Skip to main content

Kellye And Reid v. Mitchell Sherman Reid

Tenn. Ct. App.August 15, 2018No. M2017-00119-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

In this post-divorce proceeding the self-employed father of the parties' two children sought a reduction in his child support obligation on the ground that his income had substantially decreased. The mother of the children opposed the petition, asserting that Father was attempting to hide income by referring income-producing business to his brother, who was also self- employed in the same trade Mother also sought an increase in support due to Father's increase in income and modification of the parenting plan. The trial court held that Father was voluntarily underemployed and that the proof of his income was not credible concluding that neither party had carried their burden of proof the court denied both petitions insofar as each sought modification of the child support obligation. The court denied Mother's proposed modification of the parenting plan and both parties' request for an award of counsel fees for services rendered in the proceeding. Both parties appeal. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the denial of Father's petition to modify his support obligation and the order denying his counsel fees we reverse the trial court's holding that Father was underemployed and remand the case for a determination of whether income should be imputed to Father and, if so, whether there has been a significant variance such as to justify an increase in his support obligation we vacate the order denying Mother's petition to modify the parenting plan and remand the case for the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 52.01 and, in its discretion, for further consideration we vacate the order denying Mother attorney's fees.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved a divorced couple disputing child support payments. The father, who was self-employed, asked the court to reduce his child support because he claimed his income had dropped significantly. However, the mother argued that he was deliberately hiding his true income by sending business to his brother, who worked in the same field. She also requested that child support be increased, claiming the father was actually earning more money than he reported. **What the court decided:** The court sent the case back to a lower court for further review ("remanded"). This means the court didn't make a final decision about whether the father was hiding income or whether child support should be changed. Instead, they determined that more investigation was needed to get to the truth about the father's actual earnings. **Why this matters for workers:** This case highlights an important issue for self-employed workers going through divorce or child support cases. Courts take seriously any attempts to hide income, especially when it involves shifting business to family members. Self-employed individuals should be prepared to provide detailed financial records and be transparent about their earnings, as courts will scrutinize unusual business arrangements that might be used to avoid financial obligations.

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.