Skip to main content

Maria Kalis Buchanan v. Rodney M. Buchanan

Tenn. Ct. App.September 26, 2018No. E2017-02364-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

In this divorce action, the trial court entered a "Judgment and Parenting Plan" on July 10, 2017, which addressed, inter alia, issues regarding division of the parties' assets and debts, co-parenting time with the parties' minor children, child support, and alimony. Within thirty days of entry of the judgment, the parties filed competing motions, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59, seeking amendment of the July 10, 2017 judgment. The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the Rule 59 motions on August 1, 2017 issued an oral ruling and directed the mother's counsel to prepare an order. On August 7, 2017, the father filed a petition seeking to modify the parties' permanent parenting plan in order to reflect that one of the children had recently been spending minimal time with the mother. Subsequently, on September 11, 2017, the father filed a motion seeking recusal of the trial court judge, asserting that the judge had exhibited bias against the father or his counsel by the judge's statements and actions during the August 1, 2017 hearing. On November 6, 2017, the trial court entered an order disposing of the Rule 59 motions. Later that same day, the trial court entered a separate order granting the recusal motion. The mother filed an appeal from the trial court's order concerning the Rule 59 motions. On appeal, the father filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and a motion seeking this Court's consideration of certain post-judgment facts. We grant the father's motion to consider post-judgment facts and deny his motion to dismiss the mother's appeal. Discerning no error in the trial court's distribution of marital assets and allocation of debts, we affirm such adjudications in their entirety. We vacate, however, the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony and remand the spousal support issue to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We grant the mother's request for an award of attorney's fees on appeal, remanding tha

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a divorced couple, Maria and Rodney Buchanan, who disagreed about their divorce settlement. In July 2017, a trial court made decisions about how to divide their property and debts, child custody arrangements, child support, and alimony payments. After the court issued its judgment, both parties filed motions within 30 days asking the court to change parts of the decision under Tennessee court rules. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. The ruling doesn't appear to involve traditional employment law issues, despite being categorized as such. This seems to be a family law divorce case that may have been misclassified or involved some employment-related assets or income disputes between the former spouses. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case has limited direct impact on typical workplace rights since it's primarily a divorce proceeding. However, it could be relevant for workers going through divorce who need to understand how employment benefits, retirement accounts, or business ownership might be divided. Workers should know that employment-related assets earned during marriage are typically subject to division in divorce proceedings, potentially affecting their financial security.

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.