Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joyce v. Ellard

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

May 26, 2015

SUSAN MARIE JOYCE
v.
BRUCE CADE ELLARD

Assigned on Briefs May 12, 2015

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County No. 13CV607 Robert E. Corlew, III, Judge

Charles G. Ward, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Susan Marie Joyce.

Gary D. Beasley, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellee, Bruce Cade Ellard.

Arnold B. Goldin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brandon O. Gibson, J., and Kenny Armstrong, J., joined.

MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE

This appeal arises from a divorce action following a thirteen-year marriage. Plaintiff/Appellant Susan Marie Joyce ("Wife") and Defendant/Appellee Bruce Cade Ellard ("Husband") were married in February 2001. Wife was forty-eight years old at the time of the marriage and Husband was forty-seven. It was the second marriage for both parties. Wife's first marriage ended with the death of her first husband, and Husband was divorced. No children were born of this marriage.

In April 2013, Wife filed a petition for legal separation in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County. In her petition, Wife alleged that Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. Husband answered and counter-complained for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and, following a hearing in June 2014, the trial court granted Wife a divorce on the stipulated grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. By order entered July 31, 2014, the trial court awarded Wife transitional alimony in the amount of $1, 700 per month for four years. In its order, the trial court determined that the home in which the parties lived during the course of the marriage was Wife's separate property and that a line of credit in the amount of approximately $80, 000 was owed on the home. Wife filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

Issues Presented

Wife presents the following issues for our review:

1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering the Plaintiff/Wife solely responsible for the marital line of credit in the amount of $85, 000 with monthly payments between $1, 624.34 and $1, 919.78?
2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding the Wife transitional alimony instead of alimony in futuro?
3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding the Wife merely $1, 700 per month [in alimony]?
4) If this honorable Court determines that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding transitional alimony, in the alternative, did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding Wife ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.