Trial Court Cannot Just Adopt Ex-wife’s Attorney’s Findings of Fact

Tennessee case summary on findings of fact in post-divorce proceedings.

Jeffrey Glenn Mitchell v. Carol Ann Thomas Mitchell

Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook by Miles Mason, Sr. is available on Amazon

The husband and wife in this Blount County, Tennessee, case had two children, ages 15 and 11, at the time of their 2011 divorce.  In 2014, the husband came back to court to modify the child support and property division.  He alleged that there had been a substantial change of circumstances, namely his reduced income.

The wife filed an answer in which she asked that the husband be held in contempt, and the case was heard by Judge William R. Brewer, Jr.  A number of other motions were also before the court by the time the case was heard in 2016.  Both parties testified, and the court took the matter under advisement.  Judge Brewer requested that both parties file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court adopted the wife’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and found the husband in contempt for failure to pay certain bills and make some of the required property division payments.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee court of Appeals.

The first issue to be addressed by the appeals court was whether the trial court had exercised its independent judgment.  This issue was presented since the court had adopted the wife’s proposed findings and conclusions.  The appeals court concluded that it was not possible to determine whether the trial court had exercised independent judgment.  The appeals court noted that trial courts speak through their written orders, but in this case, the written order was prepared by the wife’s attorney.  It cited a number of cases, including one from the U.S. Supreme Court, criticizing the practice of a court simply adopting findings, especially when they were phrased in conclusory terms.  It quoted the Tennessee Supreme Court, which noted that the practice “detracts from the appearance of a hardworking, independent judge.”

The appeals court did not that the practice might be acceptable in some cases, but not in the circumstances of this case.  It noted particularly that there wasn’t even an oral ruling at the end of trial, which reinforced the impression that the trial judge hadn’t independently made the findings.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings.  The appeals court assessed the costs of appeal equally to each party.

No. E2017-00100-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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