GREER v. GREER
RHONDA L. (HALL) GREER,
v.
JOHN BRADLEY GREER.
No. W2009-01587-COA-R3-CV.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson.
July 27, 2010 Session.
Filed September 30, 2010.
John Bradley Greer, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Defendant/Appellant, John Bradley Greer1
Rhonda L. (Hall) Greer, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Plaintiff/Appellee, Rhonda L. (Hall) Greer.2
Holly M. Kirby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which David R. Farmer, J., and J. Steven Stafford, J., joined.
OPINIONHOLLY M. KIRBY, JUDGE.
This is a divorce appeal involving parenting issues. The parties are the parents of three minor children. Prior to trial, the parties went through mediation and arrived at an agreement on many of their issues. The trial court then conducted a trial, taking testimony from the parties on a range of issues, including some that were the subject of the mediated agreement. The divorce decree and the parenting plan entered by the trial court adopted some of the parenting provisions in the mediated agreement, but not others. The father filed a motion to alter or amend this final decree, and a subsequent motion to enforce the parenting plan. The trial court modified the parenting plan in part and issued a final order. The father now appeals. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the number of parenting days allocated to the parties or the decision-making authority on the children's medical decisions.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOWDefendant/Appellant John Bradley Greer ("Father") and Plaintiff/Appellee Rhonda L. (Hall) Greer ("Mother") were married on September 10, 1994. The parties had three children during their marriage, born in 1996, 1997, and 1999.
Both parties have college degrees; Mother has a music degree, and Father has a degree in business administration. Prior to their marriage, Father began a business selling promotional products, a sole proprietorship called Premier Promotions.3 Mother was employed by a blood services company. Mother left her employment in 1997, when the parties' children were quite young. Father's business came to have several employees, for administrative work and for sales. After a while, Mother began doing part-time work for Father's business, to increase the revenues from the business and to allow Mother flexibility for parenting responsibilities. Neither parent got a paycheck from Premier Promotions; instead, Father would simply ask the employee who handled the funds for the business to write him a check to meet the family's needs. After a while, Father's business, and therefore the parties' family, began experiencing financial difficulties. At the same time, the records for the business were apparently not well-kept. Concomitantly, no income tax returns were filed by the parties, specifically for the years 2000-2004. The parties argued over financial matters, in particular about Father's failure to gather and organize the business records necessary to file income tax returns.
1. Mr. Greer represented himself in this proceeding. Both parties were represented by counsel in the trial court below.
2. Ms. Greer did not file a brief or appear for oral arguments.
3. Father described the business's various promotional products as "things with logos on them."
4. The marital home had a tax lien of approximately $26,000, as well as a judgment lien for the loan that was used, at least in part, to purchase the building for Premier Promotions.
5. Father testified that he sought Mother's help with the taxes and said "we" had the responsibility for taking care of the taxes in the household. He conceded, however, that Mother's work with his business had nothing to do with the payroll records necessary for filing payroll taxes, and that he had given all the responsibility for the business's financial records to an employee who left. Nevertheless, Father took the position that the parties should be equally responsible for all of the tax debt.
6. As the trial court's order was not final at that point, Father's July 29, 2009 notice of appeal is considered premature. The final order was entered on February 1, 2010. Under Tenn. R. App. P. 4(d), a prematurely filed notice of appeal shall be treated as filed after the entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken and on the day thereof. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear all issues set forth by Father concerning amendments to the parenting plan, including those arising out of the final order issued on February 1, 2010.
7. Because the April 7, 2009 order was not a final, appealable order, the matter was still within the bosom of the trial court, and the trial court was free to change or modify the order. Darty v. Darty,232 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949). 8. Although the trial court allocated 70% of the income tax debt to Father and 30% to Mother, there is nothing in the record indicating that the federal Internal Revenue Service is precluded from pursuing Mother's income and assets to satisfy a greater percentage.
9. Father appeared to lay blame on a now-departed employee under his supervision, and also implied that Mother bore some responsibility. Father declined to testify that the responsibility for filing the tax returns was his. The trial court found that this was Father's responsibility, and the record fully supports this finding.