Divorce Settlement Not Subject to Reformation Due to Alleged Mistake

Tennessee case summary post-divorce.

Cynthia Lawrence v. Thomas Lawrence

An ambiguity does not arise merely because of different interpretations. Therefore, it was not proper to consider extrinsic evidence to resolve the alleged ambiguity.

The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were married in 1989 and had four children.  The wife filed for divorce in 2017, and the parties successfully mediated the case, and the trial court approved their agreement in 2018.

The next year, the wife went back to court and requested that the agreement be modified with respect to the husband’s 401(k).  Specifically, she alleged that there was a clerical mistake in the agreement.  The trial court, Judge Mary L. Wagner, granted her request, and after some post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Both parties agreed that there was a mistake in the original agreement, but the husband pointed to a completely separate mistake.  The wife, on the other hand, alleged that there was a larger mistake in her favor.  She sought reformation of the agreement under the doctrine of mutual mistake of material fact, and the lower court had agreed with her reasoning.

The appeals court, however, noted that precedent required a mistake “common to all the parties,” and “a mistake of all of the parties laboring under the same misconception.”

In this case, the appeals court concluded that there was insufficient evidence that they were laboring under the same misconception.  Therefore, the agreement was not subject to reformation.

The wife also argued that the agreement was ambiguous, and pointed to the differing interpretations.  But the appeals court held that an ambiguity does not arise merely because of different interpretations.  Therefore, it was not proper to consider extrinsic evidence to resolve the alleged ambiguity.

After examining the agreement, the appeals court concluded that there was no ambiguity, and that it should not have been modified or construed as the lower court had done.

The appeals court did address other aspects of the lower court’s ruling and affirmed those portions.  It reversed the lower court’s reformation of the original agreement and remanded the case.  The wife was assessed the costs of the appeal.

No. W2020–00979-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12,  2021).

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 and view our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?