Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Duggan v. Duggan

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

January 17, 2018

JEFFREY BRYAN DUGGAN
v.
MICHEL LEDENISE DUGGAN

          Assigned on Briefs December 4, 2017

         Appeal from the Chancery Court for Tipton County No. 25871 William C. Cole, Chancellor

         Wife challenges the trial court's correction of the final divorce decree pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 by correcting the type of alimony awarded and adding an end date for the payment of alimony. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

          Vicki L. Green, Millington, Tennessee, for the appellant, Michelle Denise Duggan.

          Autumn Blaise Chastain, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jeffrey Bryan Duggan.

          Andy D. Bennett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Charles D. Susano, Jr., and Kenny W. Armstrong, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE

         Michelle Denise Duggan ("Wife") filed a complaint for divorce against Jeffrey Bryan Duggan ("Husband") on March 5, 2008. A final hearing was held on October 14, 2010, and the trial court entered a final decree on June 30, 2011. The final decree states, in pertinent part, as follows:

4. It further appearing to the Court that the Plaintiff has been a homemaker and is currently in school with an anticipated date of graduation being in August, 2011, and it is further anticipated that the Plaintiff will finish all her prerequisites and will at that point in time be qualified to teach school.
5. It appearing to the Court that the Plaintiff is economically disadvantaged as compared to the Defendant; that there is a need for alimony and an ability to pay.
6. It further appearing to the Court that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff a total monthly sum of $2, 300.00, of which $854.00 is child support and the remaining amount shall be deemed rehabilitative alimony.

         In July 2013, Wife filed a petition for civil contempt and to modify the parenting plan and child support. As a result of this petition, the trial court entered an order on March 5, 2014, providing, inter alia, that "[e]xcept as expressly modified by the terms of this Order, all terms of the . . . June 30, 2011 Final Decree of Divorce shall remain in full force and effect."

         In April 2016, Husband filed a petition to modify child support based upon the parties' older child reaching the age of majority. Wife admitted that the child had reached majority but denied that Husband was entitled to a reduction in child support. The matter was heard on June 27, 2016, and, on August ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.