Facts: Husband and Wife separated after Wife learned that Husband had secretly videoed Wife’s teenage daughter from an earlier relationship while she was in the shower.

Husband was charged with crimes for his conduct.

In December 2022, Husband filed a motion to compel discovery. In March 2023, an order was entered detailing the information Wife was to provide to Husband.

In June 2023, Husband moved for sanctions because Wife had not provided complete responses to his discovery requests.

In August 2023, a hearing occurred at which Husband again claimed that Wife had not provided adequate responses to his discovery requests. The trial court denied Husband’s motion for sanctions, declared discovery closed, and scheduled trial for October 2023.

At trial, the division of property required Wife to pay Husband $58,000 for his share of the equity in the marital residence.

Husband appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in closing discovery and denying his motion for sanctions.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The trial court’s decision to grant or deny a discovery request is reviewed on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard. A trial court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by

• applying an incorrect legal standard,
• reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or
• basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.

The Court found no abuse of discretion here:

At the [August 2023] hearing, the court heard arguments on several issues, including Husband’s insistence that he had not received complete discovery responses. The court went over the history and length of the divorce litigation, the criminal charges against Husband, the resulting delays in the divorce litigation, the short duration of the marriage, and the limited assets and debts to be divided. The court then heard testimony from both parties and found Husband to be an “evasive” witness. Wife and her counsel stated that they had previously given Husband all of the discovery he claimed to need. The court noted that it was Husband’s burden to prove his contributions to the marital home and that he should have provided the records to document those contributions. In its order [entered in September 2023], the trial court “declared discovery closed,” denied Husband’s motion for sanctions, and scheduled the matter for final hearing. Husband has failed to establish any way in which the trial court’s decision to close discovery constitutes an abuse of discretion.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It also awarded Wife her reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal after finding that Husband’s appeal was frivolous, i.e., it “has no merit and no reasonable chance of succeeding.”

K.O.’s Comment: Perhaps contributing to the finding that Husband’s appeal was “frivolous” was another issue he asserted on appeal that the Court deemed waived because “Husband has failed to make a cogent argument, leaving it to this Court to guess at his intended argument or to construct one for him. This is not the role of an appellate court.”

Source: Garrett v. Garrett (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, December 3, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.