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

Ellis v. Ellis

This is an appeal by Mary Helen Marshall Ellis, the wife, from a Shelby County Circuit Court decree granting a divorce to Henry C. Ellis, the husband, on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife raised numerous assignments of error, including the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the husband's income, the inadmissibility of certain expert and investigative reports, and the disallowance of psychiatrist Dr. Mark Ivie's testimony due to patient privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the income evidence exclusion was harmless error, and upholding the psychiatrist-patient privilege even when a spouse was present during consultations. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the finding that the wife was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment and that the defense of recrimination was properly considered.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentSpousal SupportChild CustodyEvidentiary RulingsPsychiatrist-Patient PrivilegeMarital PrivilegeRecrimination DefenseHarmless ErrorAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonsalves v. Roberts

This case originated from a petition to modify a final divorce decree, seeking an increase in child support. The primary legal question addressed was whether permanent partial disability benefits from workers' compensation should be considered as income for calculating child support obligations. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that only temporary total disability payments, received in lieu of wages, should be included, excluding permanent disability settlements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that under T.C.A. § 50-6-223, courts possess the discretion to assign portions of periodic or lump sum workers' compensation awards to fulfill both present and prospective child support obligations, as well as to satisfy judgments for arrearages. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Child SupportWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityIncome for Child SupportDivorce ModificationArrearagesStatutory InterpretationTennessee Workers' Compensation LawJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Treadway v. Shanks

Kenda Carolyn Treadway appealed two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) issued to enforce the division of George Payton Shanks's retirement benefits from their 1981 divorce decree. The QDROs, entered in May and June 1998, limited Treadway's share to benefits accrued before the divorce, while she contended the original decree granted her 25% of all retirement benefits, including post-divorce accruals. The court examined the language of the 1981 divorce decree, concluding it unambiguously awarded Treadway 25% of Shanks's total retirement benefit. Consequently, the QDROs that restricted her interest altered the substantive property division made in the divorce decree, which is not permitted. The court reversed the trial court's judgments and remanded the case for the entry of revised QDROs that conform to the original 1981 divorce decree.

DivorceQualified Domestic Relations OrderRetirement BenefitsProperty DivisionCommunity PropertyAppellate JurisdictionRes JudicataStatutory InterpretationPension PlanDefined Benefit Plan
References
40
Case No. 13-01-00628-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Bryan D. Bachus v. Sharla D. Bachus

This case concerns an appeal from a divorce decree based on a settlement agreement between Bryan D. Bachus (Appellant) and Sharla D. Bachus (Appellee). Appellant contested the decree's validity and the denial of his motion for new trial, citing newly discovered evidence of appellee's alleged drug abuse, withdrawal of consent to the agreement, lack of co-counsel's authority, and discrepancies between the settlement terms and the final decree. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, ruling that the trial court rendered judgment on the settlement agreement prior to the attempted revocation of consent. However, the appellate court found that the divorce decree's provisions for child possession and visitation deviated from the parties' settlement agreement. Consequently, the court reversed that specific portion of the decree and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to align the possession order with the original settlement agreement, while affirming all other aspects of the divorce decree.

DivorceChild CustodySettlement AgreementMotion for New TrialNewly Discovered EvidenceConsent JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawChild Support
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milligan v. Niebuhr

Gene Milligan appealed a trial court's ruling that an easement he held across land owned by his ex-spouse, Marilisa Niebuhr, was terminated by their 1995 divorce decree. Milligan had purchased an 8.98-acre tract ("Peach Orchard") with an easement across Lot 13 for river access. Niebuhr later purchased Lot 13, and they married and divorced. The divorce decree awarded Lot 13 to Niebuhr and the Peach Orchard to Milligan, explicitly divesting each of all rights, title, and interest in the property awarded to the other. Milligan continued using the easement, leading to a dispute. The trial court found the easement terminated, and the appellate court affirmed, interpreting the agreed divorce decree as a contract that unambiguously divested Milligan of any interest in Lot 13, including the easement, as an easement is an interest in the servient estate.

EasementDivorce DecreeContract InterpretationProperty DivisionReal Estate LawAppellate ReviewServient EstateDominant EstateAbandonment of EasementInjunctive Relief
References
7
Case No. 03-98-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1999

Gene Milligan v. Marilisa Niebuhr

Dr. Gene Milligan appealed a trial court's ruling concerning his easement rights over land owned by his former spouse, Marilisa Niebuhr. The easement, granting access to the San Marcos River for recreational purposes, was across Lot 13, which Niebuhr received in their 1995 divorce decree. Milligan was awarded the dominant estate, the Peach Orchard. The trial court determined the divorce decree, which divested Milligan of all interest in Lot 13, terminated the easement. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, interpreting the agreed divorce decree as an unambiguous contract that clearly expressed the parties' intent to divest Milligan of any rights in Lot 13.

Easement TerminationDivorce SettlementContract InterpretationReal Property LawProperty RightsTexas Court of AppealsAppellate ProcedureAgreed DecreeProperty DivisionEasement Abandonment
References
7
Case No. 07-12-0034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2012

in the Matter of the Marriage of Donald Anthony Godfrey and Cherlyn Gail Godfrey and in the Interest of K.R.G. and D.A.G., Children

Cherlyn Gail Godfrey appealed a divorce decree from the 355th District Court of Hood County, challenging the mandated child support of $554.32 and an arrearage of $3,880.24 to her ex-husband, Donald Anthony Godfrey. She argued that these sums did not align with statutory guidelines and lacked evidentiary support. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo reviewed the evidence presented at the final divorce hearing, noting the absence of detailed financial information for Cherlyn. The court found no evidence in the record to support the awarded child support amount, as even presumed income levels would result in a lower statutory payment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the portions of the divorce decree concerning the monthly child support and arrearage, remanding those issues to the trial court, while affirming the rest of the decree.

DivorceChild SupportChild Support GuidelinesAbuse of DiscretionEvidentiary SupportNet ResourcesStatutory GuidelinesRetroactive SupportAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rucker v. Rucker

This case concerns an appeal from a turnover order compelling Raymond Russell Rucker to share a portion of his monthly disability payments with his ex-wife, Barbara Ann Rucker. Their divorce decree, finalized in 1983, stipulated that Barbara was entitled to 50% of Raymond's retirement and/or pension plan from the Houston Police Department. Years after the divorce, Raymond became permanently disabled in the line of duty and began receiving a disability pension allowance. He contended that these disability payments were his separate property, comparable to worker's compensation benefits received post-divorce, and were distinct from the retirement benefits partitioned in their divorce. Furthermore, he argued the payments were statutorily exempt from disbursement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's turnover order, ruling that the disability payments were a form of retirement benefits covered by the divorce decree and were divisible. The court also determined that Raymond failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claim for statutory exemption.

Disability BenefitsRetirement BenefitsCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyDivorce DecreeTurnover OrderExemption StatutePension FundWorker's Compensation DistinctionAppellate Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1969

In re the Estate of Joseph

In this appeal, the petitioner challenged a Surrogate's Court decree from Queens County, dated June 16, 1969, which denied her application for letters of administration after a nonjury trial. The decree was affirmed, with the court ruling that the petitioner, having appeared in an Alabama divorce action, could not relitigate the foreign court's jurisdiction over the decedent's residency. The dissenting opinion argued that the Alabama divorce, obtained in 1959, was a nullity under Alabama law due to the decedent's lack of domicile, and therefore should not be afforded full faith and credit. It highlighted that the petitioner received no benefits from the divorce, was unaware of it until the decedent's death in 1968, and the couple continued a marital relationship, suggesting the marriage remained valid. The dissent concluded there was no reason to deny the wife her rights to administration.

Letters of AdministrationAlabama DivorceForeign Divorce ValidityFull Faith and CreditDomicileJurisdictionIntestacySpousal RightsEquitable EstoppelLaches
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arena v. Arena

This is an appeal brought by Javier Arena following a judgment in favor of his former spouse, Ellen Francis Arena. The dispute originated from a divorce proceeding where Ellen sought to enforce and clarify the Decree of Divorce concerning her share of Javier's retirement plans and damages for delayed payments. Javier argued that the enforcement action was preempted by ERISA and that distribution was prohibited by federal law. The court determined that the Decree of Divorce constituted a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), thereby exempting it from ERISA preemption. It also found Javier liable in his individual capacity for the delay in transferring assets. The judgment was affirmed with modifications to ensure consistency with the findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding Ellen Arena $49,537.78 plus interest, and setting aside attorney's fees awarded for appeal.

DivorceERISAQDRORetirement BenefitsProperty DivisionAttorney's FeesConversionFederal PreemptionSpousal RightsFiduciary Duty
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 531 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