Court Sorts Out Divorce Claims of ORNL Spouses
Tennessee case summary on divorce.
Edna Gergel v. James Gergel
The husband and wife in this Anderson County, Tennessee, case were married in 1997 and had one daughter, who was 13 years old at the time of their divorce. Both had advanced degrees and worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The wife worked in the patents department and earned about $138,000 per year. The husband earned about $80,000 per year until 2011, when he became disabled. The husband’s income was about $50,000 per year. The child also received a $893 monthly payment based upon the father’s disability.
The wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable difference in 2015. The husband filed a counter-complaint, and the case went to trial, after multiple motions by the parties. The trial court handed down its final decree in 2020. The wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. This was based on the court’s finding that the husband had been physically and verbally abusive.
The court found that the husband’s testimony was not credible, and denied the husband’s request for alimony. The property division was nearly equal. The marital residence, along with the debt, was awarded to the husband. Both parties retained their own pension accounts. They were about 49 years old at the time of trial, and at full retirement age, the wife would receive a pension of about $1800 per month, with the husband getting about $1100 per month.
The trial court held that the husband was guilty of dissipation, both due to a cash withdrawal, as well as unnecessarily increasing attorney fees.
The wife was named primary residential parent, with the husband receiving visitation only in a public place. After post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, raising a number of issues.
After stating the standard of review, the court addressed the wife’s claim that the husband had waived all of his issues due to lack of specificity. The court determined that he had not, and turned first to the distribution of the marital estate. After reviewing the evidence and the statutory factors, the court concluded that the trial court had acted properly in the division.
The appeals court next addressed the issue of dissipation. The husband argued that the alleged dissipation was not adequately documented, but the appeals court disagreed, pointing to testimony regarding specific withdrawals. After examining all of the evidence, it agreed that the lower court had ruled properly, both with respect to cash withdrawals and increased attorney fees.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s ruling with respect to the pension accounts and custody rulings.
The husband did have some success appealing the wife’s award of some of her costs. The appeals court examined the record and concluded that some of them were not properly allowed.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but vacated some of the expert witness fees awarded by the lower court.
No. E2020–01534-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
