Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (2026)
Stipulated grounds and/or defenses - Grant of divorce
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In all actions for divorce from the bonds of matrimony or legal separation the parties may stipulate as to grounds and/or defenses.
- (b) The court may, upon stipulation to or proof of any ground of divorce pursuant to § 36-4-101, grant a divorce to the party who was less at fault or, if either or both parties are entitled to a divorce or if a divorce is to be granted on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, declare the parties to be divorced, rather than awarding a divorce to either party alone.
Acts 1989, ch. 543, § 1; 1998, ch. 1059, §5; 2008 , ch. 868, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 271
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Earls first asks us to reconsider the majority's conclusion that the facts supported entering an order in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (Supp.1999) declaring the parties divorced.”
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “13(d), we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the trial judge’s conclusion that both parties contributed to the breakup of the marriage and, therefore, that they should simply be de- *230 dared divorced in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (b). y. The…”
Hyneman v. Hyneman, 152 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (2001). Because he admitted to inappropriate marital conduct and adultery, Husband argues, there was no reason to present proof to the court on grounds for divorce.”
Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2008). “12 Accordingly, it is under section 36-4-129 that we analyze whether the parties were divorced after the June 6, 2005 hearing, such that the trial court correctly entered a divorce decree nunc pro tunc.”
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “In this case, neither party was awarded the divorce because the trial court simply declared the parties divorced in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129(b) (2005). Because neither party was found at fault in this case, we must look elsewhere to determine whether Ms.”
Kisha Dean Trezevant v. Stanley H. Trezevant, III, 568 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “(T.C.A. § 36-4-129). .... (h) Proposed disposition of the marital residence.”
Charlotte Scott Forbess v. Michael E. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “The court declared the parties divorced pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-4-129 7 and awarded Wife a portion of Husband’s retirement benefits based on the court’s conclusion that Husband was employed for 7.”
Cutsinger v. Cutsinger, 917 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court granted a divorce to the parties pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-4-129 1 and awarded Wife a 30% interest in the purchase price of Husband’s practice.”
Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “Thus, at the outset, trial courts should first determine to whom the divorce should be awarded or whether the parties should be declared divorced in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (1996). Following this decision, trial courts should turn their attention to the custody…”
Kincaid v. Kincaid, 912 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “After a two day trial, the court entered a final decree that, inter alia, declared the parties to be divorced pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-4-129 (1991), divided the marital property, and ordered Husband to pay alimony in futuro.”
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “T.C.A. § 36-4-129 (2009 Supp.). 4 . The trial court’s order did not specify the type of alimony awarded.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 987 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “After the final hearing, the court granted the parties a divorce pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129, although the court found that Dr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129(B) — 1 case
Franklin Thomas Burns v. Bernice A. Burns - Concurring (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129(a) — 3 cases
Larry Mark Mangum v. Laney Celeste Mangum (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
Levenhagen v. Levenhagen (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Evan Ethelread Arrindell v. Gail Marvita Shipp Arrindell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129(b) — 63 cases
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Earls first asks us to reconsider the majority's conclusion that the facts supported entering an order in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (Supp.1999) declaring the parties divorced.”
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “13(d), we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the trial judge’s conclusion that both parties contributed to the breakup of the marriage and, therefore, that they should simply be de- *230 dared divorced in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129 (b). y. The…”
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “In this case, neither party was awarded the divorce because the trial court simply declared the parties divorced in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129(b) (2005). Because neither party was found at fault in this case, we must look elsewhere to determine whether Ms.”
Cutsinger v. Cutsinger, 917 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court granted a divorce to the parties pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-4-129 1 and awarded Wife a 30% interest in the purchase price of Husband’s practice.”
Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2008). “12 Accordingly, it is under section 36-4-129 that we analyze whether the parties were divorced after the June 6, 2005 hearing, such that the trial court correctly entered a divorce decree nunc pro tunc.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129(c) — 1 case
Colette Suzanne Turman v. Fred Turman (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129(e) — 1 case
Cline v. Cline (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.