Skip to main content

Kim Covarrubias v. Gerald Edward Baker

Tenn. Ct. App.December 11, 2017No. E2016-02316-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Frank G. Clement Jr., P.J., M.S.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This appeal arises out Husband's petition to reduce his alimony in futuro obligation and Wife's motion for criminal contempt for Husband's failure to pay his alimony obligation in full. Wife opposed the modification of alimony on two grounds: (1) the 2007 Marital Settlement Agreement was not modifiable and (2) there had been no material change in circumstances. The trial court held that the alimony in futuro provision was modifiable and, based on a finding that Husband had proven a material change in circumstances, reduced Husband's alimony obligation. The court then calculated Husband's alimony arrearage for 2015 based on his income in 2007, not on his income as stated on his W-2 for 2015, which was greater. The court also dismissed the contempt petition upon a finding that Wife failed to prove the essential elements. Wife appeals, contending the trial court erred (1) by dismissing her motion for criminal contempt (2) by finding that the trial court had the authority to modify alimony (3) by finding that a substantial and material change in circumstances warranted a modification and (4) by failing to properly calculate Husband's alimony arrearage for 2015. We have determined that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes us from reviewing the trial court's decision to dismiss the contempt petition therefore, we affirm the dismissal of the criminal contempt petition. As for Husband's petition to modify alimony in futuro, we affirm the trial court's determination that the alimony in futuro provision was modifiable however, we have determined that there is no factual basis to support a finding that Husband proved a substantial and material change in circumstances. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision to decrease Husband's alimony obligation and remand with instructions to reinstate the alimony award as stated in the final divorce decree. Because the alimony arrearage judgment was based on the reduced al

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a dispute between divorced spouses Kim Covarrubias and Gerald Edward Baker over alimony payments. Baker requested to reduce his ongoing alimony payments to his ex-wife, while Covarrubias asked the court to hold him in contempt for not paying the full amount he owed. Covarrubias argued against reducing the alimony for two reasons: she claimed their 2007 divorce agreement couldn't be changed, and that there hadn't been any significant change in circumstances that would justify lowering the payments. The court ruled that the alimony agreement could indeed be modified and found that Baker had proven there was a material change in his circumstances that justified reducing his payment obligation. **What this means for workers:** While this case deals with family law rather than employment law directly, it highlights how financial obligations can be affected by changes in employment or income. Workers going through divorce should understand that alimony agreements may be adjustable if their job situation, income, or other circumstances change significantly. If you're paying or receiving alimony and experience major employment changes, you may have options to modify these arrangements through the court system.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.