Dad Kept Drugs and Needles Not Entitled to Additional Time

Tennessee case summary on divorce.

Lu Huang Sullivan v. Eric Jason Sullivan

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were married in 2005 and had two children.  The wife worked as a mortgage banker, and the husband was a nurse.  In 2017, the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.  She later added a claim of adultery.

The case had a five day trial before Judge James G. Martin, III, who issued an 80 page final order in July 2018.  Among other things, it named the wife the primary residential parent and ordered the husband to pay child support.  It also divided the marital assets, granting the wife a larger portion.  Finally, it denied the husband’s late request to amend his petition to assert a counterclaim and request alimony.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first turned to the parenting plan, and noted that the trial court is always in the best position to weigh credibility.  The husband argued that the trial court had made its ruling at least in part to punish him for dishonesty earlier in the proceedings.  But the appeals court reviewed the relevant statutory factors and concluded that the trial court had made a thorough and unbiased assessment of those factors.  The appeals court quoted those findings extensively, including a finding that the husband had kept illegal drugs and needles.

After reviewing all of the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s resolution of the parenting issues and affirmed.

On the issue of child support, the husband argued that the trial court had miscalculated work-related childcare amounts and education expenses.  But again, after reviewing the evidence heard by the trial court, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion.

The husband’s arguments relating to property division were not fully considered by the appeals court, since the husband’s brief did not fully comply with court rules regarding inclusion of relevant financial data.  Therefore, the property division was also affirmed.

Finally, the appeals court examined whether the husband should have been allowed to add a counterclaim for alimony.  But the appeals court once again agreed that the lower court had correctly denied the last-minute motion to amend.

After addressing attorney fees, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case.

No. M2018-01776-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.