Memphis Injury Lawyer Blog

Trial lawyers joke that a person who represents herself or himself have a fool for a client. Still, this system of justice is fraught with danger and complexities. Terms such as marital fraction; separate property or negative marital estate have meanings that are not readily apparent to the lay person. Property Division Law.
In addition to these issues, clients are justifiably wary of being pinned down to admissions on these subjects because they do not have a well informed appreciation concerning the impact of these decisions. Often, even after multiple explanations of the applicable law from an experienced family lawyer, the average client knows less about the subject matter than before the explanation began.

I have had the experience of actually giving a well educated, business savvy client the printed law to read and afterwards still being met with a blank stare. this is not surprising. Volumes have been written about communication between lawyer and client.Suffice it to say that no matter the efforts of a caring lawyer, things are usually still somewhat cloudy to the non-lawyer.

These problems are compounded still further when one party is, by choice or chance, not represented by counsel. This is perfectly illustrated by the recent case of Caldwell vs. Caldwell. The parties were married for twenty four years before the decision was handed down in their case. While their assets were not extensive, they did have 117 acres of land and some other assets. Prior to the trial Ms. Caldwell through her attorney filed with the Court a listing of the parties assets setting forth her opinion of the values. Mr. Caldwell never made such a filing nor did he inform either the trial Court nor the appellate Court as to his opinions of valuation nor where his wife erred in her opinions.

The result was both predictable and unfortunate. Mr.Caldwell was unsuccessful in his attempt to get a more equitable division. The Court said that it is the duty of a party to file the proper papers with the Court and similarly for a party to follow the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court. Also, the Court stated that Mr.Caldwell failed in his duty to tell the trial Court what he thought the proper values were or to object to his wife's valuation. In the absence of such an objection in the trial Court, the issue is waived and may not be first asserted on appeal.

The moral of this story is that in order to protect that which you value the most, a litigant must do what the Rules require to protect his own future.