Blevins v. Brown

The issue in this case is whether a trial court order improperly made two alterations to a jury verdict. We find that the order did improperly alter one part of the verdict, but not the other. On March 10, 1998, Sharon Brown filed a divorce action against her husband Billy Brown. In the complaint, she also named her husband’s mother, Jean Blevins, as a defendant, claiming that Blevins held title to a house which was actually marital property subject to equitable division in the divorce action. About a year later, the trial court found that Blevins had not timely answered the complaint and it entered a default judgment against her, ruling that she held the property in trust for the benefit of Sharon and Billy Brown.

The lawsuit proceeded to a jury trial. On April 22, 1999, the jury returned its verdict, which provided that the real property in question should be sold, that the proceeds from the sale should be used to pay off the marital debts of approximately $19,000, and that after payment of such debts all the remaining proceeds from the sale of the house should be paid in a lump sum to Blevins as compensation for her management of the property while holding it for the Browns. The verdict also divided personal property from the marriage, providing, among other things, that Sharon Brown should receive a 1991 Mazda pickup truck. The trial court then entered its final judgment, granting the divorce and ordering that the money from the sale of the property be disbursed, and the personal property divided, as directed by the jury verdict.