Skip to main content

Wafa Badawi Hindiyeh v. Waleed Fawzi Abed

Tenn. Ct. App.April 25, 2018No. M2017-00410-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This appeal arises from a divorce. Wafa Badawi Hindiyeh ("Wife") sued Waleed Fawzi Abed ("Husband") for divorce in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County ("the Trial Court"). After a trial, the Trial Court, inter alia, granted Wife a divorce, entered a permanent parenting plan with respect to the parties' minor son ("the Child") awarding Wife 285 days to Husband's 80, and awarded Wife a judgment for the value of a Cadillac less $2,500 Wife received on the sale of her original vehicle for a total judgment of $13,400. Husband appeals to this Court, arguing, among other things, that the Trial Court found no statutory factors applicable to justify such a paltry award of parenting time to him and that the Cadillac at issue was not even marital property subject to division. We vacate the Trial Court's judgment with respect to the residential parenting schedule and remand for the Trial Court to award Husband significantly more time with the Child. Finding that the Cadillac was not marital property, we modify the Trial Court's award of $13,400 to Wife to $2,000 to account for only the sale of Wife's original vehicle. We otherwise affirm the Trial Court. We, therefore, affirm as modified, in part, and vacate, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a divorced couple, Wafa Badawi Hindiyeh and Waleed Fawzi Abed, who went to court over their divorce proceedings. The wife sued her husband for divorce in Rutherford County court. During the trial, various issues were addressed including custody of their minor child and property division, including disputes over a Cadillac vehicle. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings (called a "remand"). The trial court had initially granted the divorce, established a custody arrangement giving the wife 285 days with their child compared to the husband's 80 days, and made rulings about vehicle-related compensation. However, the appeals court determined that additional review was needed. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this appears to be primarily a family law divorce case rather than a traditional employment law matter, the case reminder workers that legal proceedings can be complex and may require multiple court reviews. The excerpt provided is incomplete, so the specific employment-related aspects that led to this case being categorized under employment law are not clear from the available information. Workers should understand that court cases often involve multiple issues and appeals processes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.