Skip to main content

Leann Barnes v. David Ellett Barnes

Tenn. Ct. App.June 12, 2019No. M2018-01539-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Carma D. McGee
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This is the third appeal to address the issue of alimony between these parties. Pursuant to our decision in the first appeal, Husband was required to pay Wife $6,000 per month in alimony in futuro. In this proceeding, Husband sought termination or reduction of his alimony obligation due to a disability that rendered him unable to work. After Husband filed his petition, he unilaterally reduced the amount of alimony that he paid during the proceeding. Following a hearing, the trial court found that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred due to Husband's disability, and the court concluded that a reduction of the alimony obligation was warranted. The trial court reduced the alimony in futuro award from $6,000 per month to $3,900 per month. However, the trial court found Husband in contempt for willfully failing to pay alimony in accordance with the existing order during this proceeding. The trial court awarded Wife a judgment for the arrearage but calculated it based on the reduced rate of $3,900 per month. Wife appeals, asserting that Husband maintains the ability to pay alimony at the previous level of $6,000 per month despite his disability. She also requests recalculation of the arrearage and seeks an award of attorney's fees. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and reinstate the alimony award of $6,000 per month. The arrearage should also be recalculated based on the original award of $6,000 per month plus post-judgment interest. We further conclude that Wife is entitled to an award of attorney's fees on appeal and remand for the trial court to determine an appropriate award. The trial court should reconsider Wife's request for attorney's fees incurred in the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved a dispute over alimony payments between divorced spouses Leann Barnes and David Ellett Barnes. David was required to pay Leann $6,000 per month in ongoing alimony. David claimed he had become disabled and couldn't work anymore, so he asked the court to either stop or reduce his alimony payments. While his request was pending, David decided on his own to reduce how much alimony he was paying Leann. **What the court decided:** The Tennessee Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. The excerpt doesn't provide the complete ruling, but it indicates the trial court made findings after a hearing about David's situation and his decision to unilaterally reduce payments. **Why this matters for workers:** While this is primarily a family law case about alimony, it demonstrates an important principle for all workers: you generally cannot unilaterally change court-ordered financial obligations, even if your work situation changes due to disability. If you become unable to work due to disability, you must follow proper legal procedures to modify financial obligations rather than simply reducing payments on your own. This protects both parties' rights and ensures fair legal process.

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.