Court Rulings

The defendants, Glenn Wilson and Valerie Wilson, appealed from a Superior Court judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Charles Martin and Nicole Martin. The plaintiffs prevailed on their claim for injunctive relief, allowing them access to a common driveway for the purpose of entering and exiting their property and enjoining the defendants from interfering with such use. Conversely, the defendants' counterclaims for trespass and injunctive relief were dismissed by the trial justice. On appeal, the defendants contended that the trial justice erred by (1) allowing parol evidence to be admitted (2) finding an implied easement over the common driveway and (3) finding that the defendants' counterclaims were moot. The Supreme Court first held that the trial justice properly considered extrinsic evidence, beyond the deed, to determine whether an implied easement existed in view of the nature of implied easements. The Supreme Court then held that the surrounding circumstances demonstrated continuous and apparent use of the common driveway prior to severance of the property and that such use was reasonably necessary. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice appropriately concluded that an implied easement existed. Finally, the Supreme Court held that, because an implied easement existed, the defendants' claims were moot. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

This appeal concerns a divorce. John Raymond Kautz ("Husband") sued Doris Diane Kautz Berberich ("Wife") for divorce in the Circuit Court for Polk County ("the Trial Court"). The parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement ("the MDA"), which the Trial Court approved in its final decree of divorce. Some years later, Wife filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 seeking relief from the judgment on grounds that Husband failed to disclose certain assets. The Trial Court granted Wife's motion. However, after a subsequent hearing, the Trial Court found that while Husband later hinted to Wife he had more assets than he disclosed, he actually had not concealed any valuable assets not already known to Wife. The Trial Court reinstated the MDA with certain amendments. Wife appeals. We decline to re-evaluate the Trial Court's implicit credibility determinations, and the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's finding that Wife was aware of the valuable marital assets at the time the MDA was executed. We affirm.