MARY SUE GASTON LEE v. DANNY C. LEE

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviews a divorce judgment involving the classification and valuation of marital assets, including a business and real property, and the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. The court reverses the classification and valuation of two assets, vacates the overall property distribution, and remands for further proceedings. The opinion also addresses the husband's motion to recuse the trial judge.

Holdings

1. Husband waived any challenge concerning the initial recusal motion, and the trial court's failure to promptly enter a written order memorializing its oral denial was harmless under the circumstances. The later recusal motion was properly denied because it was untimely and failed to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B.
2. The Etowah House remained Wife's separate property, but the trial court erred by treating its entire value as separate property without determining whether the property appreciated during the marriage because of the parties' substantial contributions. Any contribution-linked increase in value must be classified as marital property and equitably divided.
3. The trial court's determination that PTI had a value of $400,000, notwithstanding Husband's dissipation and management conduct, was supported by the evidence. However, the court erred in adding an unrealized and speculative $165,000 commission to PTI's value; that issue must be reconsidered on remand.
4. The overall distribution of marital assets and debts had to be vacated because the classification and valuation of the Etowah House and PTI remained unresolved.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by proceeding after Husband filed a motion to recuse without immediately entering a written order.
2. Whether the Etowah House was properly classified as Wife's separate property and whether any increase in its value during the marriage was marital property.
3. Whether the trial court properly valued Precision Technologies, Incorporated at $565,000, including an alleged $165,000 commission.
4. Whether the trial court's overall distribution of the marital estate was equitable.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded