Attorney Sara Elizabeth Barnett's Legal Cases

Divorce and separation

Tarver v. Tarver

Mar 19, 2019

OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed

Divorce appeal involving whether a business was marital property. The evidence did not preponderate against a finding that the husband received his interest in a company property not as a mere gift but ... as an incentive to return to work for his father given the circumstances, history, and timing of the property's acquisition and development and his return to work; [2]-The property was properly valued as no legal authority was cited to support the theory that it was a joint venture between the husband and father, and since partition sale principles did not apply, no deduction was necessary for any debt allegedly owed to the father in connection with the construction costs or any adjustment for what the father might have claimed if either filed a partition suit; [3]-The husband's income was properly determined as it was appropriate to look to the amounts the husband had been paid historically in addition to the rental value of the property.

Alimony

Ingram v. Ingram

Jun 07, 2018

OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that this was an appropriate case for an award of periodic alimony after considering the factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i), as the wif ... e had a need for alimony and a permanent disability that hindered her ability to work, and there was not question that the husband had the ability to pay alimony; [2]-The award of alimony in futuro was appropriate because of the wife's disability and inability to work in any more than a limited manner; [3]-The trial court did not err in awarding the wife attorney's fees as alimony in solido after considering the relevant statutory factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101, and noting that the parties were married for 26 years, the wife had a disability, the husband's fault in the divorce, and the parties' sources of income.

Appeals

Estate of Bentley v. Byrd

Feb 15, 2018

OUTCOME: Judgment reversed

A trial court erred in denying a judgment debtor's motion to dismiss a judgment creditor's action seeking to enforce a foreign judgment where there was no indication in the record that the judgment deb ... tor was ever properly served with a summons as directed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-105, and counsel's request for a continuance of the hearing on the motion to foreclose during a telephone conference did not result in a waiver of personal jurisdiction or the defense pertaining to service of process.

Adoption

In re. Steevie A.

Dec 14, 2017

OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed

Termination of the father's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii) was improper because the Te ... nnessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) did not expend reasonable efforts to help the father establish a suitable home in the four months following the removal of the child as there was no evidence that the DCS provided any resources to the father to help him accomplish those goals, such as offering assistance with obtaining housing or employment, during the relevant time; [2]-Termination was improper based on the ground that unsafe conditions still persisted under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) as the record did not establish that the father was continuing to use drugs and alcohol or that the danger of violence in the home was still present.

Litigation

McNatt v. Vestal

Feb 18, 2016

OUTCOME: Trial court award affirmed but modified.

This is a construction case. Appellee, Cecil McNatt, contracted to build and obtain the required licensing for an assisted living facility for Appellant Jane Vestal. The facility was constructed and li ... censed according to the parties' contract. Following completion, Appellant refused to pay the balance of the contract amount, citing the Appellee's lack of a contractor's license and numerous construction defects. Appellee filed suit against Appellant for breach of contract, and Appellant counterclaimed for violations of the Contractors Licensing Act and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court concluded that Appellee did not violate the Contractors Licensing Act or the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, dismissed Appellants' counterclaims, and awarded Appellees a judgment in the amount of $96,280.11. I represented McNatt and the trial court's judgement was affirmed but the award was modified.

Sara Elizabeth Barnett's Legal Cases (5)

Tarver v. Tarver

Ingram v. Ingram

Estate of Bentley v. Byrd

In re. Steevie A.

McNatt v. Vestal