stating that “the preservation of the public’s confidence in judicial neutrality requires not only that the judge be impartial in fact, but also that the judge be perceived to be impartial”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the preservation of the public’s confidence in judicial neutrality requires not only that the judge be impartial in fact, but also that the judge be perceived to be impartial”
- reasoning that litigants “are entitled to the ‘cold neutrality of an impartial court’” (quoting Leighton v. Henderson, 414 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tenn. 1967))
- stating “[i]f the evidence of value is conflicting, the trial judge may assign a value that is within the range of values supported by the evidence.”
- explaining that “valuation of a marital asset is a question of fact” to be determined by considering all relevant evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
August 24, 1998
JOHN ANDERSON KINARD, ) Cecil W. Crowson
) Appellate Court Clerk
Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Rutherford Chancery
) No. 94DR-318
VS. )
) Appeal No.
LINDA KINARD, ) 01A01-9606-CH-00265
)
Defendant/Appellant. )
ORDER ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
Both parties have filed petitions for rehearing in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 39. John
Anderson Kinard requests that this case be remanded to enable the trial court to reconsider the value
of certain marital assets and to make adjustments to the division of the marital estate and the award
for spousal support. Linda Kinard requests that this court reinstate Mr. Kinard’s pendente lite
obligation to maintain a $150,000 life insurance policy to ensure that his spousal support obligation
would be met in the event of his death.
Based upon our consideration of the petitions, our earlier opinion, and the entire record on
appeal, we have determined that Mr. Kinard’s petition for rehearing should be denied. While we did
not overlook the trial court’s award of the existing Equitable Life Insurance Policy to Mr. Kinard,
we have determined that our August 5, 1998 opinion should be modified to provide that Ms. Kinard
is entitled, at her option, either to spousal support in the amount of $2,000 per month with no
continuing interest in Mr. Kinard’s Equitable Life Insurance Policy or to spousal support in the
amount of $1,800 per month along with Mr. Kinard’s continuing obligation to maintain the Equitable
Life Insurance Policy in effect in order to secure the payment of his spousal support obligation. Ms.
Kinard shall file with the trial court her written election between these two spousal support options
on or before October 5, 1998.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Mr. Kinard’s petition for rehearing be and
is hereby denied. It is further ordered that Ms. Kinard’s petition for rehearing be granted and that
this court’s August 5, 1998 opinion be modified in accordance with this order.
__________________________________
HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE
MIDDLE SECTION
__________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
__________________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
-2-