Court Rulings

This appeal arises from a divorce. Brian Lee Higdon ("Husband") filed for divorce from Aehui Higdon ("Wife") in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County ("the Trial Court"). The parties executed a marital dissolution agreement ("the MDA"). The Trial Court approved the MDA and entered a Final Decree of Divorce. Wife later filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 seeking to have the MDA and Final Decree of Divorce set aside on grounds of mistake of fact, fraud, and fundamental unfairness. After a hearing at which both Husband and Wife testified, the Trial Court denied Wife's motion. Wife appeals, arguing among other things that she was coerced into signing the MDA. Deferring to the Trial Court's implicit credibility determinations, we do not find that Wife was coerced into signing the MDA. Wife failed to meet her burden of clear and convincing evidence that there was mistake of fact, fraud, or fundamental unfairness in the execution of the MDA. In sum, we discern no abuse of discretion in the Trial Court's decision to deny Wife's Rule 60.02 motion. We affirm.

R.C. 2745.01 employer intentional tort liability equipment safety guard deliberate removal. The trial court properly granted defendant employer's motion for summary judgment because there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the device in question was an equipment safety guard pursuant to R.C. 2745.01 or whether the employer engaged in a deliberate removal of the equipment safety guard.

In this appeal regarding the proceeds of the decedent's life insurance policy, the Interim Clerk and Master of the Shelby County Chancery Court ("trial court") issued, pursuant to local rule, a "Notice and Recommendation for Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution" after no activity concerning the case had occurred for over a year. The notice, which directed the parties to appear before the trial court on September 10, 2019, was not mailed to the defendant. Consequently, the defendant did not appear. Following the hearing, the trial court ordered a scheduling conference, at which the defendant also did not appear. During the scheduling conference, the trial court directed the plaintiffs to submit testimony and other evidence concerning the proceeds of the life insurance policy. Upon the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment, the trial court entered an order finding, inter alia, that the defendant had failed to appear. The court awarded proceeds of the life insurance policy to the plaintiffs and assessed costs against the defendant. The defendant has appealed. On appeal, the parties have stipulated that the defendant did not receive notice of the hearings. We therefore vacate the trial court's order of final judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.