Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-24-2024
Case Style:
Jorge Antonio Mata Campos v. Amanda Rosa Ruiz Zeledon
Case Number: 18292
Judge: Larry J. Wallace
Court: Chancery Court, Cheatham County, Tennessee
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Ashland City, Tennessee divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution.
The parties, Amanda Rosa Ruiz Zeledon ("Wife") and Jorge Antonio Mata Campos ("Husband"), were married on January 9, 2010; they separated in November 2019. On August 17, 2020, Husband filed a petition for divorce from Wife. At the time of the proceedings, the parties had one minor child.
Prior to the final hearing on April 12, 2023, Wife filed an asset list of all real and personal property owned jointly by the parties. Husband never filed an asset list or filed any exhibits to support his positions or to refute Wife's contentions.
On July 11, 2023, a final decree of divorce was entered. The trial court held, in pertinent part, as follows:
Given said testimony and review of the pleadings, the Court does find that the Husband's testimony had no credibility whatsoever. However, the Wife's testimony was very credible.
Specifically, the Court heard testimony that the Husband had never filed a federal tax return.[1] The Husband also testified that he had nothing to do with the property at 1150 Lafayette Road, Clarksville, TN, since he quitclaimed it to his girlfriend's son. Nevertheless, Husband applied for a grading permit and his name was listed as an owner in the paperwork for the building permit on the property and also listed his address as the marital home. Husband also testified that he did not own the 1999 Avanti 3258 Cruiser, but was simply living on the boat and just paying the slip fee (with an arrangement he had with the true owner). However, the Husband had the boat listed for sale on his Facebook Account and portrayed it as his own. Further, an affidavit was filed by the previous owner of said boat which stated that the boat was sold to the Husband. Moreover, the boat's title was submitted in the (Husband's) girlfriend's name. The Husband also testified that he sold the 2014 Porsche automobile that was purchased during the marriage. Not surprisingly, it was coincidentally sold to the Husband's girlfriend.
Evidence was presented of the records of Ashland City Building and Codes in relation to the marital home located at 109 Valley View Street, Ashland City, TN. In reviewing the records as well as the testimony presented at trial, it appears that the Husband made improvements to the property without the proper permits. The Husband also used defective building materials and the home has actually been condemned by the City of Ashland City.
The Court had previously ruled in its Order from March 30, 2022, that pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36.01 and Rule 36.02, that the Request for Admissions that were served on the Husband were admitted as true and correct statements. In said Request for Admissions, the Husband admitted that he had sexual relations with [purported girlfriend]. The Husband also admitted that he owns the business known as Jomaca Customs. The Husband admitted that he purchased property at 1150 Lafayette Road, Clarksville, TN and then transferred it to Omar Salgado and
that he is the son of [purported girlfriend]. The Husband also admitted to owning a 2014 Porsche, a Bobcat Skid Steer, a Chaparral boat, Jet Ski and trailer, as well as several trailers, and an Avanti Bayliner houseboat in the admissions. The Husband also admitted to taking $70,000.00 cash from the safe at the marital home.
The Court heard from both parties as to their income for the purposes of child support and/or alimony. The Wife testified that she made approximately $1,800.00 per month cleaning homes. The Wife has filed tax returns on her income.... The Husband testified that he makes very little income. The Wife introduced as a collective exhibit the Husband's bank records (which were provided in discovery). In reviewing the bank records, the Husband consistently made significant deposits to his account. The Court finds that for several months, the Husband was depositing over $14,000.00 per month while other months deposits were much less. Based upon review of the records and the testimony of the parties, the Court finds that the Wife's income is a gross of $1,800.00 per month and the Husband's income is set at a gross of $6,000.00 per month.
The Court finds that the Wife is entitled to a Divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. The Court specifically finds that the Husband has been guilty of domestic violence and adultery. The prior Order of Protection shall remain in effect as to any contact between the parties with the exception that the Husband may contact the Wife in regard to the minor child.[2]
* * *
The Court finds that based upon the income as set out above that the Father's child support obligation shall be set at $885.00 per month not giving him any credit at this time for visitation. .Father testified that he has not paid any child support since the parties' separation. . The Court finds that pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated ยง 36-5-101(e)(1)(C) that in cases where the parents of the minor child are separated or divorced, that there is a presumption in the child support guidelines that child and medical support for the benefit of the child shall be awarded retroactively to the date of the parents['] separation. Further, Tennessee Code Annotated provides that a deviation in the child support guidelines for retroactive child support shall be granted in circumstances where the one spouse has a history of domestic violence towards the other spouse and caretaker of the child. This Court has previously held that there has been a history of domestic violence in granting an Order of Protection for the benefit of [Wife] and minor child and [its] continuation past the one year time period. Therefore, the Court finds that child support shall be set retroactively to August 17, 2020. Setting child support at $885.00 per month retroactively calculates to $30,090.00 through the end of May, 2023.
* * *
Campos v. Zeledon, M2023-01119-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. Sep 24, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: