Mom Entitled to Attorney Fees After Winning on Appeal
Supreme Court of Tennessee case summary on attorney’s fees in post-divorce enforcement dispute.
Elizabeth Eberbach v. Christopher Eberbach
In 2015, the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard the appeal brought by the father in this divorce case. In a post-trial proceeding, the trial court had awarded the mother a portion of the children’s unpaid medical expenses. The father argued on appeal that this was contrary to the parties’ marital termination agreement. After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. It also affirmed the lower court’s award of the mother’s attorney fees, but denied her request for attorney fees for the appeal. After a motion for rehearing, the mother then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. She argued that the Court of Appeals had erred, and that she was entitled to her attorney fees for the appeal.
The Supreme Court first noted that Tennessee normally follows the “American Rule” under which a party may not normally recover attorney fees. One exception, however, involves a contract in which the parties expressly allow recovery of attorney fees. Since a marital dissolution agreement is a contract, the divorcing spouses can agree to attorney fees in the contract.
The Supreme Court also noted that in cases of frivolous appeals, attorney fees are provided for by statute.
With regard to the contract, the Supreme Court first noted that the fact that there is an appeal does not alter the analysis. If the parties agree to attorney fees, then this provision is enforced even though one spouse appeals.
In this case, the contract did call for attorney fees, and the Court of Appeals had stated that it was exercising its discretion in denying them. But the Supreme Court held that the contract must be enforced, and that the appellate courts had no discretion to change the contract.
In this case, however, the appellate court had not actually construed the agreement. It had only denied the fees based upon its discretion. Therefore, no court had ruled on the issue of whether the language of the contract applied. After reviewing the contract, the Supreme Court concluded that it did apply, since it provided for attorney fees for the prevailing party. The court held that the mother was clearly the prevailing party.
Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of the mother’s fees.
No. M2014-01811-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 23, 2017).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
