Wife Gets Pension Plan Despite Wrong Description in Settlement

Tennessee case summary on interpretation of settlement after divorce.

Pamela Annette Dotson v. Willie Jefferson Dotson

The husband and wife in this Sumner County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2004.  The parties executed a marital dissolution agreement which was approved by the court.  This agreement included a provision regarding the husband’s 401-k retirement plan.  The agreement stated that the plan was marital property, and the wife was to receive 50% of the amount accumulated through the divorce.

In 2015, the husband retired and began receiving retirement benefits.  However, it turned out that the retirement plan was not a 401-k, but instead a 457 plan.  Since the agreement called for the husband to pay a portion of the non-existent 401-k, the husband decided that he had no obligation to pay.

The wife disagreed and went to court to enforce the dissolution agreement.  The court agreed with the wife and awarded benefits under the 457 plan.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court noted that this is essentially a contract case, and the court’s duty is to give effect to the intent of the parties.

The court noted that the agreement specifically stated that it applied to all of the parties’ assets.  If the 457 plan had been excluded, then this provision would have been violated.  After examining the evidence, the appeals court held that the 457 plan was intended when the phrase 401-k was erroneously used.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded the case to compute the wife’s attorney fees.

No. M2017-00807-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.