In Divorce Father-in-Law Gets Judgment for $15K Against Ex-Son

Tennessee case summary on intervention and intervenors in divorce.

Starla Merkel v. Carl Shane Merkel

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 199 and had two children, who were 11 and 8 years old at the time of the divorce.  At the time of the separation, the wife’s father purchased a house for the use of the wife and children, and paid $119,000 cash from his savings.  The wife and father were listed on the deed as the owners.  Shortly after this separation, the husband and wife reconciled, and the husband moved into the house, where they lived until 2013 when the wife filed for divorce.  After the complaint was filed, all three agreed that the father was an indispensable party to the proceeding, and he was added as a party to the case.

After he was allowed into the case, the father filed a counter-claim against the husband, alleging that he had made certain loans during the course of the marriage.

While the husband argued that these were gifts, the trial court ultimately concluded that many were loans, and gave the father a judgment against the husband for approximately $15,000.  After entry of final judgment, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  Among other things, he argued that it was improper for the trial court to grant a judgment in favor of the father in a divorce action.

The husband argued that the mutual agreement allowing the father into the case was for the sole purpose of determining rights to the house, which was titled in the father’s name along with the wife.

But the appeals court noted that the husband had put in an answer to the father’s claim, that the issue of the loans was fully litigated, and that the husband did not object to the expanded scope of the father’s participation in the case.

Since both parties to the divorce had allowed the father into the case, and since the husband had not objected to the expanded scope of his participation, the Court of Appeals held that there was nothing improper about his obtaining a judgment.  It noted that normally, divorce actions are only for the spouses, but under these circumstances, the procedure had been proper.

The Court of Appeals addressed a number of other issues, and made some modifications to the trial court’s judgment.  But after these modifications, it affirmed the lower court’s order.

No. E2014-01888-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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