Tennessee case abstract on legal professional’s charges in post-divorce motion.

Julie (Carden) Sexton v. Jason Vincent Carden

Former Husband Should Pay Former Spouse’s Legal professional’s Charges Regardless of Some Success

The husband and spouse on this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case had been divorced in 2010, and their agreed parenting plan known as for joint custody of their two sons.

This was modified three years later when the spouse returned to courtroom requesting a change and complaining of an arrearage in baby help.  At the moment, she was named the first residential mum or dad.

In 2014, the husband’s parenting time was additional restricted and an order for cover was entered towards him.  Beginning in late 2016, he was allowed two hours of supervised parenting time.  In 2017, the courtroom put a plan in place to section out the supervision.  Throughout this time, quite a few paperwork had been filed with the trial courtroom, and the trial courtroom finally held that the spouse was the prevailing get together.  The spouse requested her legal professional’s charges, and he or she was awarded over $26,000.  Although the husband was not the prevailing get together, the husband additionally requested his legal professional’s charges, however this request was denied by Choose Ward Jeffrey Hollingsworth.   The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Courtroom.  He argued first that the trial courtroom erred in designating the spouse because the prevailing get together.  He additionally argued that the quantity of charges was inappropriate.

The appeals courtroom conceded that the husband had “some success” throughout the litigation course of.  Nonetheless, it held that this was not adequate.  The take a look at was whether or not the get together had succeeded on a major concern, and it famous that the spouse had succeeded on quite a few points.  For that cause, it held that the trial courtroom was inside its discretion find her to be the prevailing get together.

The husband subsequent argued that he was unable to pay the award.  Nonetheless, the courtroom held that incapability to pay was not a protection within the case of a kid help or baby custody case.

The spouse additionally requested her legal professional’s charges on enchantment, and after reviewing the proof, the Courtroom of Appeals held that such an award was acceptable.  It remanded the case for the decrease courtroom to find out the quantity.

For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the case and remanded to the trial courtroom.

No. E2019-01057-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9,  2020).

See unique opinion for actual language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here