In the case of Trigg v Trigg, (No. E2014-00860-COA-R3-CV. Jan 5, 2015), the court finds that Husband was not under duress in signing a contract due to the fact that Wife used dismissal of Order of Protection violations as leverage. Further, the Court of Appeals found Husband’s appeal frivolous and awarded Wife fees expended in

In Clark v. Clark (No. M2013-02632-COA-R3-CV, Dec. 30, 2014), the Court of Appeals sends a trial court’s decision back to the issuing judge for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Facts In this case, he parties divorced in 2012 and in December of that year, Mother received 2 DUIs. Father then petitioned for

In the matter of Farley v. Farley, (No. M2014-00814-COA-R3-CV– February 2, 2015), Husband appeals the court’s judgment granting Wife a divorce while Husband was incarcerated on the grounds that he was not given fair opportunity to participate in the hearing or process. Facts Wife filed a petition for divorce in April of 2013, citing irreconcilable

In the case of Hughes v. Hughes, No. M2013-01558-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2014), the Court of Appeals had to decide on co-parenting in a case involving mental instability by one parent and violation of a court order by the other. Facts Husband and Wife separated in 2011, with Wife filing a complaint for

In the case of Teven A., No. M2013-02519-COA-R3-JV, (Tenn. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2014), Father appeals the Juvenile Court on issues of child support. Son was born to Mother and Father in 2005. Mother and Father were not married. In November of 2005, a parenting schedule was set by the Juvenile Court. Father was granted

Alimony is a blanket word used to cover many types of post-divorce spousal support. In Tennessee, there are rehabilitative alimony, alimony in futuro (periodic alimony), transitional alimony, and alimony in solido (lump sum alimony). The definitions of these types of alimony in layman’s terms are as follows: Rehabilitative alimony- post-divorce support designed to financially support

In the case of Huddleston v. Huddleston, No. M2012-00851-COA-3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App July 30, 2013), a case out of Putnam County Chancery Court, we learn that an increase in value of separate property during a marriage, if due to market factors only, will not justify dividing that increase between the spouses upon a divorce. Facts:

Many people believe that once they divorce a spouse that their dealings with them are over. However, when children are involved this is rarely the case. Post-divorce custody issues come up all too often, and there are many complex legal issues involved. One of these types of issues is the relocation of a parent. Tenn.

In the case of Cantrell v. Cantrell, No. M2012-01847-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2013),we learn that one party’s failure to timely pay a property settlement does not relieve the other party’s child support obligation. Facts: The parties divorced in 2008. In 2012, Wife filed a Petition for Contempt based upon Husband’s failure to comply