Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
November 9, 2010 Session MARY ELIZABETH SCHWARTZ BROCK v. JEFFERY BROCK
Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 26484 Lawrence H. Puckett, Judge

No. E2009-01128-COA-R3-CV-FILED-AUGUST 12, 2011

In this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial court's award of spousal support and attorney's fees to the wife. The husband claims his inability to pay outweighs the wife's need for spousal support. After reviewing the record, we find the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision to award spousal support and attorney's fees to the wife. Therefore, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded J OHN W. M CC LARTY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS, P.J., and C HARLES D. S USANO, J R., J., joined. Barrett T. Painter, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jeffery Brock. D. Mitchell Bryant, Athens, Tennessee, for the appellee, Mary Elizabeth Schwartz Brock. OPINION I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts relevant to the issues of this appeal are concise. Mary Schwartz Brock ("Wife") and Jeffrey Brock ("Husband") were married in August 1996. After approximately nine years of marriage, Wife filed a Complaint for Divorce in December 2005. The parties have two daughters, and Husband's daughter from a previous marriage lived with the parties during their marriage.

In this case, several hearings occurred to determine a wide array of issues ranging from the division of marital property to child support.1 The trial court entered an order declaring the parties divorced on June 5, 2007. On December 18, 2008, the trial court held a hearing to resolve the pending issues regarding spousal support, child support, and attorney's fees. After considering the evidence, the trial court ordered Husband to pay the following: $1,112 in child support per month (beginning September 1, 2009); $300 in spousal support per month for 60 months; and $8,500 as alimony in solido for Wife's attorney's fees and costs. Thereafter, Husband filed a notice of appeal, challenging the trial court's decision to award spousal support and attorney's fees to Wife.2 II. ISSUES Husband raises the following issues on appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred in awarding spousal support to Wife despite his inability to pay. 2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Wife. As an additional issue, Wife submits that this court should award her attorney's fees for the costs associated with defending this appeal. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Although several hearings have occurred in this case, no transcripts of those hearings were provided in the record. Husband filed a Statement of the Evidence for the last hearing in this case. While this matter was pending on appeal, Wife filed a Motion to Compel Payment of Alimony Pending Appeal, which the trial court heard on October 26, 2009. After the hearing, the trial court held: The Court having also reviewed all of the financial information in this cause finds that Mother [Wife] has a financial need in this cause, which has been demonstrated to the Court, but Father [Husband] does not have the present ability to pay that need in full. The Court further finds that in regards to the Petition filed regarding alimony, that this is an appropriate case for Jeffery Brock [Husband] to pay the alimony as previously ordered, and the same shall not be stayed by this Court.
2

1

-2-

On appeal, we review the decision of a trial court sitting without a jury de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the trial court's findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). IV. DISCUSSION A. Spousal Support Husband challenges the trial court's decision to award spousal support to Wife. He claims that he does not have the means to continue paying alimony to Wife. After paying alimony and child support to Wife along with his other financial obligations, Husband asserts that he has a deficit of $1,104.00 per month. He argues that the trial court erred in applying the statutory factors of Tenn. Code Ann.

Download brockopn.pdf

Tennessee Law