 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McMahan v. McMahan12/5/2005
I.
During the pendency of Husband's divorce action, the parties agreed to mediation. The mediation was held at the office of Wife's attorney. It consumed approximately seven hours. As a result of the mediation, a five-page, handwritten mediation agreement was prepared with the input of the parties and their counsel. The agreement contains 32 paragraphs pertaining to property division and spousal support. Before the parties and their counsel left the attorney's office, each page of the document was either signed or initialed by both Husband and Wife. It was also signed by the Rule 31 mediator, Sarah Y. Sheppeard ("the mediator"). She prepared a report with respect to the mediation ("the mediator's report") and submitted it to the trial court. The mediator's report indicates that both parties appeared and participated in good faith in the mediation and that the case was settled in the mediation process.
Shortly after the mediation, Husband's attorney drafted a final judgment of divorce and a marital dissolution agreement ("the drafted MDA"). Husband signed the two documents. His attorney then forwarded the signed documents to Wife's attorney for Wife's approval and signature. Wife refused to sign the documents. Thereafter, Husband filed a motion in the divorce case to enforce the mediation agreement.
In her response to Husband's motion, Wife, who acknowledges that she is herself an experienced Rule 31 mediator, challenged the validity of the handwritten document on the following grounds: (1) Husband's motion was not the proper "vehicle" to enforce the agreement; (2) Wife was under duress and lacked sufficient mental capacity to enter into a binding contract at the time the handwritten document was drafted and signed; and (3) the handwritten document was not intended by the parties to be the final document but was contingent upon the parties' approval of a formal marital dissolution agreement and the trial court's approval. With respect to the final point, Wife contends that either party could repudiate the agreement at any time prior to the court's approval of same.
In November, 2004, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Husband's motion. Several witnesses testified, including both parties and the mediator. The mediator testified that Wife participated in the mediation process and appeared to understand what was going on. The mediator stated that Wife did not seem confused or mentally incapacitated. In its memorandum opinion filed November 29, 2004, the trial court held "the mediated settlement agreement to be binding and enforceable." In addressing Wife's defenses to enforcement of the handwritten document, the trial court reasoned that: (1) Wife waived any procedural objection regarding Husband's motion by failing to raise her objection at the evidentiary hearing; (2) Wife failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was under duress or lacked sufficient mental capacity to enter into a binding contract; and (3) no evidence established that the handwritten document was contingent upon or even subject to the trial court's approval. Wife appeals the trial court's enforcement of the mediation agreement. Pursuant to its memorandum opinion, the trial court subsequently held a hearing regarding "all remaining issues" between the parties. In an order filed in March, 2005, the trial court declared both parties entitled to a divorce pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. * 36-4-129(b).
II.
Wife raises the following five issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in acting upon Husband's motion to enforce the mediation agreement; (2) whether the trial court erred when it enforced the mediation agreement in light o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|