CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jan S. v. Leonard S.

This case concerns an ex-wife's motion for an upward modification of her $100 weekly lifetime alimony, established in a 1974 divorce decree, from her wealthy ex-husband. Despite suffering from mental illness, poverty, and homelessness, a Special Referee recommended denying her request. The court, presided over by Justice Matthew F. Cooper, confirmed the Referee's report, finding no substantial or unforeseen change in circumstances. The court ruled that her status as a "public charge" and the effects of inflation were not new developments justifying an increase, emphasizing that the ex-husband is not solely responsible for her continued difficulties. The ex-wife's motion for increased alimony and attorney's fees was denied, with the original alimony amount maintained.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportUpward ModificationChange in CircumstancesSpecial Referee ReportPublic ChargeMental IllnessHomelessnessInflation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCollough v. McCollough

Randy McCollough appealed a partial summary judgment granted to his ex-wife, Cherie McCollough, regarding the modification of alimony payments. Randy sought to modify his contractual alimony obligations, based on an alleged informal marriage by Cherie, by invoking provisions of Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, which governs spousal maintenance. Cherie argued that their agreement incident to divorce, which established the alimony, was a contract governed by contract law and not subject to modification under Chapter 8. The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the contractual alimony agreement between Randy and Cherie was governed by contract law and not the termination and modification provisions of Chapter 8 of the Family Code. The court emphasized the historical distinction between court-ordered alimony and contractual alimony in Texas law and found that the parties' agreement intended to create a contractual obligation outside of Chapter 8's strict limitations.

Alimony ModificationContractual AlimonySpousal MaintenanceTexas Family Code Chapter 8Summary Judgment AppealContract LawDivorce AgreementStatutory InterpretationInformal MarriagePost-Divorce Support
References
41
Case No. E2004-00912-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

Stephanie Ann Troglen v. Vincent Lamar Troglen

This appeal in a divorce case from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County addressed challenges to child support and alimony. Vincent Lamar Troglen appealed the trial court's calculation of his child support obligation and its award of transitional alimony to Stephanie Ann Troglen. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's child support amount of $755 per month. The court also affirmed the alimony award of $400 per month for five years, but modified its classification from transitional alimony to rehabilitative alimony, in line with Ms. Troglen's stated goal of furthering her education to enhance her earning capacity.

DivorceChild SupportAlimonySpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyTransitional AlimonyDisability BenefitsSocial Security BenefitsVeteran's BenefitsGross Income Calculation
References
24
Case No. 01-A-01-9804-CH-00198, Williamson Chancery No. 23395
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1999

Sturdivant v. Sturdivant

This is an appeal from a divorce decree where the primary issue was the trial court's decision to grant permanent alimony instead of rehabilitative alimony. The appellant husband challenged the award, while the appellee wife sought attorney fees for the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of permanent alimony, acknowledging the wife's debilitating health condition (Crohn's Disease) and limited earning capacity, which made rehabilitation unfeasible. However, the court vacated the amount of alimony, finding the husband's ability to pay at the time of the decree was insufficient due to a significant reduction in his income following a plane crash and job loss. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the alimony amount, allowing the trial court to evaluate the husband's current financial circumstances.

Divorce DecreeAlimony AwardPermanent AlimonyRehabilitative AlimonyChild SupportAppellate ReviewRemandFinancial AbilityIncome FluctuationMedical Condition
References
11
Case No. E2010-01255-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Carol Denice Pettijohn v. Patrick Carl Pettijohn

This is an appeal from a divorce case where the Husband challenged the trial court's division of marital property and alimony awards. The Wife, who was economically disadvantaged and had health issues, was granted alimony in solido (Husband's share of the marital home) and alimony in futuro. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the property division equitable and the alimony awards appropriate given the parties' economic circumstances, health, and contributions to the marriage, consistent with relevant Tennessee statutes and case law.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAlimony in FuturoEconomic DisadvantageEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionHealth ConditionsChild Support
References
24
Case No. W2017-01556-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Sallie Lunn Tarver v. John Taylor Tarver

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding involving Sallie Lunn Tarver (Wife) and John Kirk Tarver (Husband), with Husband's father, John Taylor Tarver (Grandfather), also named due to jointly held assets. The trial court determined Husband's one-half interest in the Shelby Drive property was marital property, acquired as an incentive for his return to work, and ordered its equitable division. The court imputed income to both spouses for alimony and child support, awarding Wife alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and child support, plus a portion of her attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on property classification, valuation, income imputation, and alimony, and denied both parties' requests for appellate attorney's fees.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAlimonyChild SupportImputed IncomeJoint TenancySeparate PropertyProperty ValuationAttorney's Fees
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Umstot v. Umstot

Edward Shirer Umstot (Husband) appealed a trial court's divorce order, challenging the awards of divorce, alimony in solido, and child support to Mary Ann Umstot (Wife). The appellate court reviewed five issues: alimony in solido for a marital residence interest, attorney's fees, classification of increased retirement plan value, deviation from child support guidelines for educational expenses, and the sole award of divorce to Wife. The court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding retirement benefits and child support for educational expenses. However, it reversed the award of attorney's fees as alimony and modified the alimony in solido related to the marital residence, requiring Wife to reimburse Husband $30,000 for his equity, with the payment method to be determined on remand.

DivorceAlimony In SolidoChild SupportMarital Property DivisionRetirement BenefitsSeparate PropertyAttorney's FeesExtraordinary Educational ExpensesInappropriate Marital ConductEquitable Division
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bilyeu v. Bilyeu

In this divorce action, Husband Glenn Bilyeu appealed the Chancery Court's decision on three main issues: the denial of alimony, the denial of Rule 60 post-judgment relief, and the classification of his workers' compensation benefits as marital property. Husband, who suffered from occupational-induced asthma and received a lump sum workers' compensation award of $141,642.10, argued for alimony due to disability and contended his workers' compensation should be separate property. The Chancery Court denied alimony, finding Husband capable of other employment, and classified the entire workers' compensation award as marital property. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court's decision in all respects, concluding that Husband failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the lower court's findings regarding alimony, property classification, or his Rule 60 motion.

Divorce LawAlimony DenialMarital Asset DivisionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational DiseasePost-Judgment ReliefAppellate AffirmationProperty ClassificationSpousal Support FactorsEquitable Distribution Principles
References
25
Case No. 14-12-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Miguel Angel Pappolla v. Marcia Juliet Simovich

Miguel Angel Pappolla appealed a trial court's wage withholding order for contractual alimony, which was part of a divorce settlement with Marcia Julieta Simovich. Pappolla failed to make payments, prompting Simovich to seek enforcement through wage withholding. Pappolla argued that contractual alimony is not subject to wage withholding under Texas Family Code, section 8.101, and that the relevant section violates the Texas Constitution. The appellate court reviewed legal precedent uniformly rejecting income withholding for purely contractual alimony. The court concluded that income withholding for contractual alimony is only permissible under section 8.101 if it meets the requirements for spousal maintenance, which was not established in this case. The court also identified constitutional problems with the appellee's interpretation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and vacated the wage withholding.

alimonywage withholdingcontractual alimonyspousal maintenanceTexas Family Codedivorce settlementappealappellate courtlegal interpretationconstitutional law
References
10
Case No. W2012-00509-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2013

Susan Crosby Wilkinson v. Bradley Webb Wilkinson

This post-divorce case involves a dispute over transitional alimony payments outlined in a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) between Susan Crosby Wilkinson (Wife) and Bradley Webb Wilkinson (Husband). The MDA stipulated that alimony would "self-terminate" upon certain conditions, including cohabitation. Believing his former wife was cohabitating, Husband ceased alimony payments without court intervention, leading Wife to file a petition for civil contempt and seek alimony arrears and attorney's fees. The trial court, while not finding Husband in contempt, awarded Wife the requested arrears and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that a contempt finding was not a prerequisite for enforcing court orders and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees limited to the successful portions of Wife's claim. The case was remanded for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

alimonydivorcemarital dissolution agreementcohabitationcivil contemptalimony arrearsattorney's feeslachesappellate reviewabuse of discretion
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 85 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational