No Grounds to Change Child Support When Error Not a Mutual Mistake

Tennessee child support modification case summary.

The husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were legally separated in 2010. They made a legal separation agreement, and the agreement was approved by the court and incorporated into the final decree. The parties had three children, the oldest of whom was over the age of majority at the time of trial.

Initially after the separation, the parties continued to live in the same house, but the agreement provided that after the home was sold, the husband would pay child support in the amount of $1,278 per month. The agreement also provided for him to pay alimony, but the total amount of alimony and child support was capped at the lesser of $3,000 or 50% of his income. The agreement called for this to go down to 30% when the middle child graduated from high school, although the language was somewhat ambiguous.

The trial court also approved a permanent parenting plan naming the wife as the primary residential parent, with the husband receiving 100 days per year of parenting time.

In 2012, the husband filed a complaint asking to change the separation to a divorce, but he did not initially pursue this until the wife filed a petition for contempt and modification of child support in 2013. After a hearing, the court entered a final decree of divorce. Since the middle child had graduated from high school, the court reduced the husband’s total obligation to 30%, based upon the wife had seemingly acknowledged that the document should be interpreted that way. However, the literal language of the document stated only that the husband’s bonuses would be limited to 30%, and did not address his other income.

Both parties then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The wife first argued that the husband’s brief should be disregarded because it had not complied with court rules, since the husband was not represented by an attorney. The appeals court, while noting that the brief was inadequate in many ways, stated that it was able to grasp the basics of his arguments. Therefore, the court considered his brief.

On appeal, the wife pointed to the language of the original agreement, which stated that the 30% limitation applied only to the husband’s bonuses, and not to the rest of his income. Since the language of the agreement supported this interpretation, the appeals court treated the lower court’s ruling to the contrary as a correction of a mutual material mistake.

The appeals court noted that for a contract to be reformed for mutual mistake, the party seeking the change must present clear and convincing evidence. Normally, the law strongly favors the validity of written instruments.

In this case, the appeals court held that the evidence was not clear and convincing. Even though the wife testified at one point that she was to receive 30% of net income, she had contradicted that statement moments before. The appeals court held that this was likely a case of confusion on her part to a question posed by the husband’s attorney. On re-direct testimony, she clarified her testimony, and stated that she was still entitled to half. The only evidence of mistake was the husband’s testimony.

After reviewing the record and the written contract, the appeals court concluded that the lower court had erred, and that this portion of the judgment should be reversed. After addressing other issues in the case, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court.

No. M2014-01911-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Support Modification in Tennessee | How to Modify Child Support.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.