Tennessee case abstract on divorce.

Douglas D. Dailey v. Violet L. Dailey

The husband and spouse on this Blount County, Tennessee, case had been married for about 40 years, and had divorced and remarried in 1978.  Through the marriage, the husband had bought gold cash.  Throughout one ten-year span, he had bought about 400 ounces.  At his deposition, the husband testified that the whole spent had been a few half million {dollars}, however at trial, he toned down the estimate.  The spouse testified that he had given estimates of $750,000 and one million {dollars} as the whole worth.

The gold cash had been stored in a gun secure.  When the events’ son (who was 32 on the time of trial) was in his teenagers, there was proof that he had taken a few of the cash out of the unlocked secure after the husband allegedly destroyed a few of the son’s collectible playing cards.  The son testified that he took 2 or 3 cash, however the husband testified that the son took nearly 50 ounces.

The spouse testified that after the 1978 divorce, she took 3 to five cash to pay authorized charges, however the husband alleged that she had taken about 100 ounces.

Ultimately, the husband began storing the gold in a secure deposit field, and he estimated that there have been 200 ounces within the field.

In 2016, their church had a prophecy that President Obama would refuse to go away workplace, and consequently, they wouldn’t have the ability to get the gold out of the financial institution.  On the spouse’s request, they moved the gold into the secure room of their residence.

Late within the marriage, the husband lived within the downstairs portion of the house (with the gold), and the spouse lived upstairs.  The spouse admitted that she often got here to the decrease stage to get meals from the freezer.  There was dispute as as to whether the spouse had entry to the important thing to the secure room.

In regards to the time he filed for divorce, he found the gold was lacking, however he by no means contacted regulation enforcement.

Most points had been resolved, however a trial was held earlier than Choose Tammy M. Harrington on the difficulty of what occurred to the gold.  After listening to testimony for 2 days, Choose Harrington concluded that the gold was in any respect related instances within the husband’s management, and that he was accountable if it was lacking.  Subsequently, the husband was ordered to pay the spouse half the worth of the gold.  The court docket held that the lacking gold was value $600,000, and ordered the husband to pay the spouse $300,000.  Dissatisfied with this final result, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.

The appeals court docket started by noting that in a non-jury case, evaluation is de novo, with a presumption of correctness of the trial court docket’s factual findings.

The trial court docket had made a discovering that the husband was not credible, primarily based upon his cavalier angle and inconsistent and imprecise testimony.

The appeals court docket characterised the husband’s case as that he had not taken the gold.  In some unspecified time in the future in the course of the marriage, each the spouse and son had taken some gold.  Subsequently, he surmised, they should have taken the gold this time.  The appeals court docket, nevertheless, identified that the husband had no proof of the alleged theft.  It additionally famous that in the course of the marriage, the gold was marital property, and any taking by the spouse wouldn’t be a theft.

The appeals court docket agreed that the husband had management of the gold in any respect related instances.  There was no proof that the spouse had a key to the secure room.  Moreover, the husband had by no means talked about the alleged theft to regulation enforcement, and even within the divorce filings.

For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling.  It awarded the spouse her legal professional’s charges on attraction and despatched the case again for a calculation of these charges.

No. E2019-00928-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2020).

See unique opinion for precise language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To be taught extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here