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. M1999-00714-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2000

Fillmore v. Fillmore

This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant Stephen Douglas Fillmore and Appellee Karen Leigh Fillmore regarding the terms of their divorce. Mr. Fillmore argued that the trial court erred in its valuation of certain marital property, improperly awarded alimony in solido, and failed to include a pre-marital debt as marital debt. Additionally, he contended that his child support obligation was improperly calculated based on his current income. The Court of Appeals for Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the ruling of the trial court on all issues. The court upheld the valuation of Fillmore Construction, Inc., the alimony award for student loans, the classification of the pre-marital debt as separate, and the child support determination.

DivorceMarital PropertyAlimony in SolidoChild SupportSeparate DebtBusiness ValuationEarning CapacitySpousal SupportMarital AssetsPre-marital Debt
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. W2004-00796-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2004

Deborah B. Hall Byrd v. Danny K. Byrd

This case involves an appeal from a decree of legal separation, focusing on the division of marital property and debt, alimony, and attorney fees. Deborah B. Hall Byrd (Wife) appealed the Chancery Court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on the division of marital property and transitional alimony, citing the short duration of the marriage and the aim to restore parties to their pre-marital status. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding attorney fees, remanding the matter for a determination of fees to be awarded to the Wife, finding she had a need for assistance to avoid depleting her assets.

Marital Property DivisionAlimonyAttorney FeesLegal SeparationShort Duration MarriageEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentFinancial ResourcesRehabilitative Support
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

K.B.J. v. T.J.

This is a contested divorce case where the Wife appealed the trial court's decision concerning primary residential parent, allocation of marital debt, and denial of spousal support. The trial court had found the Husband guilty of inappropriate marital conduct but made him the primary residential parent and denied spousal support to the Wife, while allocating significant marital debt to her. The appellate court reversed the decision on primary residential parent status and parenting schedule, designating the Wife as the primary residential parent with final decision-making authority. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the allocation of marital debt to the Wife and the denial of spousal support, citing the Husband's financial burden and the Wife's earning capacity. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine child support based on the modified parenting schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital DebtSpousal SupportAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPrimary Residential ParentParenting TimeFinancial Responsibility
References
15
Case No. M2006-02463-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2008

Linda Mae (Edwards) Maloy v. Paul David Maloy

This is a divorce case where the husband appealed the trial court's refusal to enforce an alleged property division agreement and the inclusion of his social security disability benefits in the marital estate. Both parties also appealed the trial court's failure to divide marital debt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the social security benefits and the unenforceability of the agreement, citing inequity and duress. However, the court reversed the trial court's refusal to divide the marital debt, remanding the case for an equitable division of debt and a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

Divorce LawMarital Property DivisionEquitable DistributionSocial Security DisabilityPostnuptial AgreementsMarital Debt AllocationAttorney's FeesCoercion DefenseAppellate Civil ProcedureTrial Court Discretion
References
24
Case No. E2001-02849-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2002

Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins

This case involves an appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County concerning a divorce decree. James Franklin Hopkins challenged the Trial Court's award of alimony to Sherry Mae Hopkins and the order for marital debts to be paid from the sale of the marital residence. He also asserted Ms. Hopkins unlawfully disposed of marital assets. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified in part, reversing the alimony in futuro award and granting rehabilitative alimony for four years. The appellate court upheld the division of marital debt but found Ms. Hopkins violated a statutory injunction by selling a marital asset without consent, granting Mr. Hopkins a credit.

DivorceAlimonyMarital PropertyDebt DivisionSpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyMarital AssetsAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageFamily Law
References
6
Case No. 04-08-00936-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2010

Zulema Dick v. Jimmy Dean Dick

The case involves an appeal by Zulema Dick following the dismissal of her petition for post-divorce division of marital property and debts, and an award of attorney's and expert fees to Jimmy Dean Dick. Zulema argued the trial court improperly denied her motion for continuance, dismissed her case, and subsequently denied her motions for reinstatement and a new trial. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Zulema's motion for reinstatement, reasoning that her attorney's medical condition provided a sufficient, albeit not necessarily "good," excuse to negate conscious indifference. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, including the award of fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the division of marital property and debts.

DivorceMarital PropertyAppellate ProcedureMotion for ContinuanceCase DismissalMotion to ReinstateAttorney AbsenceAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawTexas Law
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06664
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2022

Szypula v. Szypula

This case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding the equitable distribution of marital property in a divorce action between Meredith Szypula (wife) and John Szypula (husband). The primary dispute centers on the classification of military pension credits earned by the husband prior to the marriage but subsequently "bought back" using marital funds during the marriage. Supreme Court initially classified these credits as marital property. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this determination, ruling that the nine years of pre-marriage military service credits constitute the husband's separate property. The court reasoned that these credits were earned as compensation for services rendered before the marriage. While the credits themselves were deemed separate property, the marital funds utilized for their purchase are subject to equitable distribution. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to amend the qualified domestic relations order to reflect this distinction.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertyPension CreditsMilitary PensionDivorceAppellate ReviewDomestic Relations LawBuy Back CreditsPre-Marital Assets
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bene v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In re Bene)

Ms. Bene, a 64-year-old assembly line worker facing imminent job loss, sought to discharge her $56,000 student loan debt after making minimal payments over 25 years. The court analyzed her case under the 'undue hardship' test established in In re Brunner, considering how economic terms and the William D. Ford Program's debt forgiveness options have evolved since 1987. Despite earlier life choices, such as prioritizing parental care over completing her education, the court concluded that Ms. Bene met both the Brunner test and a 'totality of circumstances' test, citing her age, lack of professional qualifications, austere lifestyle, and absence of future financial prospects. Consequently, the court ordered the discharge of her student loan debt.

Student LoansUndue HardshipBrunner TestWilliam D. Ford ProgramBankruptcy DischargeFinancial DistressElderly DebtorCaregivingEmployment PrecarityEconomic Circumstances
References
13
Case No. 04-14-00785-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Mary Ann Castro v. Manuel Castro

Maryann Castro, the appellant, files a statement in the Fourth Court of Appeals to reopen a final divorce agreement with Manuel Castro, the appellee. She alleges fraud, misrepresentation of marital home value, hidden marital assets, and undisclosed bankruptcy by Manuel Castro, leading to substantial financial hardship. Disabled and unemployed, she asserts inability to pay marital debts, including mortgage and taxes, and requests alimony from Manuel Castro, who she claims is gainfully employed and dishonest. She highlights an active workers' compensation claim and fears homelessness if the agreement is not reopened.

Divorce AppealMarital FraudAsset ConcealmentProperty OvervaluationSpousal AlimonyFinancial HardshipDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation ClaimMortgage DefaultTax Delinquency
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,905 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