Session August 10, 2016
from the Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County No.
2013-PF-3362 Sam E. Benningfield, Jr., Judge
divorce case, Mitchell Hunter Oakes appeals the trial
court's division of the marital estate. Husband's
appellate brief contains no case citations or references to
the record. Furthermore, there is no authority cited other
than the statute addressing a division of marital property.
These multiple deficiencies are clear violations of Tenn. R.
App. P. 27(a). In addition, Husband's brief does not
contain a table as required by Court of Appeals Rule 7. As we
have held on numerous occassions, deficiencies such as these
constitute a waiver of any issues raised by the offending
party. Because of these omissions, this appeal had no
reasonable chance of success. Accordingly, we agree with his
former spouse, Patricia Marie Oakes, that his appeal is
frivolous in nature. Therefore, Wife is entitled to recover
from Husband her reasonable fees and expenses incurred on
appeal. Appeal dismissed.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed; Case
Remanded for Further Proceedings
Mitchell Hunter Oakes, Crossville, Tennessee, appellant, pro
R. Boston, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Patricia
Charles D. Susano, Jr., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and John W.
McClarty, J., joined.
CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE.
parties were married on July 4, 2009. No children were born
to their union. Husband filed for divorce on May 23, 2013. On
December 23, 2013, the trial court granted the parties a
divorce on stipulated grounds, reserving the issue of the
division of marital property. That issue was heard on
November 30, 2015. The only witnesses were the parties.
Husband represented himself at trial and on this appeal.
trial court entered an order dividing the marital estate on
January 4, 2016. The court awarded Wife casualty insurance
proceeds of $197, 000, resulting from a total fire loss of
their mobile home. This award was burdened with the mortgage
debt, which totaled approximately $132, 500. Husband was
ordered to reimburse Wife approximately $19, 500 of the
mortgage debt. The trial court awarded Husband real property,
which consists of 89 acres. The mobile home was previously
situated on that property. The court did not place a value on
the real property. Husband estimated its value at $172, 000,
and Wife said she thought it was worth $187, 000. The trial
court divided the value of Husband's pension,
i.e., $303, 894.68, equally between the parties.
Each party received the personal property in his/her
possession. Wife received two storage trailers, valued by
Husband respectively at about $4, 700 and $7, 300. Husband
timely filed a notice of appeal.
presents the following issue, as quoted verbatim from his
Whether the Probate and Family Court erred in holding that
[Wife] was entitled to both trailers as one was taken out of
the property dispute by the [trial court] prior to the final
order, awarding one half of complete retirement annuity
although marriage was only 3 years and 10 months of total
contributions, awarding monies from the
interpleader that [Wife] was not named on the insurance
policy, awarding reimbursement of loan payments on property
to [Wife], failing to award [Husband] his own personal
property or to allow ...