Judge sets aside divorce decree after finding procedural problems and conflicting terms in Dunham settlement

Judge David D. Wolfe granted a Rule 60.02 motion Wednesday to set aside the final decree of divorce, the marital dissolution agreement (MDA) and the permanent parenting plan in Dunham v. Dunham, reinstating the case on the court's active docket.

The court found multiple procedural and substantive problems in the way the agreement was reached and recorded, and said the agreement contained contradictory provisions about who must pay the mortgage and whether spousal support payments were intended to cover mortgage, utilities and taxes.

"The marital dissolution agreement contains significant contradictory language regarding his financial obligations," Judge Wolfe said in announcing the ruling. He also said the parenting plan relied on an erroneous child-support calculation that used a monthly income figure the court found unsupported by the payroll evidence.

The dispute before the court began as a Rule 60.02 motion by Michael Gregory Dunham asking the court to set aside the November agreement and final decree on grounds that ranged from alleged misrepresentation and fraud in procurement of the MDA to unconscionability. Dunham testified he had limited access to his attorney before signing and said he signed a signature page at a UPS store after discussing changes at a park and at a homeschool gathering. He said his inability to reach counsel and other circumstances induced him to sign without reviewing the full document.

Attorney Reese Holly, who represented the wife, argued the agreement was negotiated and signed voluntarily and that the financial splits reflected the parties' negotiated tradeoffs: the wife would keep the marital residence and he would keep certain personal property. Holly also asked the court to leave the agreement in place and to consider any contempt issues separately.

Attorney Hillary Duke, representing Dunham, pressed that the MDA's internal inconsistencies and the parenting plan's use of a $120,000 annual income figure for child-support calculations were material and required relief. Judge Wolfe cited Tennessee Code Annotated 36-4-103 and precedent in saying the court must make an affirmative finding that a marital settlement is equitable before entering a decree. He concluded the combination of representation issues, contradictory contract terms and the inaccurate income basis for child support warranted setting aside the decree.

Both sides offered detailed testimony about the parties' finances, the cost of homeschooling and travel-ball activities, the status of pay increases and FMLA use by Dunham (a railroad employee). Dunham testified he sold assets and sought help from family to pay legal fees after signing, and that he faces tax and other debts. Karen Dunham testified she negotiated with Dunham on the budget line items, agreed to remove a personal spending allocation at his request, and said the $1,500 biweekly figure reflected combined child support and spousal support to cover the mortgage and household obligations.

Judge Wolfe ordered that an order memorializing his ruling be prepared and submitted for entry. The court recorded findings that (1) Dunham had retained counsel before signing; (2) the parenting plan and MDA contained contradictory language about who pays the mortgage and what spousal-support payments cover; and (3) the child-support calculation relied on an income figure the evidence did not support. The court cited Beeson v. Beeson and other authorities in concluding Rule 60 relief was available and appropriate.

The case is reinstated on the active docket; the court directed counsel to prepare an order reflecting the ruling. No new trial or hearing dates were announced in the transcripted portion; the judge said the parties would receive the draft order for review.

The court's decision does not itself change custody or support on an interim basis; it returns the parties to the pre-decree posture for further proceedings on the merits of a corrected, enforceable agreement or contested litigation.

Quotes in this article are drawn from in-court remarks by Judge David D. Wolfe and testimony from Michael Gregory Dunham and Karen Dunham recorded in the hearing transcript.

Ending: The court granted Dunham's Rule 60 motion, vacating the decree and parenting plan and returning the matter to the docket so the parties can pursue an equitable resolution under the court's supervision.