Wife entitled to attorney fees even though husband dismissed case

The husband and wife in Davidson County, Tennessee divorced in 2012 after signing a marital settlement agreement (MDA). The husband and wife in this Davidson County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2012, after having executed a marital dissolution agreement (MDA). But despite this final decree, litigation continued. In less than a month they were back in the courtroom over the conflicting motions regarding where one of their children should attend middle school.

The court found that although the husband was an attorney, he was honest but unreasonable on many matters. The trial court found that the husband, an attorney, was honest but unreasonable on many issues. The wife was given the final decision-making power on educational issues. This judgment was affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Undaunted, the father came back to court for a modification of custody and child support. He later included a motion to end his alimony obligation.

Bitter discovery fights ensued, such as the husband requesting contact information of the wife’s new in-laws. But before the case was heard, the husband filed a notice of nonsuit.

Before the nonsuit was entered, the wife asked for attorney’s fees under the MDA, and under the Tennessee abusive lawsuit statute.

The trial court held that the lawsuit was not abusive for purposes of that statute, but did award the wife her attorney’s fees under the MDA and under the Tennessee Statute allowing attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in child support and alimony collection matters.

The trial court awarded attorney’s fees of $16,500, and the husband brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

That court reversed, since it held that after the nonsuit, there was no “prevailing party” for purposes of the MDA or the statute. The wife requested permission to appeal from the Tennessee Supreme Court. This request was granted. It noted that Tennessee generally followed the “American Rule”, where each party pays their own fees. The appeals court addressed the MDA first.

Under the MDA, fees were available to the “prevailing party.” The Court of Appeals had held that there was no prevailing party because of the nonsuit. The appeals court addressed the MDA first.

Under the MDA, fees were available to the “prevailing party.” The Court of Appeals had held that there was no prevailing party because of the nonsuit.

The Supreme Court focused on other language of the contract, namely, that attorney fees were available to the prevailing party when it was “necessary for either party to initiate or defend legal proceedings.” The wife did need to defend the proceedings, and she argued that when the husband obtained no relief, it would make little sense to conclude that she did not “prevail.”

The Supreme Court agreed with this analysis. The wife was forced into defending the action and she succeeded in preserving what was her sole goal, which was to preserve the status quo. In this case, the husband had it dismissed voluntarily. The Supreme Court determined that the wife had prevailed under the MDA, regardless of how the dismissal occurred. The Supreme Court then turned to the MDA statute, which allowed fees to be paid to a “prevailing” party.

The husband argued that he was entitled to fees because the statute stated that the case had to be heard and decided by the court on the merits. He focused on the language of the statute implying that there must be an actual proceeding in which one party prevailed, and in which the other party was non-prevailing.But the Supreme Court focused on the practical effect to the wife, and held that the wife might be the prevailing party even without the court ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court agreed with the wife and held that the statute allowed for an award of attorney fees. The Supreme Court remanded it to the trial judge for a determination of amount.

For this reason, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated judgment of the Trial Court. Chief Justice Holly Kirby authored the opinion of the high court.

No. M2021-00731-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. Legal citations have been omitted. Legal citations have been omitted.

To find out more, visit The Tennessee Divorce Process : How Divorces Work From Start to Finish.