce days later.  A major issue in the appeal was a piece of property the parties owned with Joe Goines in Dekalb County, (“the Dekalb County property”). On August 18, 2010, husband quitclaimed his one-half interest in the Dekalb County property to his sister and brother-in-law, Patricia and Clifford McBride.  Goines filed a partition suit in Dekalb County naming husband and wife as owners of the property.

In January 2011, wife filed a petition in the divorce action alleging that husband sold or transferred the Dekalb County property without her approval, which was a direct violation of the Tennessee Code. Wife requested the court to award her the proceeds from the sale of that property.  The trial court entered a show cause order charging husband with criminal contempt.

In April 2011, the parties reached an agreement in the divorce proceeding.  The trial court’s Consent Decree in which the parties resolved issues related to their personal and real property did not specifically mention the Dekalb County property or the proceeds from the sale.  A few weeks later after a hearing was held in the partition action, the Dekalb County Chancery Court entered an Order dismissing husband from the action because he stated that he had no interest in the subject property.  The court ordered the property to be sold by public auction within 120 days from the entry of the order. The order also instructed the parties to return to court for a hearing after the sale of the property to determine how the proceeds would be distributed.

Husband objected to the entry of wife’s proposed final decree alleging that wife asserted an interest in the DeKalb County property and subject to partition, in violation of the Consent Decree executed by the parties.  He also said that wife appeared at a hearing conducted in the Goines litigation and asserted a right in and to the real property or the sale’s proceeds to be generated from the partition sale of the property.

Husband filed a motion to set aside the final decree of divorce asserting that the parties’ interest in the Dekalb County property, if any, was transferred to him by the terms of the Consent Decree.  The court held a hearing on husband’s motion on denied his motion to set aside the final decree. The order stated that the husband deliberately violated the Tennessee Code Annotated, and as a result comes to the Court with unclean hands.  The trial court did see that he was entitled to relief from the original judgment.  The trial court said that there was no ambiguity in the orders and that proceeds from the partition property was wife’s separate property and not marital property.  When husband transferred his interest in the property to the McBrides he committed a contemptible charge based upon statute and would not be permitted to come back and claim an interest in that property. The trail court held that he waived any interest he would have and did not petition the Court with clean hands.

Husband appealed.  He argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the final decree of divorce and awarding the partition proceeds from the sale of the Dekalb County property to wife in contravention of the consent decree and final decree of divorce.  The court of appeals said that neither the consent decree nor the final decree of divorce explicitly mentioned the Dekalb County property.  Nonetheless, husband asserted that this was marital property and should have been transferred to him under the consent decree and the final decree of divorce. The appellate court agreed with the analysis of the trial court that husband had unclean hands by his misconduct and actions and should be estopped after the fact to obtain an interest in the property.

The court of appeals explained that the doctrine of “unclean hands” is a tenet of courts of equity based on the principles that “he who seeks equity must do equity and that he who has done inequity cannot have equity.” The doctrine “enables a court to prevent a party from profiting from her own misconduct.” “Decisions regarding the proper application of the doctrine of unclean hands are heavily fact-dependent and are addressed to the considerable discretion of the trial court.”

Because husband transferred the Dekalb County property in violation of state law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the unclean hands doctrine prevented husband from asserting an interest in the property under the catch-all provision of the final decree of divorce. The court did not err in awarding any proceeds realized from the partition action to wife.

No. M2011–02550–COA–R3–CV, 2013 WL 411454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2013).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC.  Buy The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know, available on Amazon and Kindle.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.