- 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