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.

Ramsey v. Reso

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

April 11, 2018

MARILYN (RESO) RAMSEY
v.
WARREN A. RESO, JR.

          Session February 22, 2018

          Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 190683-2 Clarence E. Pridemore, Jr., Chancellor

         This is a post-divorce case dealing with numerous issues of interpretation of the parties' marital dissolution agreement and permanent parenting plan. The plaintiff wife appealed one portion of the on-going case. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded

          Robert L. Jolley, Jr. and Megan A. Swain, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Marilyn Ramsey.

          Lisa C. Werner and Jordan D. Davis, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Warren A. Reso, Jr.

          John W. McClarty, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., and D. Michael Swiney, C.J., joined.

          OPINION

          JOHN W. MCCLARTY, JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         Marilyn (Reso) Ramsey ("Wife') hired attorney William E. Duffey, Jr., to file a complaint for divorce, marital dissolution agreement (hereinafter "MDA") and permanent parenting plan (hereinafter "PPP"). The requested documents were drafted and filed on November 25, 2015. While Wife had legal representation, Warren A. Reso, Jr. ("Husband") was pro se. He did not hire an attorney to review any of the documents at issue. [1]

         During the divorce proceedings, Husband was paying all the couple's bills. He agreed to pay Wife $900 in child support even though he was living in the marital home with Wife and their minor children. Husband also agreed to pay $600 per month alimony to Wife despite the fact that he was paying all of her household expenses, including utilities, the mortgage, food and insurance. The trial court ordered the house to be put on the market in March 2016 at the time the couple divorced. The sale of the residence occurred on May 2, 2017, the delay attributable to the fact that the title company would not close without clarification of who was to receive the money from the sale. Wife's current attorney stated that Wife should receive all the proceeds. Husband claimed that he was entitled to half of the equity from the sale of the residence based on the following paragraph from the MDA:

         4. Property Division

A. Real Property
The parties own, as tenants by the entirety, that certain real property located at 11021 Crosswind Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37934. Said Real Property shall be sold with the equity thereto being equally given to the Wife. The property shall be placed on the market in March 2016. The Wife shall be allowed to continue to live in the residence while same is being marketed; however, the Husband shall be totally responsible for the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and ...

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.