Nelson v. Nelson

30 Citing cases

  1. Tooley v. Tooley

    No. M2017-00610-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming that the trial court implicitly found that economic rehabilitation is not feasible

    Our review of the trial court's findings of fact is de novo with a presumption that the findings are correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings of fact when it "support[s] another finding of fact with greater convincing effect."

  2. Darvarmanesh v. Gharacholou

    No. M2004-00262-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2005)   Cited 78 times

    "The trial court has broad discretion in determining the type, amount, and duration of alimony based upon the particular facts of each case." Sullivan, 107 S.W.3d at 511 (citing Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998)); see also Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Recognizing that trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether alimony is appropriate in a given case, Nelson, 106 S.W.3d at 23; Anderton, 988 S.W.2d at 682, we employ the following standard of review in evaluating such decisions:

  3. Troglen v. Troglen

    No. E2004-00912-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2005)   Cited 5 times

    As an appellate court, we are disinclined to second guess a trial court's alimony decision unless it is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to public policies reflected in the applicable statutes. Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Our role is not to fine-tune a trial court's spousal support award, Davidson v. Davidson, No. M2001-01830-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 31769205, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 829, at *12 (Tenn.Ct.App. Filed Dec. 11, 2002) no appl. perm. filed, but rather to determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and reached a decision that is not clearly unreasonable.

  4. Morrissett v. Morrissett

    No. W2003-01052-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 2004)   Cited 3 times
    Explaining that motions filed under Rule 52.02, Rule 59.02, and/or Rule 59.04 are each reviewed for an abuse of discretion

    Because this case was tried by the court sitting without a jury, the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed de novo on the record, with a presumption that those findings are correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, with no such presumption.

  5. Zandbergen v. Zandbergen

    No. M2022-00886-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    As such, we modify the trial court's award of alimony in futuro from $4,350.00 to $3,451.00 per month. See, e.g., Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (modifying the amount of alimony awarded by the trial court); Hiscock v. Hiscock, No. M2005-01489-COA-R3CV, 2006 WL 3007518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2006) (same).

  6. Jeronimus v. Jeronimus

    No. M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2016)

    Accordingly, appellate courts are generally disinclined to second-guess a trial court's spousal support decision unless it is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to public policy as reflected in applicable statutes. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d at 727 (citing Kinard, 956 S.W.2d at 234); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Our role is to determine whether the award reflects a proper application of the relevant legal principles and is not clearly unreasonable.

  7. Colston v. Colston

    No. M2010-02094-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2011)

    Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Under an abuse of discretion standard, a trial court's ruling "will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made. ."

  8. Bailey v. Price

    No. M2009-01787-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    While these allegations and arguments may have supported a different result from the one reached by the trial court, the question for us is not whether the court could have reached a different result, but whether it abused its discretion in ruling as it did. It is well-established that income derived from overtime may be considered in alimony determinations, Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Conversely, a reduction in overtime can be the basis for a reduction in alimony.

  9. Hubbard v. Hubbard

    No. M2009-00780-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2010)

    Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Our role is to determine whether the award reflects a proper application of the relevant legal principles and that it is not clearly unreasonable.

  10. Hill v. Hill

    No. M2007-00049-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001); Nelson v. Nelson, 106 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Our role is to determine whether the award reflects a proper application of the relevant legal principles and that it is not clearly unreasonable.