ROBERT L. MACY v. OUIDA J. MACY - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Feb 12, 2014

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Stephen W. Pate, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert L. Macy

Attorneys 2:

Bratten H. Cook, II, Smithville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ouida J. Macy

Judge(s): HIGHERS

This appeal challenges the effectiveness of a QDRO which requires Wife to pay taxes on a $115,000.00 divorce settlement. The trial court held that the amount should not be reduced by taxes. We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that Wife’s $115,000.00 divorce settlement was not subject to reduction for taxes, and we reverse its holding in that regard. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: