Ruby Diane Barron v. Bruce Joseph Barron
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appellate review with modification and affirmation
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court modified trial court's divorce judgment, increasing husband's transitional alimony from 1 year to 5 years and clarifying division of marital assets including Roth IRA and FERS pension, while affirming the overall property division.
Excerpt
Wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court granted husband a divorce on the grounds of wife's adultery and other inappropriate marital conduct. Despite the many factors found by the trial court to be favorable to husband, the court awarded husband only 43% of the net marital estate. It also awarded husband one year of transitional alimony at $2,000 per month. We hold that the trial court erred in its division of the net marital assets and in its determination as to the duration of the transitional alimony awarded to husband. We modify the trial court's judgment so as to provide husband five years of transitional alimony. We hold that the Roth IRA is a marital asset it is awarded to husband and wife in equal share. Furthermore, we hold that the FERS pension account is to be divided between the parties as set forth in this opinion. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the discovery sanction, the trial court's conclusion under the Tennessee Human Rights Act that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply, the trial court's conclusion that the Clerk was not individually liable, and the award of attorney's fees against the Plaintiff and her attorney. We affirm.
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.