Plan Payments Split When Tenn. Couple Divorces During Chapter 13 Plan
Tennessee law case summary on bankruptcy in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.
Elizabeth LaFon Western Vinson v. James Gerald Vinson – Tennessee bankruptcy during divorce
The mother and father were married in 1997 and had two sons, born in 1998 and 2001. In 2011, the mother filed for divorce, alleging adultery. The husband filed a counterpetition but denied committing adultery. The father was a paramedic and the mother was a registered nurse. During the marriage, they had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and their indebtedness had been combined into a single monthly payment of $2240, which was paid through deductions for their paychecks. Those obligations were scheduled to continue until November 2014. In a mediated agreement, they agreed to continue those payments, and that was later ordered by the trial court. The father was ordered to pay $571 per month in child support.
The father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals on a number of issues. He first argued that the trial court erred in finding that the mediated agreement was valid and enforceable. He argued that the final ruling’s parenting plan contradicted that agreement and was inconsistent.
The Court of Appeals first noted that the parents cannot bind the court with an agreement affecting the best interest of the children. Therefore, the court is not bound to follow such an agreement. In this case, however, the Court of Appeals did not interpret the final judgment as being inconsistent in any way with the agreement. It merely ordered the parties to comply with that agreement.
The Court of Appeals also found that there was no error in the parenting plan, despite the father’s contention that the plan was not specific enough. The Court of Appeals found the plan to be reasonable, especially considering the father’s complicated work schedule.
As to the payments under the bankruptcy, the Court of Appeals first pointed out that the mediated agreement called for them to continue to split this payment, and that was exactly what was called for in the divorce decree. Therefore, there was no inconsistency between the agreement and the order, despite the father’s claim.
The father also claimed that he wanted to convert the bankruptcy to Chapter 7, and that the order prevented him from doing so. The Court of Appeals clarified that the father was not prevented from doing so, even though the trial court’s order removed any economic incentive for him to do so. Under the order, he would have then been required to continue making those payments. The Court of Appeals also noted that because of the bankruptcy filing, it was impossible to allocate specific debts to a specific spouse. Therefore, an appropriate method of dealing with the situation was to do as the trial court had done.
Subject to some modifications, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
No. W2012-01378-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC. Buy The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know, available on Amazon and Kindle. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
