Coomer denies adultery Defeated Court Clerk Lewis
Coomer's land deals while in public office made him hundreds
of thousands of dollars, yet despite monthly take-home pay of $2,100 he bounced check after
check while remaining true to his wife throughout the decade-long,
on-again off-again estrangement, records allege COOKEVILLE, Tenn. (Nov. 11, 2002) -- Anyone who wonders why public officials hate
public records laws needs look no further than Putnam County, Tennessee
Chancery Court file No. 2000-269: Patricia Marene Hall Coomer vs. Lewis Fay
Coomer. The file contains documents in the
second attempt of Patricia Coomer, an employee with the City of Cookeville,
to divorce Lewis Coomer, who held the office of Clerk of Putnam County's
circuit and general sessions courts until voters sent him packing earlier
this year. See
previous divorce complaint (8/10/92) While Ms. Coomer refrained from accusing
the defendant of adultery in the latest batch of documents, which chronicle
her attempt to wrest some of the loot from the former public official,
records obtained by The Putnam Pit show Lewis Coomer ran a
money-losing ranching business in addition to the apartment business whose
government telephone account was used to contact. The Pit has learned that as of February 5, 2002, Lewis
Coomer: §
swore his only
income was $2,100 a month, yet he had a $35,000 unsecured loan from Tennessee
Bank; §
owned a $175,000
farm with no debt; §
had an unsecured
note for $35,000 from First Tennessee Bank; §
is in good health,
but needs $50 a month for drugs and medicine; §
does not admit he
has an apartment rental business, although: ·
he had $300,000
equity in an apartment on 17th Street in Cookeville; ·
he owned outright
an apartment worth $375,000 on 3rd Street in Cookeville; ·
his advertisements
for his apartment rentals were on the Internet; Here is the list of all the Coomer divorce
documents we have obtained and have posted on The Putnam Pit, the
Internet’s most complete source of information on Cookeville and Putnam
County, Tennessee officials, current or former: Complaint
for divorce –Aug. 23, 2000 Interrogatories
propounded to the defendant – Aug. 23, 2000 Plaintiff’s
request for production of documents – Aug. 23, 2000 Waiver of
service – Aug. 24, 2000 Notice of
appearance – Sept. 6, 2000 Answer
and counter complaint – Oct. 25, 2000 First
set of Interrogatories and request for production of documents – Oct. 25,
2000 Answer
to counter complaint – Nov. 13, 2000 Order of
interchange – Nov. 20, 2000 Correspondence
01 – Nov. 22, 2000 Correspondence
02 – Dec. 1, 2000 Plaintiff’s
response to defendant’s first set of interrogatories and request for
production of documents -- December 6, 2000 Motion to compel
– Jan. 26, 2001 Order – Jan. 24, 2001 Defendant’s
response to Interrogatories propounded to the defendant – Feb. 5, 2001 Plaintiff’s
request for production of documents – April 16, 2001 Motion to continue–
April 16, 2001 Order –
April 17, 2001 Motion –
April 17, 2001 Defendant’s
response to plaintiff’s second request for production of documents – June
25, 2001 Order –
June 20, 2002 |
See Page
4, sub (j), Plaintiff's
response to defendant's first set of interrogatories and request for production
of documents