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.

Oakes v. Oakes

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

December 28, 2016

MITCHELL HUNTER OAKES
v.
PATRICIA MARIE OAKES

          Session August 10, 2016

         Appeal from the Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County No. 2013-PF-3362 Sam E. Benningfield, Jr., Judge

         In this 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.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed; Case Remanded for Further Proceedings

          Mitchell Hunter Oakes, Crossville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.

          Randal R. Boston, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Patricia Marie Oakes.

          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.

          OPINION

          CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE.

         I.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         II.

         Husband presents the following issue, as quoted verbatim from his brief:

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[1] 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 ...

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.