Wife’s Relationship With Expert Witness Did Not Warrant New Trial

Tennessee case summary on classification of debentures in divorce.

Jill St. John-Parker v. Virgil Duane Parker

The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1990 and had one child, who was over 18 at the time of their divorce.  The husband was an attorney and the wife was a certified public accountant.   The divorce trial was held in 2013, and one of the major issues was the treatment of corporate debentures valued at about two million dollars.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court ruled that the debentures were marital property and divided them, the wife receiving a share valued at $450,000.  The wife was also awarded temporary alimony in the amount of $3,000 per month.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, raising a number of issues.  The trial court had based its ruling on the debentures largely upon the testimony of the wife’s expert witness.  The husband argued that the lower court should have reopened the case after learning of evidence of a personal relationship between the wife and that witness.

The husband had moved to set aside the judgment because of an alleged “fraud upon the court” based upon the fact that he discovered that the wife had been having an undisclosed romantic relationship with the expert witness.

But the trial court had been aware that the expert was the wife’s employer, and had already taken this information into account when weighing his credibility.  The trial court couldn’t see why this additional information would affect its judgment regarding that witness.

The Court of Appeals agreed, because the husband did not provide any support for his position that the new evidence would necessitate finding a conflict of interest.  For that reason, the Court of Appeals allowed the evidence to be considered.

Turning to the treatment of the debentures, the appeals court noted that the trial court had to track the flow of money and determine how the funds had originated.  There was little other direct evidence of the ownership, and the appeals court concluded that the trial court had come to the correct conclusion.  In many cases, the funds had originated from the parties’ joint checking account, and the appeals court agreed that it was proper to treat these as marital funds.  The appeals court also noted that much of the determination boiled down to the parties’ credibility, which is traditionally the province of the trial court.

The court went on to determine that the division of these assets by the trial court had been proper.

Finally, the appeals court looked at the issue of alimony and considered the relevant statutory factors.  It noted that the husband had an earning capacity of $120,000 per year, and after weighing the factors, concluded that the trial court had acted properly in making the award.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, but also reversed other parts of the lower court’s order and remanded the case.

No. E2014-01338-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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