Wife Can’t Change Mind After Agreeing to Tennessee Divorce

Tennessee law case summary on settlements in divorce from the Court of Appeals.

Guy Hawkins v. Diana Le-Hawkins  – Tennessee divorce settlement enforcement

In February 2011, Diana Le-Hawkins filed a complaint for legal separation against her husband, Guy Hawkins.  Her lawyer prepared a marital dissolution agreement, which the wife signed.  It was presented to the husband, who signed it the next month, without having an attorney.

Even though the complaint asked for separation and not divorce, the wife’s attorney submitted an order for absolute divorce.  This order incorporated the parties’ agreement, and the order was signed by the court.

But the wife then hired a new lawyer and asked to have the decree set aside.  First, she argued that it granted relief that was not asked for in the complaint, namely, the divorce.  She also alleged that she had discovered that the husband had additional assets, including military and employer pensions.

The trial court granted her motion, and held that the original order was not consistent with what she had sought in the case, a mere separation and not divorce.  The court therefore set aside the divorce, and the wife dismissed the case.

Six days later, the husband commenced a new action by filing a complaint for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.  The husband argued that the original marital dissolution agreement should be enforced.

A hearing was held at which both parties testified.  The trial court found that the wife was aware of all of the assets and their values, and that this included the pensions.  In fact, the marital termination agreement had made reference to “retirement accounts.”  The trial court also found that there was no duress or undue influence, and that the agreement was valid and enforceable.  The trial court granted the divorce, according to the terms of the agreement.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The wife first argued that the agreement was not enforceable because it was not done in compliance with the statute, in that it did not specifically reference the divorce case in which it was to be used, since that case had not been filed at the time.

The appeals court first noted that general contract principles apply to the interpretation and enforcement of marital termination agreements.  In this case, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that there was no undue influence or duress, and that the wife knew all of the relevant facts at the time.  Furthermore, the husband had already paid all of the amounts called for by the agreement.

And since the agreement itself obviously contemplated an absolute divorce, the court held that it was not relevant that the original petition had been only for separation.  For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed and assessed the costs of appeal against the wife.

No. M2013-02068-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Divorce Settlement | Marital Dissolution Agreement or “MDA”.