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

Smith v. Smith

This case involves an appeal concerning child support arrearages following a divorce between Evelyn Smith (plaintiff) and Clarence Smith (defendant). The trial court initially increased child support but dismissed the arrearage claim. The Court of Appeals, after a rehearing, reversed and awarded a judgment for the arrearage, citing the defendant's failure to file a written denial. The Supreme Court, however, found that the trial judge had accepted the defendant's oral answer and that the plaintiff had waived the objection to the lack of a written answer by not raising it at trial. Acknowledging the equitable nature of the dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for a new trial on the child support arrearage issue, requiring both parties to amend their pleadings.

Child Support ArrearageDivorce LawProcedural LawAppellate ProcedureWaiver of DefensesOral AnswerNew TrialEquitable ProceedingsContempt of CourtRemand for Merits
References
6
Case No. E2013-01731-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2014

In Re Jordan H.

This child support enforcement action involved an appeal from a Juvenile Court decision. The trial court granted an arrearage award of $16,753.49 against the father and ordered him to pay his entire lump-sum federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment towards the arrearage. The father appealed, arguing that SSI benefits are exempt from attachment for child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the arrearage amount but reversed the portion of the judgment attaching the father’s SSI benefits, citing well-settled Tennessee law and federal statutes. The case was remanded for the removal of the SSI attachment.

Child Support ArrearageSSI BenefitsAttachment of BenefitsFederal Law ExemptionJuvenile Court AppealStatutory InterpretationTennessee Court of AppealsParental ObligationsSupplemental Security IncomeExemption from Garnishment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of M.C.R.

This case involves an appeal by the Attorney General challenging a district court's allocation of prejudgment interest on child support arrearages owed by Lisa Harris to Michael Riou. Initially, a child support master awarded the arrearages but split the accrued interest equally between Harris and Riou, seeking an equitable resolution. The district court adopted this ruling. The appellate court, finding the Attorney General had standing due to its role as a Title IV-D agency and an assignment of rights, determined that the trial court lacked the discretion to modify or reduce statutory prejudgment interest on child support arrearages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation to include all accrued interest.

child supportprejudgment interestchild support arrearagesstandingFamily Codeappellate reviewjudicial discretionequityTexas lawTitle IV-D services
References
28
Case No. E2001-02081-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2002

State ex Rel. Dorothy Phillips v. James Phillips

This post-divorce case addresses child support arrearage and the validity of a divorce judgment. James Daniel Phillips (Father) appealed a trial court's refusal to reduce child support arrearages despite discovering he was not the biological father of one child, and its refusal to invalidate a 1990 divorce judgment he hadn't signed while pro se. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that Tennessee law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101) explicitly prohibits retrospective modification of child support arrearages. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that the divorce judgment was not void and that Father's challenge, filed ten years after the judgment, was not within a reasonable time, upholding the trial court's exercise of discretion.

Child SupportDivorce LawPaternity DisputeChild Support ArrearageJudgment ValidityRule 60.02 MotionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive Modification ProhibitionAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion Standard
References
8
Case No. No. 05-03-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2005

In Re EAC

This case involves a limited appeal by Lorrie Lou McDonald against Glenn Coterill concerning a child support order. McDonald and Coterill divorced in 2001, and issues related to the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) were severed and heard later, with the order signed on January 16, 2003. The trial court ordered McDonald to pay "child support arrearage" of $6,119.16 to Coterill, with interest, and allowed an offset against a promissory note Coterill owed McDonald. McDonald appealed, arguing the trial court erred in ordering arrearage without a prior obligation and that the offset was an impermissible modification of the divorce decree. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law, which characterized the payment as "lump sum child support" rather than arrearage. The appellate court concluded that the separately-filed findings of fact controlled over the judgment and modified the order to reflect a lump sum child support award. The court affirmed the trial court's order as modified, dismissing McDonald's second issue regarding the offset as not preserved for appeal.

Child SupportFamily LawDivorceSAPCRAppellate ProcedureFindings of FactConclusions of LawAbuse of DiscretionPromissory NoteOffset
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2002

In the Interest of T.L.K.

Anthony Kalenkosky appealed a trial court order enforcing his child support obligation and an arrearage judgment. He raised four issues concerning the exclusion of evidence, the dormancy of the 1985 arrearage judgment, the reasonableness of attorney's fees, and a constitutional challenge to payment record validity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings on spoliation and the application of limitations to child support actions brought by the Office of the Attorney General. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees due to insufficient evidence regarding their reasonableness and dismissed the contempt challenge for lack of jurisdiction. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Child SupportArrearagesEnforcementSpoliationDormant JudgmentsStatute of LimitationsAttorney's FeesContemptAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.C.

This is an appeal concerning a child support order against Lorrie Lou McDonald in favor of Glenn Coterill, stemming from a divorce and a subsequent suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). McDonald challenged the trial court's order of 'child support arrearage' and its offset against a promissory note. The appellate court clarified that the trial court's separately filed findings of fact, which characterized the amount as 'lump sum child support', controlled over the judgment's use of 'arrearage'. Consequently, the court modified the trial court's order to reflect a lump sum child support award. McDonald's second issue regarding the impermissibility of the offset of child support was not preserved for appeal. The judgment was modified and, as modified, affirmed.

Child SupportAppealDivorce DecreeLump Sum Child SupportChild Support ArrearageFindings of FactConclusions of LawAbuse of DiscretionFamily CodeOffset
References
25
Case No. 04-01-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2002

In Re TLK

This case involves an appeal by Anthony Kalenkosky against an order enforcing his child support obligation. Kalenkosky raised four issues on appeal, challenging the exclusion of evidence of non-payment, the inclusion of a dormant 1985 arrearage judgment, the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees, and the constitutionality of the presumption of validity of child support payments. The Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees, finding insufficient evidence to prove their reasonableness. However, the court affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment, ruling against Kalenkosky on the spoliation presumptions and the applicability of the statute of limitations to the child support arrearage judgment sought by the Office of the Attorney General. The fourth issue regarding the presumption of validity was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Child SupportEnforcementAppealAttorney's FeesSpoliation of EvidenceDormant JudgmentStatute of LimitationsOffice of the Attorney GeneralConstitutional RightsContempt
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Ramon

Roberto A. Ramon, the relator, sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging a contempt order for failing to pay child support to his ex-wife, Jo Ann Cantu. The trial court had ordered him confined for six months and until he paid $22,338.00 in arrearages. Ramon contended his inability to pay rendered the indefinite confinement void. The appellate court distinguished between criminal (punitive) and civil (coercive) contempt. It affirmed the six-month punitive confinement, finding sufficient evidence of Ramon's past ability to pay child support. However, the court found the civil contempt provision unenforceable, concluding Ramon demonstrated a present inability to pay the arrearage. Consequently, Ramon was remanded to serve only the balance of the six-month criminal contempt sentence.

Habeas CorpusChild SupportContempt of CourtInability to PayCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptDivorce DecreeArrearageTexas Family CodeConfinement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Starck v. Nelson

Raymond Starck appealed a child support judgment that reduced his obligations for a year, automatically increased support, and ordered monthly arrearage payments. The appellate court considered whether the trial court erred in considering Starck's current wife's income, deviating from child support guidelines without necessary findings, and making findings on his net resources and intentional underemployment without sufficient evidence. The court found that considering the new spouse's income indirectly violated the Family Code and that the findings regarding net resources and intentional underemployment were not supported by evidence. The automatic increase in child support was also found to be an abuse of discretion. The judgment was reformed to delete the automatic increase, the arrearage payments portion was reversed and remanded for further findings, and the judgment was affirmed as modified.

Child Support ModificationChild Support ArrearagesIntentional UnderemploymentNet Resources CalculationFamily Code InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionAutomatic Child Support IncreaseAppellate ReviewTexas Family LawMarital Income Consideration
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 32 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