APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a domestic relations case with an unusual twist. On May 3, 1994, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Chester County seeking a divorce from defendant on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. At the same time, plaintiff filed a marital dissolution agreement (“agreement”) executed by the parties on May 2, 1994. The agreement provided that the parties would have joint custody of their two minor children, then ages 13 and 15, with the children residing with plaintiff. No child support was to be paid by either party. In addition, the agreement did not make any allowances for alimony and purported to divide the real and personal property between the parties. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time the parties executed the agreement, but defendant was not. Shortly thereafter, defendant employed counsel and on June 3, 1994, filed a motion to set aside the agreement. In her motion defendant contended that she was forced to sign the agreement under duress and fear of bodily harm. She also contended that the agreement did not adequately provide for the care and maintenance of the parties’ minor children or make an equitable settlement of the 2 parties’ property as required by T.C.A. § 36-4-103(b) (1991). Defendant’s motion asked the court to set the agreement aside and allow the parties to proceed with the divorce as if the agreement had never been executed.

I respectfully dissent.

The crime committed by the appellant, Danny R. Morris, was despicable. I am sure that the jury, like myself, was enraged as the evidence unfolded. This atrocious crime was committed in the jury’s home county by two inmates who escaped from a prison in an adjoining county. Morris and Barrett were much younger than the victim. They feigned illness and acted as if one of them needed assistance. When the elderly victim stopped to lend assistance, Morris and Barrett took advantage of the victim’s act of kindness. Nevertheless, we as citizens must not lose sight of the fact that ours is a Nation of laws. These laws govern the conduct of every citizen. As this Court said in Hodges v. State, 491 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972), cert. denied (Tenn. 1973): “[O]dious individuals are not governed by one law and the remaining citizens by another; all are protected by the same general law.”