McKellar & Easter, Attorneys at Law We protect what's most important
Contact Us For A Free Telephone Consultation 865-566-0125 877-482-9767

April 2015 Archives

Supreme Court Rules on Police Detaining Defendant at Traffic Stop in Order to do "Dog Sniff Test"

Traffic stops are a touchy subject. Many go smoothly-you get pulled over, find out why, then drive off with a warning or, at most, a ticket. When they don't go smoothly they can result in arrests, car chases, and in the most extreme cases, death is a possibility. So when you get pulled over by law enforcement, most of us make the wise decision to stay civil and cooperate with the officer, if only to get the incident over as quickly as possible. But sometimes, the problem isn't with you-it's with the officer. 


In the case of Dunn v. Dunn, (No. E2014-00706-COA-R3-CV,. DEC 22, 2014), Husband and Wife were divorced after thirty-eight years of marriage. Following several trial dates, the court issued a memorandum opinion, placing a value on the marital estate and splitting the estate at 60% for the wife and 40% for the husband. The trial court also reduced Husband's share by $200,000 due to his dissipation of assets. The couple built a home in the late 1980s, in which they resided for the continuation of their marriage. In early 1990, Husband began working outside of the United States. Wife claims that Husband was frequently absent from the home and she was left to care for the property and their child. Wife claims that she received little financial help from husband during this period, but Husband claims that he made monetary contributions to the household during that time. Husband sold a business in 2009 and no longer works. The proceeds from selling the business were used to support the family, according to Husband. Both parties filed motions seeking to amend the judgment. An order was entered on March of 2014, making minor adjustments as requested by the parties. However, no change was made to the overall percentages of the distribution of the estate. As result, wife appeals with a list of issues for the court to consider. First, she questioned if the court erred in the division of assets and liabilities. Wife also questioned if the material assets were correctly valued and if the court erred in the valuation date of said assets. Lastly, she questions the inclusion of Husband's debts in to the distribution and if the assets were distributed in the proper manner. The Court of Appeals has specific standards for reviewing judgments on the classification and distribution of assets. The Court of Appeals should not disturb the decision of the trial court unless the distribution lacks proper supporting evidence or the distribution results in an error of law or improper application of statutory requirements and procedures. The court considers several factors when determining the distribution of assets, including the duration of the marriage; the physical, mental, and financial state of both parties; the financial contributions and dissipation to the estate from each party; the value of any separate property and each parties social security benefits; and the estate of each party at the time of marriage, among other factors. Wife argues that she should have been granted a greater percentage of the estate, stating that she contributed more to the estate and that Husband was responsible for the dissipation of assets. The court decided that both parties have contributed to acquiring and preserving the property. The only dissipation of assets by the husband was the sale of his business, Core Roofing. The Appellate Court noted that Wife did contribute more income to the estate throughout the marriage. Wife also had Social Security benefits and retirement accounts that are significantly greater than Husband's. Considering this evidence, Wife was awarded 60 percent of the estate, along with remaining the resident of the property, while the Husband was granted 40 percent minus the $200,000 against his share of the estate for dissipated assets. The Court of Appeals agrees with trial court on the division of marital assets. The court agrees that Wife's contributions to the estate were greater, but determines that the 60 percent awarded to the Wife and the charge of $200,000 against Husband makes the division equitable. On matters of valuation and the dates of valuation, the court of appeals recognizes the trial court's decision as reasonable and well supported with evidence. They also recognize that Wife presented no alternative evidence at the time of the trial. Appeals court denied Husband his attorney fees, on the grounds that both parties were granted enough of the estate to afford their fees. Overall, the court of appeals affirms the trial court's judgment.

Tennessee Tax Return Preparer Indicted for Preparing False Tax Returns

Tax preparation can be a profitable business.  Done incorrectly, it can also be a very costly one. This is a lesson that Kevin Mendell Walker apparently didn't know.  Walker, a 44 year old resident of Hixson, Tennessee, owns K&R Enterprises, a business specializing in the preparation and presentation of taxes.  


In the case of Howard v. Halford (No. E2014-00002-COA-R3-JV. Dec 22, 2014), The Court of Appeals reviews the Trial Court's motion to clarify the requirements of the residential co-parenting schedule as laid out in the permanent parenting plan. The Court entered the permanent parenting plan in January of 2013. Mother was named as the primary residential parent. Father was scheduled visitation for the child whenever he is home from sea, with Mother having the child every other weekend while the father is home. Father was also scheduled to care for the child Monday through Friday only while Mother is at work. These two portions of the schedule are contradictory. 

Experienced. Committed. Respected.

Mr. McKellar was voted by his peers as a “Top Attorney” by Knoxville’s CityView magazine in its 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 editions. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, Mr. McKellar was selected as a member of the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers” by the National Trial Lawyers.

Ms. Easter was voted by her peers as a “Top Attorney” in Cityview Magazine for Family Law / Divorce / Child Support in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers
  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers
  • Your Partner in Practice | KBA Proud member | Knoxville Bar Association
  • Avvo Rating 10.0 Superb
Start Now. Contact Us Today.

Have Questions? We Have Answers.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Office Locations

Knoxville Office
625 Market Street, 7th Floor
Knoxville, TN 37902

Toll Free: 877-482-9767
Phone: 865-566-0125
Fax: 865-566-0126
Map & Directions

Nashville Office
424 Church Street, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37219

Map & Directions

Atlanta Office
Riverwood Center
3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 1900
Atlanta, GA 30339

Map & Directions