Ex-Wife Gets $8K After Her Property is Left in Rat-Infested Garage

Tennessee case summary on divorce post-divorce enforcement & attorney’s fees

Amanda Paige Ryan-Cothron v. William Michael Cothron

The husband and wife were divorced in Rutherford County, Tennessee, in 2018 after entering into a marital dissolution agreement.  The agreement included a list of items of personal property along with their fair market value.  It provided that the husband would have them in the garage on a certain day and time, that the husband would not be on or near the property when the wife picked up the items.

The wife alleged that 95 percent of her property was unsalvageable or damaged, and that some of it was not placed in the garage as requested.  She asked for a judgment of $10,000 plus attorney’s fees.  The husband denied the allegations, and also alleged that the wife failed to mitigate her damages.

After trial, the court gave the wife a judgment of $7,820, but denied her request for storage fees after receiving the property, and denied her request for attorney’s fees.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He argued that the trial court should not have adopted the fair market values listed in the agreement.  He also again alleged that the wife failed to mitigate damages.  The wife renewed her request for attorney’s fees.

The appeals court turned first to the valuation issue.    The trial court had held that the values listed in the document were a reasonable interpretation and what the parties had in mind when they signed the agreement.

The husband argued that these values should not have been used, because they actually reflected the price the wife had paid for the items.  But the appeals court quickly pointed out that the husband had agreed to these values, and that there was no other evidence of value before the court.

The court then turned to the question of whether the wife had failed to mitigate her damages.

The trial court had found that the husband placed the items in the garage “in some orderly fashion for pickup.”

The trial court then went through the list of items one by one, noting the damages and whether they had been placed in the garage as required.

The husband argued that the wife should have picked up items even if they weren’t in the designated area, and that she should have attempted to repair or clean items that were damaged by rat urine and feces.  He also argued that she should have come early to pick up the property.

The appeals court rejected these arguments, as did the trial court.  The appeals court noted that the husband had not introduced evidence in support of his claim, such as the cost of repair or cleaning.  For that reason, the appeals court affirmed.

The court then considered the wife’s claim for attorney’s fees.  The agreement called for attorney’s fees if either party had to resort to legal proceedings to enforce the agreement.  The appeals court noted that was exactly what happened here.  Therefore, it reversed the denial of attorney’s fees and remanded the case for a determination of the amount.

No. M2019-00137-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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