Johah Paul Anders v. Mayla C. Anders

11/22/2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

October 27, 2021 Session

JONAH PAUL ANDERS v. MAYLA C. ANDERS

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-005367-14 Gina C. Higgins, Judge ___________________________________ No. W2018-02172-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court granted the parties a divorce instead of the annulment Husband requested, among other findings. Husband now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and

Remanded

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., joined.

Jonah Paul Anders, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro se.

Theresa Patterson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Mayla C. Anders.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jonah Paul Anders (“Husband”) and Mayla C. Anders (“Wife”) were married on July 28, 2012 in Las Vegas, Nevada. There were two children born of the marriage. On December 22, 2014, Husband filed a complaint for annulment or, in the alternative, for divorce. As part of his complaint, Husband alleged that, at the time of the parties’ marriage in July 2012, Wife was still married to another man. Therefore, Husband contended, the parties’ marriage was void and should be annulled. According to the trial court’s final decree, Wife filed an answer to Husband’s complaint as well as a counterclaim for divorce.2

The final decree of divorce was entered on October 28, 2016. Therein, the trial court ultimately determined that Wife was divorced from her previous marriage according to “Philippine laws” prior to her marriage to Husband and recognized the marriage to Husband as valid. Moreover, the trial court awarded each of the parties their separate property owned prior to the marriage and ordered Husband to pay Wife transitional alimony in the amount of $750 per month for a period of twenty-four months. Additionally, the permanent parenting plan approved by the trial court set Husband’s child support at $779 per month and awarded Wife $8,184.00 in retroactive child support from November 1, 2014 through April 15, 2016. Husband thereafter filed a notice of appeal. On August 24, 2017, this Court entered an order dismissing Husband’s appeal without prejudice as the trial court had not yet entered a final judgment and the technical record was incomplete.3 As a result, this Court did not yet have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Subsequent activity occurred in both the trial court and this Court. However, this case did not become final until March 4, 2021, when the trial court entered an order denying Husband’s motion to alter or amend. This order constituted the final judgment in the case.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Husband raises several issues for our review on appeal. However, based on the briefing and Husband’s argument in his brief on appeal,4 we have determined the single issue on appeal to be as follows:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the parties a divorce instead of an annulment.

DISCUSSION “Except as restricted by constitutional provisions, the inception, duration, status, conditions, and termination of a marriage in Tennessee are subject to state legislative power and control.” Guzman v. Alvares, 205 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Tenn. 2006) (citing Crawford v. Crawford, 277 S.W.2d 389, 391 (1955)). In order “[t]o protect the institution of marriage in Tennessee, regularly solemnized marriages are presumed to be valid.” Id. at 380 (citing Aghili v. Saadatnejadi, 958 S.W.2d 784, 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). “[I]n cases involving a subsequent marriage, courts presume that the previous marriage ended in divorce.” Id. (citing Emmit v. Emmit, 174 S.W.3d 248, 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). However, this presumption is “not conclusive and may be rebutted.” Id. (citing Emmit, 174 S.W.3d at 252). The party challenging the validity of the marriage bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by providing the trial court with “‘cogent and convincing’ evidence that the marriage . . . is invalid.” Id. (citing Aghili, 958 S.W.2d at 789).

On appeal, Husband contends that the trial court erred in granting the parties a divorce rather than an annulment. Specifically, Husband claims that the trial court did not properly consider his request for annulment. We find this argument to be without merit as a plain reading of the final decree of divorce clearly contradicts his assertion. Despite Husband’s repeated allegations of bigamy, the trial court determined that “Husband is not credible” and that Wife was divorced by the “standards and laws” of the Philippines from her previous marriage. Thus, the trial court determined that the parties’ marriage in this case was valid and granted them a divorce. As such, the trial court clearly considered Husband’s allegations concerning his request for an annulment and found them not to be valid.

Husband also contends that the trial court erred by “refusing to allow the preponderance of [his] evidence” concerning his request for annulment. As best as we can discern, Husband is challenging the propriety of the trial court’s findings in light of the evidence presented at trial. To the extent that Husband challenges the trial court’s factual findings in granting the parties a divorce as opposed to an annulment, we note the absence of a transcript5 of the proceedings in this matter or statement of the evidence in accordance with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c). This Court “cannot review the facts de novo without an appellate record containing the facts, and therefore, we must assume that the record, had it been preserved, would have contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings.” Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (citing McDonald v. Onoh, 772 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Gotten v. Gotten, 748 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)).

Based on our review of the trial court’s findings, we find no error on the part of the trial court in granting the parties a divorce instead of an annulment and, therefore, we affirm.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s final decree granting the parties a divorce is affirmed in all respects. s/ Arnold B. Goldin ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE