State v. Kaatrude

276 Citing cases

  1. Smallman v. Smallman

    689 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    [29] We begin our analysis by noting that "[t]he goal of the statutes and regulations governing child support is to assure that children receive support reasonably consistent with their parent or parents’ financial resources." State ex rel. Vaughn v.Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248-49 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Shell v. Law, No. 03A01-9608-CV-00251, 1997 WL 119581, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 1997)).

  2. Bastone v. Bastone

    No. E2020-00711-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Appellate courts do not have the latitude to substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn. 2001), and reasonable minds can disagree about its correctness.

  3. Pierce v. Pierce

    No. W2017-02447-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn.

  4. Yocum v. Yocum

    No. E2015-00086-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that refusal to grant husband's request to testify at divorce hearing by telephone was not an abuse of discretion

    Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn.

  5. State v. Lockett

    No. M2001-00809-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2002)   Cited 5 times

    An award for retroactive child support is generally considered to have two purposes: to benefit the parties' child and to reimburse the custodial parent for contributing more than her fair share to the child's support. See State ex rel Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000). The referee stated that in light of the support Ms. Stewart received from her mother and from AFDC, there was no proof that she contributed more than her fair share to the child.

  6. Smith v. Smith

    No. M2000-01094-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 2, 2001)   Cited 11 times
    In Smith, we determined on the first appeal that the trial court had improperly applied the Child Support Guidelines and remanded for recalculation.

    Accordingly, relevant statutes and regulations governing child support are intended "to assure that children receive support reasonably consistent with their parent or parents' financial resources." State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248-49 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000). When, as in this case, a marriage is dissolved, courts are authorized by statute to provide for the future support of minor children by fixing a definite amount to be paid on a specified regular basis.

  7. Buntin v. Buntin

    673 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 10 times

    Appellate courts do not have the latitude to substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. Henry v. Goins , 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003) ; State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude , 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan , 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn. 2001), and reasonable minds can disagree about its correctness.

  8. Hill v. Hill

    No. E2019-02226-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Appellate courts do not have the latitude to substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn. 2001), and reasonable minds can disagree about its correctness.

  9. State ex rel. Lytle v. Webb

    No. M2017-01137-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 21, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Appellate courts do not have the latitude to substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn. 2001), and reasonable minds can disagree about its correctness.

  10. Hensley v. Hensley

    No. E2017-00354-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Dismissing the appeal, sua sponte, upon determining that the trial court's judgment was not final

    Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, a trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld as long as it is not clearly unreasonable, Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn.