Skip to main content

Broderick D. v. Carmen v. Jessica Ann Murray

Tenn. Ct. App.September 25, 2019No. M2018-00146-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
trial verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

In this post-divorce dispute, Father petitioned to modify custody, and Mother filed a counter-petition to modify child support. At trial, both parents agreed to specific modifications to the parenting plan and to set child support according to the Child Support Guidelines. But they could not agree on a location for exchanging the children. After hearing limited testimony from the parents, the court chose an exchange location, set child support, and approved the agreed parenting plan. Unhappy with aspects of the new plan, Father filed a motion to alter or amend or for a new trial. The court denied Father's motion but granted Mother's motion to recalculate child support to reflect the parents' actual parenting time. Because the court's order approving the modified plan does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 and the record lacks a sufficient basis to support a best interest determination, we vacate the modification of the parenting plan and remand for the court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on whether modification of the parenting plan is in the children's best interest and enter an order compliant with Rule 52.01. In all other respects, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

This case appears to involve a family law dispute rather than employment law, despite the categorization. The case centered on a post-divorce disagreement between two parents, Broderick D. and Jessica Ann Murray, over child custody and support arrangements. **What happened:** After their divorce, the father wanted to change the existing custody arrangement, while the mother sought to modify child support payments. While both parents agreed on most aspects of a new parenting plan and child support calculations, they couldn't agree on where to exchange their children during custody transitions. **What the court decided:** The trial court heard testimony from both parents and made decisions on the exchange location, set the child support amount according to state guidelines, and approved the parenting plan. However, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings (remanded it). **Why this matters for workers:** This case doesn't appear to have direct implications for workplace rights or employment law, as it deals with family court matters rather than employer-employee relationships. Workers looking for employment law guidance should focus on cases that specifically address workplace issues like wages, discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination.

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.