Pope v. Pope

6 Citing cases

  1. Taylor v. Taylor

    No. M2022-01254-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024)

    See Pope v. Pope, No. M2010-00067-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272690, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010) (noting that "it is the court's responsibility to classify all property as part of the equitable division; the failure to do so is error"). As no proof was presented to establish that these firearms were purchased during the marriage, they should also be classified as Husband's separate property.

  2. Naylor v. Naylor

    No. W2016-00038-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming trial court's consideration of wife's need for alimony in futuro despite fact that adult son lived with her and failed to contribute financially to household

    Generally, "[i]n order to divide marital property equitably in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 36-4-121(a), the trial court must place a value upon the couples' property." Cooper v. Cooper, No. 85-305-II, 1986 WL 10691, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 1986) (emphasis added); see also Pope v. Pope, No. M2010-00067-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272690, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010) ("Once the court has classified the property, the court must place a reasonable value on marital property that is subject to division.") (citing Edmisten v. Edmisten, No. M2001-00081-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21077990, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2003)). In this case, however, at the start of trial, the parties entered a joint stipulation regarding the value of the martial assets, in which Wife essentially agreed to the valuation of assets proposed by Husband. Counsel for Husband specifically stated that the agreement pertained to "the values" of the parties' marital assets.

  3. Fit2Race, Inc. v. Pope

    No. M2015-00387-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    This is a malicious prosecution case that began with a contentious divorce between Janson Miles Pope and Sayuri Kinjo Pope. Mr. Pope filed a complaint for divorce in December 2007 on the basis of irreconcilable differences and Ms. Pope's inappropriate marital conduct. Pope v. Pope, No. M2010-00067-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272690, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010). During the divorce proceedings, Mr. Pope filed a motion seeking sanctions because Ms. Pope was refusing to respond adequately to some of his discovery requests.

  4. McCoy v. McCoy

    No. E2012-02698-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    After identifying the marital property, a trial court must place a reasonable value on it and equitably divide it in "proportions as the court deems just." Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 36-4-121(a)(1); Pope v. Pope, No. M2010-00067-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272690, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010). The court is to consider all relevant factors in its distribution, including those listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c). The-121(c) factors are as follows:

  5. Peterson v. Peterson

    No. E2011-01928-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Id. After the trial court has classified the property, it must place a reasonable value on the marital property that is subject to division. Pope v. Pope, No. M2010-00067-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272690, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2011)(citation omitted). The values assigned to the parties' property are questions of fact that must be made after considering "all relevant evidence of value[.

  6. Pope v. Pope

    No. M2011-00077-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2011)

    Wife appealed from the divorce decree on several grounds, but the alimony award was upheld by this court. See Pope v. Pope, No. M2010-00067-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272690, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010) (perm. app. denied Mar. 9, 2011).