K.B.J. v. T.J.
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 474
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Contested divorce with two minor children; Husband filed first and was found guilty of inappropriate marital conduct; Wife was awarded the divorce.
- Trial court designated Husband as the primary residential parent with final authority on health/educational decisions and ordered a 50/50 parenting time schedule, denying spousal support and allocating about $32,350 of marital debt to Wife.
- Wife, previously the primary caregiver, sought relocation to Clarksville for employment/education prospects, but the court stayed in Morristown where the children had strong ties.
- Husband’s finances showed income around $3,969.33 monthly with expenses exceeding income; Wife earned about $43,000 annually and faced unemployment benefits at trial.
- Court noted Husband’s porn/infidelity conduct and his denial of wrongdoing; Wife argued these factors should weight custody decisions more heavily.
- The appellate court reversed in part: Wife is to be the primary residential parent with final say on health/education if the parties cannot agree, the parenting schedule is modified to reduce the children’s long Morristown–Knoxville commute, and the case is remanded to revisit child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody: primary residential parent and 50/50 schedule | Wife asserts trial court overemphasized marital home and ignored other factors; seeks Wife as primary residential parent with shared decision-making. | Husband argues stability of home and joint/50/50 plan favored him as primary caregiver with final authority. | Abused discretion; Wife designated primary residential parent; final say on education/health with unresolved agreement; schedule modified. |
| Marital debt allocation | Wife challenges equal division and argues debt should be allocated differently given bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy burdens. | Husband contends equitable division in light of assets and debts, with some debt allocated to Wife. | Not reversible; district court's debt allocation affirmed for $18,700 to Wife and related distribution sustained. |
| Spousal support | Wife contends trial court failed to consider § 36-5-121(i) factors and requested support. | Husband argues both parties’ earnings and needs do not justify support; court has discretion to deny. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Relocation and best interests | Wife proposed relocation to Clarksville; trial court did not allow a relocation ruling and should weigh factors favoring move. | Husband argued against relocation, citing disruption to children. | Court retained Morristown stay based on best interests; subsequent remand for child support and revised schedule to accommodate work constraints. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408 (Tenn. 1995) (spousal support factors focus on need and ability to pay)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (custody discretion; abuse of discretion standard)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (emphasizes evaluating factors beyond mere earnings)
- Miller v. Miller, 336 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (conduct and denial of wrongdoing can reflect on fitness as a parent)