DESIREE M. BEYER v. ERIK A. BEYER
Court: TN Court of Appeals - April 5, 2013
Attorneys: Michael A. Carter, Milan, Tennessee, for the appellant, Erik A. Beyer.
Daniel Loyd Taylor and John N. Bean, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Desiree M. Beyer.
Judge: FARMER
This appeal arises from a prolonged divorce action. On appeal, Father challenges the trial court’s determinations regarding parenting time, child support, alimony, and the division of the marital estate. Father further challenges the trial court’s decision finding him in both civil and criminal contempt. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Child Support in High Income Situations
When the presumptive child support order [(“PCSO”)] exceeds the amount found by multiplying a net income of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) by the percentages set out pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-101(e)(1)(B), a [Primary Residential Parent] seeking support in excess of the amount provided by the applicable percentage must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that more than this amount is reasonably necessary to provide for the needs of the child.
Child Support Order for Extraordinary Educational Expenses
A trial court may order an upward deviation from the Guidelines for extraordinary educational expenses which include tuition and other expenses associated with private school attendance. In the absence of evidence or the requisite findings to support an upward deviation for extraordinary educational expenses, we are unable to properly evaluate the trial court’s determination.
Dissipation of Marital Assets through Paying Attorney Fees
The party alleging dissipation carries the initial burden of production and the burden of persuasion at trial. Father was unable to refute Mother’s position that these funds were used to develop a civil suit against her for parental alienation syndrome. Such an atypical and wasteful expenditure of marital funds, made with the intent of filing a civil suit against a spouse, in no way benefitted the marriage and clearly amounted to dissipation.
Father frequently changed attorneys, had representation from at least four different law firms, often took positions throughout the litigation that lacked factual or legal support, and made several untruthful statements under oath all of which unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. Upon examination of the record, we agree with Mother and the trial court that Father’s actions caused him to incur an unnecessary and excessive amount of attorney’s fees that he paid with marital funds.
Opinion located at:
beyerd_040513.pdf
