Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (2026)

Child support order - Jurisdiction - Amount of support - Enforcement - Modification - Insurance - Scientific parentage tests

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 40, s 1, eff. 3/14/2023.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 227, Secs.s 2, s 3 eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 227, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 64, s 21, eff. 3/29/2021.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 345, s 31, eff. 5/10/2019.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1049, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1049, s 2, eff. 7/1/2018.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 742, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 419, s 2, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 145, s 1, eff. 4/17/2017.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 200, s 2, eff. 7/1/2015.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 200, s 1, eff. 7/1/2015.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 236, s 22, eff. 4/19/2013.

Code 1858, § 2468 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 26, §§ 10, 19); Shan., § 4221; mod. Code 1932, § 8446; Acts 1949, ch. 53, § 1; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 8446; Acts 1970, ch. 425, § 1; 1979, ch. 187, § 1; 1979, ch. 339, § 1; 1980, ch. 691, § 1; 1983, ch. 352, § 1; 1983, ch. 414, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 36-820; Acts 1984, ch. 818, §§ 1-3; 1985, ch. 477, §§ 5-7, 17; 1986, ch. 890, § 17; 1987, ch. 39, § 1; 1988, ch. 671, § 1; 1989, ch. 206, § 1; 1989, ch. 489, § 4; 1991, ch. 447, § 1; 1992, ch. 824, § 1; 1993, ch. 243, §§ 1, 2; 1993, ch. 286, § 1; 1994, ch. 926, § 1; 1994, ch. 987, §§ 1-5; 1994, ch. 988, §§ 8, 9; 1995, ch. 504, § 2; 1996, ch. 892, § 16; 1997 , ch. 551, §§ 7, 19, 22, 25, 41, 51 - 53, 66; 1998, ch. 1098, §§ 13 - 15, 72; 1999, ch. 303, § 1; 2000, ch. 922, §§ 5 - 9; 2001, ch. 447, §§ 3, 14, 20; 2002, ch. 651, §§ 1 - 3; 2003 , ch. 305, § 1; 2003 , ch. 361, § 2; 2003 , ch. 373, § 1; 2004, ch. 549, §§ 1, 2; 2004, ch. 714, § 1; 2004, ch. 906, § 1; 2005, ch. 287, § 1; 2007 , ch. 91, § 1; 2007 , ch. 187, §§ 4 - 6; 2007 , ch. 502, §§ 1, 3; 2008 , ch. 868, § 3; 2011 , ch. 119, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,512 cases (69 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001).
Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 28× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(1) (Supp. 2000).”
Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 56× “Berryhill contends that both the Court of Appeals and the juvenile court erred in finding that the parent of a child to whom child support is owed may enter into a private agreement [4] to accept child support less than that required to be paid under the Child Support Guidelines…”
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 26× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
State Ex Rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 32× “Equitable defenses that would have the effect of retroactively modifying a child support obligation are no longer available in cases such as this one because of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s construction of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(5). Rutledge v.”
Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1991). · cites it 43× “That statutory provision is a part of T.C.A. § 36-5-101, which governs liability for "support of spouse and children" at the time of marital dissolution or separation.”
Bryan v. Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 27× “The parties used the term “rehabilitative alimony;” however, that term must be interpreted by reference to its meaning in 1992 when the agreement was made. C. Rehabilitative Alimony Since the parties’ 1992 divorce, Tennessee alimony law, which is primarily governed by statute,…”
Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 18× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(2) (1996 & Supp.”
Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 20× “" Based on this rather ambivalent finding, and after reciting that it had considered all the factors in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d) (Supp.1997), the trial court declined to alter Mr.”
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 17× “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
Watters v. Watters, 22 S.W.3d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 22× “"For the purposes of defining a significant variance between the guideline amount and the current support order pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-5-101, a significant variance shall be at least 15% if the current support is one hundred dollars ($100.”
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 25× “Earls’ current physical condition, the duration of the marriage, the division of the marital assets and debts, and the other applicable factors contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d) (Supp.1999).”
Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 10× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G), (H) (2001).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(5) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(5)(d)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(A)(5) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(C) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(E) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(E)(2) — 1 case
Crabtree v. Crabtree (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(I) — 1 case
Diana Sue Long v. Michael George Long (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a) — 12 cases
Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1993).
Hoyle v. Wilson, 746 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. 1988).
Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
Kesser v. Kesser, 201 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2006).
Dwight v. Dwight, 936 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(1) — 83 cases
State Ex Rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Equitable defenses that would have the effect of retroactively modifying a child support obligation are no longer available in cases such as this one because of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s construction of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(5). Rutledge v.”
Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(1) (Supp. 2000).”
Watters v. Watters, 22 S.W.3d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “"For the purposes of defining a significant variance between the guideline amount and the current support order pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-5-101, a significant variance shall be at least 15% if the current support is one hundred dollars ($100.”
Archer v. Archer, 907 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Wade v. Wade, 115 S.W.3d 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(1)(1991) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(1)(1994) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(1)(5) — 1 case
State v. Florence Harrell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Lawson v. Lawson (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(1)(L) — 2 cases
Lawson v. Lawson (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(2) — 6 cases
Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1993).
Kuykendall v. Wheeler, 890 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. 1994).
Franklin v. Franklin, 746 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
Bradford Furniture Co. v. Storey (In re Storey), 172 B.R. 872 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(2)(A) — 11 cases
Huntley v. Huntley, 61 S.W.3d 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Bryan v. Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The parties used the term “rehabilitative alimony;” however, that term must be interpreted by reference to its meaning in 1992 when the agreement was made. C. Rehabilitative Alimony Since the parties’ 1992 divorce, Tennessee alimony law, which is primarily governed by statute,…”
Kesser v. Kesser, 201 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2006).
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Earls’ current physical condition, the duration of the marriage, the division of the marital assets and debts, and the other applicable factors contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d) (Supp.1999).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(2)(B) — 11 cases
Bryan v. Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The parties used the term “rehabilitative alimony;” however, that term must be interpreted by reference to its meaning in 1992 when the agreement was made. C. Rehabilitative Alimony Since the parties’ 1992 divorce, Tennessee alimony law, which is primarily governed by statute,…”
Lori Lee Grissom (Brown) v. Jeffrey Donald Grissom, 15 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Chong Y. Struck v. Gary L. Struck - Concurring, 958 S.W.2d 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(3) — 22 cases
Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1991). “That statutory provision is a part of T.C.A. § 36-5-101, which governs liability for "support of spouse and children" at the time of marital dissolution or separation.”
Towner v. Towner, 858 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1993).
Wright v. Quillen, 83 S.W.3d 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Bryan v. Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The parties used the term “rehabilitative alimony;” however, that term must be interpreted by reference to its meaning in 1992 when the agreement was made. C. Rehabilitative Alimony Since the parties’ 1992 divorce, Tennessee alimony law, which is primarily governed by statute,…”
Lori Lee Grissom (Brown) v. Jeffrey Donald Grissom, 15 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(3)(2001) — 1 case
Wright v. Quillen, 83 S.W.3d 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(3)(A) — 7 cases
Brewer v. Brewer, 869 S.W.2d 928 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(4) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(4)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
State/Mae Clark v. Charles Clark (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(4)(E) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(5) — 45 cases
State Ex Rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Equitable defenses that would have the effect of retroactively modifying a child support obligation are no longer available in cases such as this one because of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s construction of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(5). Rutledge v.”
Rutledge v. Barrett, 802 S.W.2d 604 (Tenn. 1991).
Brooks v. Brooks, 992 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1999).
Kirkpatrick v. O'NEAL, 197 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2006).
Hoyle v. Wilson, 746 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(5)(1996) — 1 case
State., ex. rel. Shaver v. Shaver (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(5)(2001) — 1 case
Buettner v. Buettner, 183 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(7) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(8) — 2 cases
Lisa E. Burris v. James Morton Burris, 512 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Elijah Williams (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(I) — 1 case
JoAnne Pollock v. Donnie F. Pollock (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a)(l) — 32 cases
Huntley v. Huntley, 61 S.W.3d 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
State Ex Rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Equitable defenses that would have the effect of retroactively modifying a child support obligation are no longer available in cases such as this one because of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s construction of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(5). Rutledge v.”
McCarty v. McCarty, 863 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
Demers v. Demers, 149 S.W.3d 61 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Willis v. Willis, 62 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(b) — 5 cases
Johnson v. Turner, 125 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 1997).
Bryan v. Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The parties used the term “rehabilitative alimony;” however, that term must be interpreted by reference to its meaning in 1992 when the agreement was made. C. Rehabilitative Alimony Since the parties’ 1992 divorce, Tennessee alimony law, which is primarily governed by statute,…”
In Re Justin A. H. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).
Melody Knowles v. Jack Knowles (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Johnson v. Turner, 855 F. Supp. 228 (W.D. Tenn. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(b)(1) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(b)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(c) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(c)(2)(A) — 4 cases
Smith v. Smith, 255 S.W.3d 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(c)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d) — 154 cases
Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(1) (Supp. 2000).”
Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1991). “That statutory provision is a part of T.C.A. § 36-5-101, which governs liability for "support of spouse and children" at the time of marital dissolution or separation.”
Storey v. Storey, 835 S.W.2d 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1) — 158 cases
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Earls’ current physical condition, the duration of the marriage, the division of the marital assets and debts, and the other applicable factors contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d) (Supp.1999).”
Kincaid v. Kincaid, 912 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “" Based on this rather ambivalent finding, and after reciting that it had considered all the factors in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d) (Supp.1997), the trial court declined to alter Mr.”
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(2) (1996 & Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(1996) — 1 case
Diana Sue Long v. Michael George Long, 968 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(A) — 33 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Word v. Word, 937 S.W.2d 931 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Mitts v. Mitts, 39 S.W.3d 142 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
Rita Jones v. Clinton Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(B) — 9 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Long v. Long, 957 S.W.2d 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Tait v. Tait, 207 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(C) — 7 cases
Rita Jones v. Clinton Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Barbara Beem v. Robert Alan Beem (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Michael Jerry Cox v. Pamela Kay Cox (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(D) — 7 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Deborah B. Hall Byrd v. Danny K. Byrd (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Rita Jones v. Clinton Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(E) — 17 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Earl E. Rivers v. Kathleen J. Rivers (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Harry W. Lofton v. Nelda Joan Lofton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(E)(i) — 1 case
Byrd v. Byrd, 184 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(G) — 10 cases
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “" Based on this rather ambivalent finding, and after reciting that it had considered all the factors in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d) (Supp.1997), the trial court declined to alter Mr.”
Smith v. Smith, 93 S.W.3d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(H) — 6 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
Cunningham v. Cunningham (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Barbara Gaskins v. Roger Gaskins (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(I) — 4 cases
Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Barbara Gaskins v. Roger Gaskins (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(J) — 3 cases
Rita Jones v. Clinton Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Helen Hall v. James Hall (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(K) — 9 cases
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “" Based on this rather ambivalent finding, and after reciting that it had considered all the factors in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d) (Supp.1997), the trial court declined to alter Mr.”
Earls v. Earls, 42 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Earls’ current physical condition, the duration of the marriage, the division of the marital assets and debts, and the other applicable factors contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d) (Supp.1999).”
Rita Jones v. Clinton Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(L) — 1 case
Helen Hall v. James Hall (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(10) — 1 case
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(2) — 11 cases
Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(2) (1996 & Supp.”
Fulbright v. Fulbright, 64 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Evans v. Young, 280 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
William Perry v. Ricki Perry (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Thomas White v. Kathy White (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(2002) — 1 case
Powell v. Powell, 124 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(7) — 2 cases
Bull v. Bull, 729 S.W.2d 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(8) — 2 cases
Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
Seal v. Seal, 802 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(9) — 3 cases
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
Beeler v. Beeler, 715 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(I) — 1 case
JoAnne Pollock v. Donnie F. Pollock (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l) — 13 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Lindsey v. Lindsey, 976 S.W.2d 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(2) (1996 & Supp.”
Kincaid v. Kincaid, 912 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Umstot v. Umstot, 968 S.W.2d 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(1996) — 1 case
Goodman v. Goodman, 8 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(2000) — 1 case
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 107 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(2001) — 1 case
Bowie v. Bowie, 101 S.W.3d 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(A) — 3 cases
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G), (H) (2001).”
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(B) — 1 case
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(C) — 2 cases
Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Tait v. Tait, 207 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(D) — 1 case
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(E)(i) — 1 case
Byrd v. Byrd, 184 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(F) — 2 cases
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000). “An award of rehabilitative alimony pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 must be predicated upon a finding that the recipient can be economically rehabilitated.”
Smith v. Smith, 984 S.W.2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(G) — 1 case
Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(H) — 2 cases
Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Givler v. Givler, 964 S.W.2d 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(I) — 1 case
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(J) — 1 case
Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G). Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming amount of accumulated marital debt, the parties will not be able to enjoy the standard of living established during the marriage.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(l)(K) — 5 cases
Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d)(l)(G), (H) (2001).”
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “" Based on this rather ambivalent finding, and after reciting that it had considered all the factors in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d) (Supp.1997), the trial court declined to alter Mr.”
Young v. Young, 971 S.W.2d 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e) — 44 cases
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 152 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2004).
Richardson v. Spanos, 189 S.W.3d 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2004).
Archer v. Archer, 907 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
State Ex Rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1) — 51 cases
Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000). “Berryhill contends that both the Court of Appeals and the juvenile court erred in finding that the parent of a child to whom child support is owed may enter into a private agreement [4] to accept child support less than that required to be paid under the Child Support Guidelines…”
Spruce v. Spruce, 2 S.W.3d 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Barnett v. Barnett, 27 S.W.3d 904 (Tenn. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1)(A) — 34 cases
Richardson v. Spanos, 189 S.W.3d 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Corder v. Corder, 231 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2004).
Hill v. Hill, 152 S.W.3d 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1)(B) — 14 cases
Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Kesser v. Kesser, 201 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2006).
Nora Elizabeth Kilby Moore v. Ronnie Dale Moore, 254 S.W.3d 357 (Tenn. 2007).
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Brendi Kaplan v. John A. Bugalla (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1)(B)(2001) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1)(C) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(2) — 12 cases
Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2005).
Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Wade v. Wade, 115 S.W.3d 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Gray v. Gray, 78 S.W.3d 881 (Tenn. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(4) — 3 cases
Kesser v. Kesser, 201 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2006).
Tronco v. Crosley, 827 S.W.2d 802 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
Tiffany Reed v. Christopher Kidd (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(4)(A) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(5) — 1 case
Campanali v. Campanali, 695 S.W.2d 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(7) — 1 case
Hoyle v. Wilson, 746 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(l) — 13 cases
Jones v. Jones, 930 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. 1996).
Dwight v. Dwight, 936 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Huntley v. Huntley, 61 S.W.3d 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000). “Berryhill contends that both the Court of Appeals and the juvenile court erred in finding that the parent of a child to whom child support is owed may enter into a private agreement [4] to accept child support less than that required to be paid under the Child Support Guidelines…”
Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1993).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(l)(A) — 6 cases
Patrick Edward Reeder v. Jo Beth (Curtis) Reeder, 375 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Corder v. Corder, 231 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Gray v. Gray, 78 S.W.3d 881 (Tenn. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(l)(B) — 3 cases
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Guzman v. Alvares, 205 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. 2006).
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f) — 2 cases
In Re: Est. of James Edgar Miller (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(1) — 44 cases
Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012).
State Ex Rel. Whitley v. Lewis, 244 S.W.3d 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Lichtenwalter v. Lichtenwalter, 229 S.W.3d 690 (Tenn. 2007).
Patrick Edward Reeder v. Jo Beth (Curtis) Reeder, 375 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(1)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(2) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(3) — 1 case
In Re: Est. of James Edgar Miller (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(l) — 3 cases
Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012).
Morton v. Morton, 182 S.W.3d 821 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Lichtenwalter v. Lichtenwalter, 229 S.W.3d 690 (Tenn. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(g) — 19 cases
Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2006).
Wine v. Wine, 245 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Nora Elizabeth Kilby Moore v. Ronnie Dale Moore, 254 S.W.3d 357 (Tenn. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(g)(1) — 12 cases
Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2006).
Corder v. Corder, 231 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Todd Scot v. Erin Dawn Scot (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(g)(3) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(g)(l) — 1 case
Corder v. Corder, 231 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(h) — 11 cases
Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000). “Berryhill contends that both the Court of Appeals and the juvenile court erred in finding that the parent of a child to whom child support is owed may enter into a private agreement [4] to accept child support less than that required to be paid under the Child Support Guidelines…”
Dwight v. Dwight, 936 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
State Ex Rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Equitable defenses that would have the effect of retroactively modifying a child support obligation are no longer available in cases such as this one because of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s construction of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (a)(5). Rutledge v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(i) — 6 cases
Barnhill v. Barnhill, 826 S.W.2d 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1993).
Diana Sue Long v. Michael George Long, 968 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(j) — 4 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(k) — 13 cases
Kuykendall v. Wheeler, 890 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. 1994).
Bryan v. Leach, 85 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The parties used the term “rehabilitative alimony;” however, that term must be interpreted by reference to its meaning in 1992 when the agreement was made. C. Rehabilitative Alimony Since the parties’ 1992 divorce, Tennessee alimony law, which is primarily governed by statute,…”
Tallent v. Cates, 45 S.W.3d 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(k)(1) — 3 cases
Daniel C. Woodard v. Joan N. Woodard (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(k)(2) — 6 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(k)(3) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(l)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(l)(5) — 1 case
Kirkpatrick v. O'NEAL, 197 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(o) — 1 case
Sandra Silverstein v. William Rice (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(p) — 4 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(p)(1) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(p)(2) — 6 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(p)(3) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(q)(1) — 1 case
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.