CourtListener opinion 1055968

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
 AT KNOXVILLE
 December 4, 2003 Session

 MORGAN SUSANNE FOXX v. STEVEN C. BOLDEN

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County
 No. E-18339 W. Dale Young, Judge

 FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2004

 No. E2002-02831-COA-R3-CV

Morgan Susanne Foxx ("Wife") sued Steven C. Bolden ("Husband") for a divorce. After a lengthy
trial, the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and awarded
Husband $25,000 in attorney fees. Wife appeals claiming, among other things, that the Trial Court
erred when it failed to classify any of Husband's TVA funded retirement pension as marital property
and equitably distribute it. Wife also claims the award of attorney fees to Husband was an abuse of
discretion. We agree with Wife regarding the pension and, therefore, vacate the judgment as to the
marital property division and remand this case to the Trial Court to determine how much of
Husband's TVA funded retirement pension is marital property and to make an equitable distribution
of all the marital property, including this additional asset. We likewise vacate the award of attorney
fees to Husband since the propriety of that award may be affected by the marital property
distribution. We affirm the granting of the divorce.

 Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
 Court Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part; Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, J., and
CHARLES D. SUSANO , JR., J., joined.

John M. Foley, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant Morgan Susanne Foxx.

Martha Meares and Laura Jane Webb, Maryville, Tennessee, for the Appellee Steven C. Bolden.
 OPINION

 Background

 This divorce case began when Wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Husband
after almost fifteen years of marriage. Wife alleged Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital
conduct or, in the alternative, that irreconcilable differences had arisen between the parties. Husband
filed a counterclaim asserting it was Wife who had engaged in inappropriate marital conduct,
although Husband admitted irreconcilable differences had arisen.

 The trial took seven days and Wife raises five issues on appeal. The first three issues
concern the Trial Court's division of marital assets. More specifically, Wife claims the overall
distribution of marital assets is inequitable. With regard to specifics of the property division, Wife
challenges the manner in which Husband's pension and the marital residence were distributed. The
other two issues involve attorney fees. The Trial Court awarded Husband $25,000 in attorney fees.
Wife claims this was an abuse of discretion, and further that she is entitled to costs and attorney fees
incurred on this appeal. We will discuss only those facts which impact these issues on appeal.

 Husband currently is 54 years old, has a high school education, and is retired from
the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA"). Although retired, Husband has started a graphic design
business which, by the date of trial, had not shown a profit. Wife is currently 47 years of age and
is employed as a geologist by the United States Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining,
earning an annual salary in excess of $70,000. Wife has a college education and also is licensed to
sell real estate. There were no children born of this marriage.

 Husband retired from TVA after a total of approximately twenty-nine years of service
to the federal government, which includes almost two years of military service. The parties were
married for roughly fifteen of these twenty-nine years. One portion of Husband's retirement is an
annuity ("Annuity") which is funded from Husband's contributions. At the time the parties were
married, Husband already had contributed $6,878.17 to the Annuity and its total value was
$10,223.82. By May of 1999, Husband had contributed a total of $22,020.96 and the value of the
Annuity was $65,400.91. In addition to the Annuity portion of Husband's retirement plan, there is
a separate monthly pension benefit ("Pension") which is funded solely by TVA and is based on
Husband's years of service and earnings. The monthly benefit received by Husband from the
Annuity is $454 and the monthly benefit received from the Pension is $1,179, resulting in a total
combined monthly retirement benefit of $1,633.00.1

 1
 Husband elected a Level Income Plan when he retired. Because of this election he will receive an additional
amount of $322 each month until age 62. However, these additional funds are considered an advance. Once Husband
reaches age 62 and he begins receiving social security retirement benefits, his Pension from TVA will be reduced and
the Pension will collect back the money that was advanced. The net result will be a level income before and after age
62.

 -2-
 When Husband was in the process of retiring, he was presented with four different
retirement plan options. The first option provided for no survivor benefits other than distribution
of the remaining funds in the Annuity. The second, third, and fourth options provided a survivor
benefit to Husband's designated beneficiary. With all three of the survivor options, benefits are
payable to the beneficiary only if the beneficiary is still living after Husband dies. Under the second
option, Husband's beneficiary would receive 100% of his monthly benefit (i.e. $1,633) for the
remainder of the beneficiary's life. The third option provided survivor benefits equal to 50% of
Husband's monthly benefit. The fourth option allowed Husband to select a particular fraction of his
monthly benefit he wanted the beneficiary to receive, such as one-third or three-fourths. Husband
chose the second option and designated Wife as his beneficiary. With this designation, if Wife is
still living when Husband dies, she will receive $1,633 per month for the remainder of her life.
Husband designated Wife as his beneficiary seven months before Wife filed for divorce. Husband
now cannot change the beneficiary designation. In order to pay for Wife's survivor benefit,
Husband's monthly retirement benefits were reduced by $274, from $1,907 to $1,633 per month.

 The Trial Court heard testimony from Robert Vaughn ("Vaughn"), the Manager of
Retirement Operations at TVA. Vaughn was shown a document sent to Husband from TVA which
states, among other things, that the "estimated present value of [Husband's] TVA funded benefits
is $274,530." According to Vaughn:

 [T]hat value is used to provide – or is used in
 calculating tax exclusion if an employee elects an
 annuity withdrawal. If [Husband] had elected to
 withdraw his sixty-five thousand dollars, he would
 have used this value to determine the amount that was
 excluded for federal income taxes. This amount is for
 that sole purpose only. There is no lump sum
 available to [Husband] because of this amount. As a
 matter of fact, the T.V.A. funded benefit can only be
 taken monthly.

 Vaughn testified that Husband will receive his monthly pension regardless of how
long he lives, whether that is two years or many years. Once Husband dies, the benefits to Husband
stop and Wife, if she is still alive, then receives the monthly benefit for as long as she lives.
According to Vaughn, while TVA will pay the Pension benefit each month, TVA does not actually
have an account containing $274,530 or any funds specifically designated to pay this monthly
benefit. Vaughn stated that no one from TVA has calculated the present value of Husband's
retirement benefits which accumulated from the date of the marriage to the date of trial. Although
not entirely clear from the record, Vaughn apparently testified the $274,530 figure does not

 -3-
 accurately reflect the present day value of the Pension. According to Vaughn, TVA does not
"provide figures on the values of anybody that's retiring."2

 Kenneth Porter ("Porter"), a certified public accountant was called as an expert
witness by Husband. Porter testified to the present day value of the reduction in Husband's
retirement benefit resulting from Husband's selecting the survivor benefit to Wife, thereby reducing
Husband's monthly benefit by $274. According to Porter, the present day value of the reduction in
benefits to Husband is from $35,882 to $52,166, depending on the assumed interest rate.

 After the trial was completed, the Trial Court issued Findings of Fact which later were
incorporated into its Final Order. The Trial Court stated that the "parties were awarded an absolute
divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct …." With regard to Husband's retirement
benefits, and as pertinent to this appeal, the Trial Court stated:

 [Wife] has consumed hours of testimony on the issue of
 [Husband's] retirement plan. She claims it has a value in excess of
 a quarter of a million dollars. She refuses to acknowledge that the
 survivors benefits [that] are included in this retirement plan are of any
 value. She fails to accept the fact that this asset, no matter what its
 value, was half (½) acquired before she ever married [Husband]. She
 holds steadfast to her erroneous positions and refuses to accept the
 testimony of experts in evaluating retirement plans.

 ****

 The Wife's figure of two hundred seventy four thousand five
 hundred thirty ($274,530.00) for the Husband's total pension program
 is erroneous. Mr. Vaughn, from TVA, defined why that figure was
 suggested to [Husband] when sending his options to him. He stated,
 "that figure … is used in calculating tax exclusion if an employee
 elects an annuity withdrawal. If [Husband] had elected to withdraw
 his $65,000.00 he would have used this amount that was excluded for
 Federal Income Taxes. This amount is for that sole purpose. There
 is no lump sum available to [Husband] because of this amount." In
 fact, Mr. Vaughn confirmed that no one from TVA has put a present
 value on the [Husband's] retirement.

 Prior to issuing its Final Order, the Trial Court instructed the parties to file final
arguments as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Husband claimed in his

 2
 In an affidavit filed with the Trial Court prior to trial Vaughn stated the TVA Retirement System "does not
provide present value calculations of TVA-funded benefits due to the subjective nature of discount factors used in such
calculations."

 -4-
 proposed findings that $32,500 of the total $65,400.91 contained in the Annuity was marital property
subject to an equitable distribution. In its Final Order, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposal
and awarded both parties one-half of $32,500, or $16,250 each. With regard to the Pension, the Trial
Court, again accepting Husband's proposal, stated only that the Pension was not subject to a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), apparently assigning no value to the Pension. With
regard to Wife's survivor benefit, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposed value and concluded
this benefit had a present day value to Wife of $43,000. The Trial Court awarded Husband all of the
equity in the marital residence totaling $132,000. Wife was awarded her entire thrift account valued
at $139,400. All in all, after assigning monetary values to certain property when the parties could
not otherwise agree, the Trial Court awarded Wife approximately 56% and Husband the remaining
44% of the marital property as valued by the Trial Court.

 The Trial Court also awarded Husband $25,000 in attorney fees. The basis for this
award is set forth in the Trial Court's Findings of Fact. Specifically, the Trial Court stated:

 It is undisputed in the record that [Wife] has threatened and
 promised to prolong and exacerbate these proceedings: she vowed
 "to bankrupt him (Defendant) with a divorce…." One of the factors
 which the Court must consider is fault. Clearly from the proof,
 [Wife] had planned and plotted this divorce. At best, she had an
 inappropriate relationship with the fifteen (15) year old foster child.
 The Court finds that [Wife] and the foster child held many "private
 meetings" in the child's bedroom, there was inappropriate touching,
 the letters introduced into evidence from [Wife] to the foster child,
 the trip to Asheville at Christmas, the fact that [Wife] furnished the
 young boy with Playboy magazines, and last but not least, the video
 camera in the parties' bedroom which resulted in a naked video of
 Plaintiff being discovered in the child's possession.3

 In addition to the element of fault, this case was prolonged
 and drawn out by [Wife], resulting in some eight (8) separate
 hearings, … [and Husband's] attorney fees are in excess of
 $32,000.00.

 Wife appeals the judgment of the Trial Court. As noted previously, Wife challenges
the manner in which Husband's pension and the marital residence were distributed, as well as the
overall distribution of marital property which she claims is inequitable. Wife also challenges the
Trial Court's award of $25,000 in attorney fees to Husband and further claims she is entitled to an
award of attorney fees incurred on appeal.

 3
 W ife testified she installed the hidden camera in the bedroom hoping to videotape Husband and their maid,
whom W ife believed were having an illicit relationship. W ife succeeded in videotaping herself naked and this tape ended
up in the possession of the minor foster child.

 -5-
 Discussion

 The factual findings of the Trial Court are accorded a presumption of correctness, and
we will not overturn those factual findings unless the evidence preponderates against them. See
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). With respect to legal
issues, our review is conducted "under a pure de novo standard of review, according no deference
to the conclusions of law made by the lower courts." Southern Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County
Bd. Of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

 Marital property is defined by statute as \all real and personal property