In Re Jaiden C.W. and Caiden J.W
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 270
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Second appeal in a Tennessee juvenile case about Jaiden C.W. and Caiden J.W. child support arrears.
- Past order (Aug. 18, 2008) set Father’s temporary support at $329.56/week; Mother imputed income of $29,300.
- Jaiden I (2011) vacated the arrearage calculation but left unresolved issues and remanded for reconsideration.
- Court on remand limited to Father’s income per Jaiden I; trial court interpreted law of the case to restrict review of other variables.
- November–December 2011 hearing and 2012 orders attempted to modify multiple variables; appellate and trial court disputes followed.
- Court of Appeals ultimately vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court misinterpret the law of the case on remand? | Father’s income only; court limited review improperly. | Court should consider all changes in circumstances beyond income. | Court misinterpreted law of the case; broader review allowed. |
| May the trial court reconsider variables other than income on remand? | Variables limited by Jaiden I; no broader review. | Court should account for actual circumstances beyond income. | Yes; court must review all relevant variables to reflect actual circumstances. |
| Whether the law of the case precludes revisiting certain issues (fees, prior imputations)? | Jaiden I foreclosed reconsideration of those issues. | Law of the case allows limited review but not re-litigation of settled items. | Jaiden I foreclosed only specific issues; other variables may be revisited. |
| Should mother be awarded appellate attorney’s fees for defending this appeal? | Mother incurred fees; appellate relief warranted. | Fees should be considered with discretion and equity. | Appellate fees awarded to Mother; remanded to determine reasonable amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. Casals, 315 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (fairness depends on accurate income determination)
- Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine stated and exceptions described)
- Memphis Publ'g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303 (Tenn. 1998) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained and limits noted)
- Richardson v. Spanos, 189 S.W.3d 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court discretion in determining support obligations)
- Ladd by Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd, 939 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (issues litigated in appellate context and finality considerations)