Ralston v. Ralston

31 Citing cases

  1. Pallekonda v. Pallekonda

    No. W2023-00574-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    So the "complete factual background of the obligor's situation" is relevant. Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999).

  2. In re Jonathan S.

    No. M2021-00370-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022)   Cited 6 times

    As such, Mother's decision not to work does not constitute a valid reason to avoid her obligation to provide support for the Child. See Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999) (citing Garfinkle v. Garfinkle, 945 S.W.2d 744, 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)) ("[O]bligor parents will not be allowed to avoid or lessen their obligations to their children simply so that the parents can choose not to work or to work at lower-paying jobs.").

  3. Wright v. Wright

    No. W2018-02163-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Observing that a parent's "decision not to seek out-of-town employment so that he can spend more time with the child" could certainly be considered for a finding of voluntary underemployment but that it "may actually weigh in Husband's favor concerning his desire to parent the child"

    Generally, where a reduced actual income is involved, the fact patterns differ on whether the leaving of previous employment or other income producing activity was voluntary. . . .Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999). Concerning whether the parties were willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, the trial court's final decree of divorce states:

  4. Poole v. Kinslow

    No. M2018-00324-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    Considering this fact, along with the mother's role as the primary residential parent, in denying the father's request for equal parenting time

    See Brooks v. Brooks, 992 S.W.2d 403, 407 (Tenn. 1999) (holding that previous earnings were the best evidence of earning capacity); Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999) (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"). And Husband admitted that he had the option to return to his previous employment.

  5. Fichtel v. Fichtel

    No. M2018-01634-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2019)   Cited 10 times
    Considering the parties economic circumstances, status as prevailing party, and good faith in determining whether an award was appropriate under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108

    Generally, where a reduced actual income is involved, the fact patterns differ on whether the leaving of previous employment or other income producing activity was voluntary, . . .Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999). In this case, there is no real dispute that Mother is underemployed, as she left her Nashville employment earning over $800,000.00 per year for employment earning approximately $240,000.00 per year.

  6. Griffith v. Griffith

    No. M2018-01245-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019)

    However, "the 'complete factual background of the obligor's situation' is relevant." Goodrich v. Goodrich, No. M2017-00792-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 1976108, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018) (quoting Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999)). We must examine the circumstances under which Husband left his previous position in order to determine whether the move was "voluntary or involuntary."

  7. Goodrich v. Goodrich

    No. M2017-00792-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Id. So the "complete factual background of the obligor's situation" is relevant. Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999). The Guidelines include a list of nonexclusive factors that may be considered in making a determination of willful and/or voluntary underemployment or unemployment. Pertinent to this appeal, the fact finder may consider "[t]he parent's past and present employment" and "[t]he parent's education, training, and ability to work."

  8. Kanka v. Kanka

    No. M2016-01807-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Id. Thus, the "complete factual background of the obligor's situation" is relevant. Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999). The court's first consideration is whether the choice to leave the previous employment was voluntary or involuntary.

  9. In re Ava B.

    No. E2017-00440-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Where the trial court does not make a specific finding of willful and voluntary underemployment, this court may review the record and determine that issue itself, with no presumption of correctness. Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at * 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999). Mother argues that her employment decision was reasonable under the facts of this case.

  10. Thayer v. Thayer

    No. M2015-00194-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2016)   Cited 6 times

    In evaluating reasonableness, courts look at the entirety of the circumstances. Ralston v. Ralston, No. 01A01-9804-CV-00222, 1999 WL 562719, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999) ("[T]he determination of whether an obligor parent is willfully and voluntarily underemployed is one which is dependent upon the complete factual background of the obligor's situation."). Here, the trial court based its determination that Father was voluntarily underemployed on Father's voluntary decision to leave his lucrative job as a mortgage broker and accept similar employment at another company at significantly lower pay. As the court stated, "[t]his 'voluntary act' has put [Father] in a position of being able to generate far less income and claim that he does not have the ability to pay what he was once able to pay."