- 10 -
found in the Rogers’ Dissolution Agreement and Final Decree.
The general rule in Tennessee is that a divorce decree is to
be construed like other written instruments. And this means that
the parol evidence rule applies:
The general rules of evidence regarding the
admission of parol evidence and the
construction of written instruments also
apply to the admission of parol evidence in
the construction of a divorce decree. The
test as to the application of the parol
evidence rule is whether the testimony as to
oral agreements or negotiations varies or
contradicts the instrument in question or
merely explains it.
Hale v. Hale, 838 S.W.2d 206, 208-209 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)
(internal citations omitted).
The instruments we are construing would have benefited from
an explanation. The testimony of Rogers or his former wife or
anyone else familiar with the original divorce proceeding, and
the production of her tax returns or the ABC Insurance Center
contract would have gone far in establishing the intent of the
parties. But as the record currently stands, we are forced to
draw inferences from the stipulations and documents that have
been submitted by the parties. (There is correspondence in the
record between Rogers and respondent's counsel asserting that
Rogers' ex-wife included the payments as income on her own
return, but this is at most hearsay, and has at most an
attenuated connection to what the Rogers intended would happen if
Rogers' ex-wife died, see Cunningham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011