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. W2016-01665-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2018

In Re: Samuel P.

This is an appeal regarding a long-standing custody and child support dispute between J. Vincent P. (Father) and Cynthia Ann P. (Mother) concerning their son, Samuel P., heard in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. The juvenile court found the Father in criminal contempt, modified the parenting plan to reduce his time and grant Mother sole decision-making, imputed income for child support, and awarded attorney's fees to the Mother. The Father appealed these rulings, questioning the criminal contempt finding, the material change of circumstances, the imputation of income, mother's income deductions, attorney's fees, and the non-disqualification of Mother's counsel. The appellate court vacated the trial court's imputation of income and child support awards, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the Father's income. All other rulings, including the criminal contempt finding and the modification of the parenting plan, were affirmed by the appellate court.

Parental RightsChild CustodyChild SupportContempt of CourtParenting Plan ModificationImputed IncomeAttorney's FeesJuvenile LawAppellate ReviewDiscovery Abuse
References
61
Case No. W2022-00334-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2024

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Kathy Garbus v. Lazaro Ramos

This appeal concerns a father's challenge to a trial court's decision to impute income for retroactive child support. Lazaro Ramos, the father, argued that the juvenile court failed to consider factors from the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines when imputing his income. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision, finding that the trial court did consider the relevant factors, especially after a remand for explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law. The father had failed to provide reliable income evidence, leading the court to impute income, and the case was affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

child support disputeincome imputationretroactive child supportjuvenile court appealTennessee Child Support Guidelinesabuse of discretiondefault judgmentevidence reliabilityunderemploymentparental rights
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07472 [176 AD3d 1374]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of HALL v. DAVIS

William Hall (father) initiated a child support proceeding against Sarah Davis (mother) after their child began living with him. The Support Magistrate imputed income to the mother and ordered her to pay child support. The mother appealed, arguing that Family Court erred in upholding the Support Magistrate's income imputation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that while imputing income was appropriate, the specific amount imputed was not supported by the record, considering the mother's lack of current licensure and her full-time work on a farm. The court remitted the matter for a redetermination of the mother's support obligation.

Child supportImputed incomeFamily CourtAppellate DivisionParental obligationIncome calculationSupport MagistrateDiscretionFarming incomeSocial worker
References
6
Case No. E2016-02535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Robert Harvey Santee v. Stacy Lynn Santee

This appeal addresses divorce and child support matters between Robert Harvey Santee (Husband) and Stacy Lynn Santee (Wife). The Trial Court granted Husband a divorce due to Wife's inappropriate marital conduct, divided assets, awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony, and imputed income for child support. Wife appealed, challenging the debt allocation, the type and amount of alimony, the imputed income, and the denial of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decisions on debt allocation, alimony, and attorney's fees. However, it found error in imputing income to Wife for child support while also enabling her full-time education, vacating that portion and remanding for recalculation.

DivorceChild SupportAlimonyMarital Property DivisionImputed IncomeSpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationEquitable Distribution
References
28
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wade v. Wade

This appeal arises from a modification of child support, which increased the Appellant's monthly support obligation and awarded the Appellee one-half of all unreimbursed medical and dental expenses while the Appellant serves in the military. The primary legal issue concerns the trial court's calculation of child support, specifically how to account for the non-taxable portions of the Appellant's military income in accordance with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The court determined that non-taxable military pay and allowances constitute 'fringe benefits' and their value must be imputed as income to accurately reflect the obligor's true net income. The decision affirmed the modified child support award for the year 2001, but reversed and remanded the child support award for 2002 for recalculation consistent with the method of imputing income outlined in the opinion. Additionally, the court affirmed the order requiring the Appellant to pay half of unreimbursed medical and dental expenses during his military service, asserting the court's ongoing statutory authority to modify child support provisions.

Child SupportModificationMilitary IncomeNon-taxable AllowancesTennessee Child Support GuidelinesImputed IncomeUnreimbursed Medical ExpensesMarital Dissolution AgreementAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. E2010-01561-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2011

Robin Campbell Armbrister v. Edwin C. Armbrister, Jr.

This appellate case addresses disputes between Robin Campbell Armbrister (Mother) and Edwin C. Armbrister, Jr. (Father) concerning child support income imputation and attorney fees for an order of protection. The trial court determined Father was voluntarily underemployed, imputing an income of $66,000 annually for child support, a finding affirmed by the appellate court. However, the trial court's failure to award attorney fees to Mother for the order of protection was reversed, citing mandatory statutory language. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for the assessment of attorney fees and costs against Father in connection with the order of protection.

Child SupportVoluntary UnderemploymentImputed IncomeAttorney FeesOrder of ProtectionParental IncomeDivorceChild Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
22
Case No. W2022-00239-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Alicia Janelle Collins v. Vikramjeet Sethi Singh

The State of Tennessee sought child support for a minor child from Vikramjeet Sethi Singh. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County, finding no reliable evidence of Father’s income, imputed the statutory median gross income. Father appealed, challenging the child support amount and the reliability finding. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred by not adequately assessing Father's income potential separately from his actual income's reliability. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the child support award and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing a proper analysis of Father's income potential or willful underemployment based on specific statutory criteria.

Child Support DisputeIncome Imputation ErrorWillful Underemployment AnalysisParental Earning CapacityAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court AppealTennessee Child Support GuidelinesWitness CredibilityFinancial Evidence ReliabilityRetroactive Child Support
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 797 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