Divorce Agreement Enforced w/ Mistaken Interpretation of Pension Plan

Tennessee case summary on settlement enforcement and pensions after divorce.

Deborah Christine Moore v. Larry Gene Moore

The husband and wife in this Knox County, Tennessee, case had been married for over thirty years when the wife filed for divorce in 2015, citing irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.  In 2016, they appeared at a mediation session and resolved all issues, and the court entered judgment based upon their agreement.

Various assets were divided, and the agreement provided that each spouse would receive any and all accounts held in their sole name.

Thirty days later, the husband came back to court alleging that there had been a mutual mistake as to material fact.  He had attempted to remove his wife as a beneficiary from his pension plan, but was told that this was impossible.  Since the account was otherwise in his name alone, he argued that this constituted a mutual mistake.

The lower court held a hearing, at which Judge Gregory S. McMillan presided.  The court agreed with the husband, since the wife had disclaimed any interest in the pension.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, arguing that the original agreement should not have been disturbed.

The appeals court noted that the case essentially involved contract interpretation of the mediation agreement.  It further noted that in any contract case, the court is not at liberty to make a new and different contract.

The appeals court held that the lower court had essentially imposed a new contract.  It required the wife to take steps that had not been required by the original contract.  While the lower court believed this carried out the parties’ intent, the appeals court held that it went too far.

The husband also argued that the trial court had acted properly in reforming a contract based upon the mutual mistake.   The court also disagreed with this argument.  First, it held that the facts didn’t rise to the level of mutual mistake.  It so held because under Tennessee law, the husband was charged with knowledge of the contents of his pension contract.   Since the husband was presumed to know the contents, he could hardly argue that he didn’t know the contents.

The husband cited a prior case, but the court rejected that argument, since the earlier case had involved false representations by the other party, which were not present in this case.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of the lower court and reinstated the original judgment.  It assessed the costs of the appeal against the husband.

No. E2019-00503-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.