Ford v. Ford

16 Citing cases

  1. State v. Godsey

    No. M1998-00958-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, evidence of the obligor parent's intent to avoid support obligations is not required in order to substitute potential income for actual income. See Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996); Anderson v. Anderson, No. 01A01-9704-CH-00186, 1998 WL 44947 at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 6, 1998) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) (citing Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258 at *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 1996) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)). If an obligor is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based upon a determination of potential income, as evidenced by educational level and/or previous work experience.

  2. Ralston v. Ralston

    Appeal No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999)   Cited 31 times
    Noting that the obligor's previous income is an "accurate measure of potential income" especially "when an obligor parent has voluntarily discontinued his prior employment or other income-producing activity, because, without the conscious decision to cease the activity, the actual income would have continued"

    There is no requirement that there exist evidence of the obligor parent's intent to avoid support obligations in order to substitute potential income for actual income. Garfinkle v. Garfinkle, 945 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tenn.App. 1996); Anderson v. Anderson, No. 01A01-9704-CH-00186, 1998 WL 44947 at *4 (Tenn.App. Feb. 6, 1998) (no Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed) (citing Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258 at *8 (Tenn.App. Oct. 3, 1996) (no Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed)). II.

  3. Anderson v. Anderson

    Appeal No. 01A01-9704-CH-00186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 1998)

    Where an obligor is "willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed," however, rather than awarding child support based on an obligor's actual income, trial courts are required to award child support "based on a determination of [the obligor's] potential income, as evidenced by [his or her] educational level and/or previous work experience." Tenn. Comp. R. Regs. tit. X, ch. 1240-2-4-.03(3)(d) (amended 1994); see also Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, at *3 (Tenn.App. Oct. 3, 1996); Renick v. Renick, No. 01A01-9007-CV-00263, 1991 WL 99514, at *6 (Tenn.App. June 12, 1991), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 4, 1991).

  4. Stack v. Stack

    No. M2014-02439-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming an upward deviation noting Father's high standard of living and determining that the deviation was reasonably necessary."

    Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04-.04(3)(a)(1); see Moore v. Moore, 254 S.W.3d 357, 360 (Tenn. 2007) (holding the broad definition of gross income includes a one-time capital gain); Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 1996) (holding a parent's withdrawal of trust principal should be included in broad definition of "gross income"). The definition specifically includes trust income.

  5. Heaton v. Heaton

    No. E2013-01985-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that wife failed to show the existence of a mistake warranting reformation of the subject deed where "there was no allegation or evidence of fraud or mutual mistake" at trial

    Additionally, withdrawals of trust principal have also been determined to constitute income for child support purposes. See Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258 at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 1996)("Ford I"). We conclude that the trial court's determination of Wife's income at $33,360 per year lacks a proper evidentiary foundation and fails to consider the totality of Wife's financial resources.

  6. Rogin v. Rogin

    No. W2012-01983-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2013)   Cited 13 times
    Vacating and remanding when court failed to explain the basis for its calculation of income for child support purposes

    The determination of whether an obligor is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed is dependent upon the factual background of the case. . . . Willful and voluntary unemployment or underemployment does not occur solely in cases where the obligor becomes unemployed or underemployed with the intent to avoid child support obligations. See Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Ford v.. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 1996)). Cases differ as to whether an obligor is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

  7. Wright v. Quillen

    83 S.W.3d 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 40 times
    Noting that spouse's choice to save rather than spend is not an appropriate consideration with regard to modification of alimony

    However, the increase in an alimony obligor's income or worth is not, in and of itself, sufficient to warrant an increase in alimony to the recipient. Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 1996) ( no perm. app. filed). An award of alimony in futuro is not a guarantee that the recipient spouse will forever be able to enjoy a lifestyle equal to that of the obligor spouse.

  8. Anness v. Chapdelaine

    No. M2000-01792-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 14, 2001)   Cited 5 times

    Willful and voluntary unemployment or underemployment does not occur solely in cases where the obligor becomes unemployed or underemployed with the intent to avoid child support obligations. See Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996) (citing Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 1996)). Cases differ as to whether an obligor is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

  9. Eatherly v. Eatherly

    No. M2000-00886-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 4, 2001)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that the burden of proof to establish willful and voluntary underemployment is on the custodial spouse

    If the evidence demonstrates that the obligor parent seeking the modification is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, then the court is required to use that parent's potential income, rather than actual income, in setting the child support obligation. It is well settled that a court finding an obligor parent willfully and voluntarily underemployed must make a finding as to the parent's potential earnings, taking into consideration the obligor's educational level and/or previous work experience. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d at 748; Herrera, 944 S.W.2d at 387; Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258 at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 1996) (no Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed) (remanded to the trial court for a determination of the husband's potential income, specifically directing the court to consider his previous work experience and his educational background because the trial court had made no finding regarding his potential income since it had not found the husband to be willfully underemployed). A finding of potential income must have an evidentiary basis.Allen v. Allen, No. M1999-00748-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1483389 at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 10, 2000) (no Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed).

  10. Scott v. Scott

    No. M1999-00322-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2001)   Cited 6 times

    1999); Garfinkle v. Garfinkle, 945 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996). Accordingly, the courts must scrutinize the reasons for the obligor parent's career decision, McGaffic v. McGaffic, No. 03A01-9707-CV-00286, 1997 WL 772899, *4-5 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 9, 1997) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed); Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, *3-4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 1996) (No Tenn. R. App. 11 application filed), and the reasonableness of his or her ultimate career choice. Narus v. Narus, No. 03A01-9804-CV-00126, 1998 WL 959839, * 2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 31, 1998) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed).