Paul H. & Judy E. Rogers - Page 10

                                       - 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