Skip to main content

Sandi Lynn Pack v. James Wade Pack

Tenn. Ct. App.April 30, 2019No. M2018-00491-COA-R3-CV
Mixed ResultJames Wade Pack

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from trial court order denying motion to set aside partial default judgment and trial court's property division determination in divorce action

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Wife was granted partial default judgment after husband failed to appear; trial court denied husband's motion to set aside default, finding willful conduct. In property division, wife awarded 60% of marital assets valued over $1 million (excluding pension value) and husband awarded 40%, based on wife being sole wage earner and primary caregiver while husband dissipated assets through stock trading.

Excerpt

This appeal arises from a divorce action in which the wife was granted a partial default judgment after the husband failed to enter an appearance or file a responsive pleading to the complaint, and failed to file a response or appear at the hearing on the wife's motion for a default judgment. After receiving the order granting the partial default judgment, the husband retained counsel and filed a motion to set it aside pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) and (5), seeking relief for "excusable neglect" and for "any other reason justifying relief." Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to set aside the partial default judgment upon a determination that the husband's conduct precipitating the default was willful. The court also set a final hearing to try the remaining issues, including child support for the parties' minor child and property division. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court valued the marital estate at well over one million dollars however, the total did not include the present value of the wife's pension plan, which was classified as marital property and awarded to the wife. Excluding the unknown value of the wife's pension, the court awarded 60% of the marital assets to the wife and 40% to the husband. This decision was based in part on the court's finding that in addition to being the sole wage earner for the family, the wife was primarily responsible for the children and the home while the husband "dissipated marital assets" through stock trading. The husband appeals, contending the trial court erred by (1) failing to set aside the partial default judgment (2) failing to make an equitable division of the marital estate by not determining the value of the wife's pension plan, designating the husband's stock trading losses as a dissipation of marital assets, and awarding the wife a greater share of the marital estate, despite the fact that the husband was the economically disadvantaged spouse and (3) failing to award the husba

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a divorce between Sandi Lynn Pack and James Wade Pack, where employment and financial contributions became key factors in dividing their assets. **What Happened:** When Sandi filed for divorce, her husband James failed to respond to court papers or show up to hearings. The court initially awarded Sandi a default judgment, but James later hired a lawyer and tried to have that judgment overturned. The main dispute centered on how to divide their marital property worth over $1 million. **What the Court Decided:** The court refused to set aside the default judgment, finding that James had willfully ignored the proceedings. In dividing their assets, the court awarded Sandi 60% and James 40%. The court based this unequal split on several factors: Sandi was the sole income earner in the marriage, she was the primary caregiver for their children, and James had wasted marital money through risky stock trading. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling shows that courts recognize and reward the economic contributions working spouses make to a marriage. When one spouse is the primary breadwinner while the other doesn't work or contribute financially, that working spouse may receive a larger share of marital assets in divorce proceedings, especially if the non-working spouse has wasted money.

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.