Kim Covarrubias v. Gerald Edward Baker
E2016-02316-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Divorce decree (2007) incorporated Marital Settlement Agreement: Husband to pay Wife 50% of his gross income as alimony in futuro "until either party is deceased." A separate Order for Alimony in Futuro reiterated payment timing and permitted modification by Wife for "unforeseen circumstances."
- Husband petitioned in May 2015 to modify or terminate alimony, asserting financial hardship, stagnant salary (claimed $120,000), medical issues, loss of the marital residence, and inability to maintain his standard of living; Wife counterclaimed for 2015 arrearage and moved for criminal contempt alleging nondisclosure and underpayment.
- At the July 2016 hearing, the trial court found the alimony provision merged into the divorce decree and was modifiable, found a substantial and material change in circumstances, and reduced monthly alimony to $3,500 effective January 1, 2016.
- The trial court calculated a 2015 arrearage using Husband’s 2007 salary figure rather than his 2015 gross earnings, but credited certain overpayments and entered a net judgment of $3,440 for Wife.
- The court dismissed Wife’s criminal contempt motion for insufficient proof. Wife appealed the contempt dismissal, the court’s authority to modify, the finding of changed circumstances, and the arrearage calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Covarrubias) | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Dismissal of criminal contempt | Court erred; Husband was not forthright and failed to pay as ordered | Insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt; double jeopardy bars appellate review | Dismissal affirmed — appellate review precluded by Double Jeopardy (acquittal) |
| 2. Authority to modify alimony | Order for Alimony in Futuro did not merge and thus was contractual/nonmodifiable | Marital Settlement Agreement merged into decree; alimony provisions are statutory judgments and modifiable | Held modifiable — marital settlement merged into decree; court had authority to modify |
| 3. Whether substantial and material change existed | Wife argued no qualifying change post-divorce; Husband’s circumstances didn’t show reduced ability to pay | Husband claimed injury, loss of home, and hardship; sought modification | Reversed — trial court lacked factual basis to find substantial and material change; modification vacated |
| 4. Calculation of 2015 arrearage | Arrearage should be based on Husband’s actual 2015 gross earnings | Trial court used 2007 salary to compute arrearage | Reversed — remanded to compute arrearage using Husband’s 2015 gross earnings |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428 (Tenn. 2013) (contempt proceedings may have civil and criminal characteristics)
- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2000) (double jeopardy applies to criminal contempt proceedings)
- Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001) (standards for modifying alimony and treatment of marital settlement agreements)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (discretionary review standard for spousal support decisions)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and appellate review of discretionary decisions)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. 2006) (de novo review for contract interpretation issues)
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1977) (acquittal precludes appellate review under double jeopardy principles)
- United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (U.S. 1896) (historic rule that an acquittal cannot be reviewed without violating double jeopardy)