Unattached

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in an attempt to collect a judgment in a law firm dispute

In this lawsuit between former law partners, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees. The instant appeal involves Appellees’ attempt to collect their judgment. The trial court held that Appellant’s qualified rollover IRA is not exempt from garnishment, attachment and execution under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 26-2-105, 26-2-111(1)(D), 26-2- 26, and 56-7-203. The trial court also determined that a recreational vehicle was not held as a tenancy by the entirety and was subject to attachment and execution as Appellant’s individually-owned property. We reverse.

Lawyers in litigation

This is the third appeal in a dispute between former law partners involving “‘fallout over an agreement . . . concerning the ownership and control of the Hill Boren, PC law firm.’” Boren v. Hill Boren PC, No. W2021-00478-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 3375623, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2023) (quoting Boren v. Hill Boren PC, No. W2019-02235- COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 1109992, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2021)). The background facts and procedural history were thoroughly recited in the prior opinions, and we revisit them only briefly here.

The RV

Mr. Hill asserts that he intended the RV to be marital property, and it undisputedly was used by the Hills jointly for family recreational purposes. We find the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the RV was not held as a tenancy by the entirety. The judgment of the trial court is reversed on this issue, and we turn to whether Mr. Hill’s qualified rollover IRA is exempt from execution.

The IRA

the annuities and other funds held in Mr. Hill’s qualified IRA are protected by Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-2-105 and are not subject to execution by creditors. Mr. Hill’s request that all records regarding his qualified IRA be returned to him and that copies retained by opposing counsel or the court be destroyed is granted.

(Mike Frisch)