noting that requests for attorney’s fees should be considered only after the court has resolved issues concerning the parties’ property and support
How later courts described this case
- noting that requests for attorney’s fees should be considered only after the court has resolved issues concerning the parties’ property and support
- “The statutory preference for rehabilitative support does not entirely displace other forms of spousal support when the facts warrant long term or more open-ended support.”
- noting that consideration of spousal support should follow decisions related to how the parties‟ property is divided
- “The dissolution of a marriage requires the courts to engage in the orderly disentanglement of the parties’ personal and financial affairs. Many of the issues that must be addressed during this process are interrelated, and the disposition of earlier issues directly influence the decision on later issues.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
July 1, 1998
WILLIAM MICHAEL ANDERTON, ) Cecil W. Crowson
) Appellate Court Clerk
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Williamson Chancery
) No. 22482
VS. )
) Appeal No.
EVELYN ADELE MORGAN ANDERTON, ) 01A01-9701-CH-00013
)
Defendant/Appellee. )
OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Mr. Anderton has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing and a Tenn.
R. App. P. 14 motion to consider post-judgment facts with regard to his actual gross
income in 1996 and 1997. Ms. Anderton has filed a response to these motions. We
have determined that Mr. Anderton’s motions should be granted.
Our June 5, 1998 opinion addressed issues concerning Mr. Anderton’s child
support and spousal support obligations. We determined that the trial court’s failure
to follow the child support guidelines resulted in Mr. Anderton paying child support
in amounts far less than what the guidelines required. Accordingly, we remanded the
case to the trial court for the second time to set Mr. Anderton’s child support in
accordance with the guidelines and to determine the amount of and make
arrangements for payment of the child support arrearage.
On the issue of spousal support, we determined that the trial court had
overstated Mr. Anderton’s ability to pay rehabilitative spousal support in light of the
correct amount of his child support obligation and his actual income. We also
determined that Ms. Anderton should receive rehabilitative rather than long-term
spousal support. Thus, we found that Ms. Anderton was entitled to rehabilitative
spousal support for ten years beginning from the date of the original 1995 divorce
decree and that the amount of this support beginning in October 1996 should be
$3,000 per month.
In his petition for rehearing, Mr. Anderton requests this court to reconsider its
disposition of the spousal support issue and (1) to decrease the term of Ms.
Anderton’s rehabilitative support, (2) to decrease the amount of his spousal support
to $2,000 per month, and (3) to order that this decreased amount of child support
relate back to the date of the original divorce. In support of his petition for rehearing,
Mr. Anderton has filed copies of his 1996 and 1997 W-2 Wage and Tax Statements
showing that his actual net monthly income in 1996 was approximately $6,200 and
that his actual net monthly income in 1997 was approximately $8,000. Our original
decision to set Mr. Anderton’s spousal support at $3,000 per month was based on
evidence that his net earning potential was $9,150 per month. In light of the post-
judgment facts concerning his actual income for 1996 and 1997, we have determined
that the amount of Mr. Anderton’s spousal support obligation beginning in October
1996 should be reduced from $3,000 as reflected in our original opinion to $2,000.
We affirm all other portions of our earlier opinion relating to Mr. Anderton’s
child support and spousal support obligations. We remand the case to enable the trial
court to calculate the correct amount of Mr. Anderton’s child support obligation since
June 1995, to determine the amount of arrearage, if any, of Mr. Anderton’s child
support and spousal support obligations, and to establish appropriate arrangements
for paying down the child support arrearage in a way that reimburses Ms. Anderton
for her expenditures for the children or otherwise benefits the children.
__________________________________
HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE
MIDDLE SECTION
__________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
__________________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
-2-