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. W2001-01350-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2002

William Perry v. Ricki Perry

This case involves an appeal from a Chancery Court decision concerning the continuation of rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees following a divorce. The trial court initially awarded temporary rehabilitative alimony to Ms. Perry and later extended it for three additional years, also ordering Mr. Perry to pay Ms. Perry's attorney's fees. Mr. Perry appealed, arguing that Ms. Perry failed to demonstrate a substantial and material change in circumstances required for modification. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances was not necessary for the modification of a temporary, open-ended alimony award. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

DivorceAlimonyRehabilitative AlimonyAttorney's FeesSpousal SupportMarital DissolutionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionTemporary AlimonyChange in Circumstances
References
11
Case No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1996

Pamela Lemoine Ford v. Michael Burke Ford

This is a post-divorce proceeding where Pamela Ford (wife) appealed the trial court's decision regarding child support and alimony modification. The wife argued that the husband's trust principal withdrawals should be considered gross income and that the court erred in not imputing income to him due to voluntary unemployment. She also sought an increase in alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of alimony increase, but reversed the trial court's holding on trust principal as gross income and the failure to impute income for voluntary unemployment, remanding the case for further proceedings. Costs on appeal were taxed to the husband, who was also ordered to pay half of the wife's attorney's fees for the appeal.

Post-divorceChild Support ModificationAlimony ModificationTrust PrincipalGross IncomeVoluntary UnemploymentImputed IncomeAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution AgreementTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 03-05-00558-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

Randy F. McCollough v. Cherie McCollough

This case concerns Randy McCollough's appeal to modify alimony payments he was required to make to his ex-wife, Cherie McCollough, under an agreement incident to their divorce. Randy relied on provisions in Chapter 8, Subchapter B of the Texas Family Code, arguing that Cherie had entered an informal marriage or that there was a material and substantial change of circumstances. Cherie obtained a partial summary judgment, contending that their contractual alimony agreement was governed by contract law and not the Family Code, and thus was not subject to modification under Chapter 8. The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the contractual alimony obligation was governed by contract law, not Chapter 8 of the Family Code, as the agreement itself did not reference Chapter 8 and its terms would have violated Chapter 8's limitations.

alimony modificationcontractual alimonyspousal maintenanceTexas Family Code Chapter 8divorce decreesummary judgmentcontract lawappellate reviewinformal marriagecohabitation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Perry

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the standard for modifying a temporary, open-ended award of rehabilitative alimony. The Court held that a substantial and material change in circumstances must be demonstrated to extend or modify such an award, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court clarified that all rehabilitative alimony awards are inherently temporary and subject to modification under this standard. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination consistent with this new standard.

Alimony ModificationRehabilitative AlimonySpousal SupportChange in CircumstancesDivorce LawTennessee Supreme CourtAppellate Standard of ReviewFamily LawTemporary AlimonyRemand
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 520 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