Skip to main content

James v. Holleman v. Barbara J. Holleman

Tenn. Ct. App.May 30, 2019No. E2018-00451-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

In this post-divorce action, the trial court denied the wife's request for relief from a prior judgment and ordered the parties to comply with their written marital dissolution agreement regarding the sale of a parcel of marital real property. Following numerous motions filed by the parties, including several motions for recusal filed by the wife, the trial court eventually granted recusal. The newly assigned trial court judge held a hearing to consider pending motions and determine the status of the case, and the wife filed another motion to recuse shortly after that hearing. The trial court entered a subsequent order, wherein the court denied recusal and instructed the Clerk and Master to select a realtor and sell the parcel of property on the parties' behalf. Wife subsequently filed a motion seeking "relief of void orders," pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which was denied by the trial court. Wife filed a second but different Rule 60 motion thereafter, which was also denied by the trial court. Wife timely appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this matter. We grant Husband's request for attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' MDA and remand this issue to the trial court for a determination of a reasonable award of attorney's fees in favor of Husband. We deny Wife's motions seeking supplementation of the record and consideration of postjudgment facts.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved a divorced couple, James and Barbara Holleman, who were fighting over the sale of property they had agreed to sell as part of their divorce settlement. After their divorce was finalized, Barbara asked the court to change or undo part of the original divorce agreement. The trial court said no and told both parties they had to follow their written divorce agreement about selling the property. The situation became complicated when Barbara repeatedly asked for the judge to step aside from the case, and eventually a new judge was assigned to handle the ongoing disputes. **What the court decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. The new judge needed to review all the pending motions and figure out what still needed to be resolved. **Why this matters for workers:** This case is primarily about divorce and property disputes rather than workplace issues. However, it demonstrates how written agreements are generally binding and courts expect people to follow what they previously agreed to in writing. For workers, this reinforces the importance of carefully reading and understanding any employment contracts or settlement agreements before signing them, as courts typically hold people to their written commitments.

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.