Skip to main content

Andrea Renea Hopwood v. Corey Daniel Hopwood

Tenn. Ct. App.May 14, 2019No. M2018-00446-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This is another appeal arising from the divorce of Corey Daniel Hopwood ("Father") and Andrea Renea Hopwood ("Mother"). In a previous opinion, we remanded for a new determination concerning the duration and amount of an award to Mother of rehabilitative alimony and the calculation of an award to Mother of attorney's fees attributable only to child custody and child support issues. The Chancery Court for Williamson County ("the Remand Court") addressed these two issues on remand. Father appeals to this Court, arguing in large part that he simply cannot afford to pay what the Remand Court ordered him to pay. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the Remand Court's rulings with respect to rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees attributable to child support and child custody. However, we modify the Remand Court's judgment to reduce the amount of life insurance Father is required to carry to secure his alimony obligation in light of the reduction of his alimony obligation. We further modify the Remand Court's judgment to eliminate $750 in attorney's fees assessed against Father for filing an improperly-styled motion when he was acting pro se. The judgment of the Remand Court is affirmed as modified.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involves a divorced couple, Andrea and Corey Hopwood, who were fighting over financial support after their divorce. Andrea was seeking rehabilitative alimony (temporary financial support to help her get back on her feet and find work) and wanted Corey to pay her attorney's fees related to child custody and support disputes. A lower court had previously made decisions about these issues, but an appeals court sent the case back for reconsideration of how long the alimony should last, how much it should be, and how to calculate the attorney's fees. **What the court decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court again for further review. The excerpt doesn't provide the final outcome, but shows this was an ongoing dispute about the financial arrangements between the former spouses. **Why this matters for workers:** This case highlights how divorcing spouses may be entitled to temporary financial support to help them re-enter the workforce or gain job skills after a marriage ends. Rehabilitative alimony can provide crucial breathing room for people (often women) who left their careers to care for family and need time to rebuild their earning capacity.

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.