Facts: Husband and Wife, the parents of two children, divorced after 16 years of marriage. Husband was an experienced executive with an MBA and an “impressive resume.” Wife was a high school graduate and a stay-at-home parent.

During the divorce proceedings, Husband’s employment became sporadic. Assets were liquidated to pay their expenses.

To calculate his income for child support, Husband argued the court should use a five-year average because he’s only paid when he attains high-paying jobs.

The trial court found that Husband was willfully underemployed “at different times during the marriage” and that Husband chose not to work at times “because exactly what he wanted was not readily available.” The trial court added: “Husband believed he deserved a top job, not just a good job that would allow him to support his family and not deplete marital assets.”

The trial court chose to impute income to Husband at $252,850.50 per year, this being the average of the last two years that Husband was “actually gainfully employed.” Based on this finding, Husband’s child support was set at $2177 per month.

Husband appealed, arguing that a five-year average of his earnings—$116,353.20— would more appropriately represent the cyclical nature of his earnings. He claimed the evidence showed he had a pattern of high-income years followed by periods of lower or no income.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Tennessee’s Child Support Guidelines allow courts to impute income to a parent in certain situations. Imputation of income is based on the proposition that parents may not avoid their financial responsibility to their children by unreasonably failing to exercise their earning capacity. The Guidelines state that imputing additional income to a parent is appropriate where a parent has been found to be willfully underemployed or unemployed.

The Guidelines do not presume that any parent is willfully underemployed or unemployed. Thus, the court must determine the reasons for the parent’s occupational choices, assess the reasonableness of these choices given the parents duty to support their children, and determine whether such choices help the children. A determination of willful underemployment or unemployment is not limited to choices motivated by an intent to avoid or reduce child support. The determination may be based on any intentional choice that adversely affects a parent’s income.

Once a parent has been found to be willfully underemployed or unemployed, the additional income assigned to the parent should be based on the parent’s employment, education, and training. Generally, an award of child support should be set based on the obligor parent’s most recent, actual income. However, when averaging variable income, the period to be used lies within the discretion of the trial court based on the facts of the situation.

The Court found no error with the trial court’s analysis:

The trial court relied on several considerations when imputing income to Husband. The trial court noted Husband’s history of earnings, as well as his education, employment history, success, and future earning potential when it determined he was willfully underemployed. Each of these considerations are supported by the evidence contained in the record. Husband has both a bachelor’s degree and an MBA. Likewise, Husband has been the CEO of multiple companies throughout his career and has enjoyed several years of high income….

The trial court explained its reasoning as to why it excluded the years of income requested by Husband in his average. The trial court characterized the incomes earned in those years as “nominal” and as non-representative of what Husband had the capability of earning. The trial court also stated it found Husband’s lack of employment over the three years the divorce was pending to have been part of some strategy to gain an advantage in the divorce proceedings. While Husband disagrees with this decision, he has not demonstrated the evidence preponderated against it. All in all, the trial court espoused its reasoning for the income imputed to Husband and that reasoning was supported by the record in the trial court’s credibility findings. While we acknowledge that $252,850.50 is a large sum of income, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.

Finding that an evidentiary basis existed to impute income to Husband in the amount chosen by the trial court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

K.O.’s Comment: Longtime readers know that I believe family law attorneys should read the appellate decisions in family law cases. It makes us better lawyers. Speaking for myself, reading the opinions helps me stay sharp. It helps refresh my memory about obscure areas of law. It absolutely helps me get results for my clients.

However, opinions like this one will be ignored by everyone except the parties involved in this case. For working lawyers, this 37-page opinion is unreadable. The relevant facts and principles of law could have been easily communicated in less than ten pages. Instead, the handful of sadists in the state (like me) who actually read this opinion in our limited free time are taken through what amounts to an only slightly abbreviated version of the trial transcript. For example, it is unnecessary for the reader to be told what a lawyer said in their opening statement, which is not even evidence.

A lot of work went into producing something that, because of its impenetrable length and attention to unnecessary detail, no one will ever read. This opinion could have been useful and helped advance the practice of family law if it were accessible to and written for working lawyers. But no working lawyer has the time or patience to do this. That’s the reality of the situation.

To the Court of Appeals judges and law clerks: If you want to advance the practice of family law, these opinions must be tailored to the intended audience, i.e., working lawyers. They must be far more direct and concise. Otherwise, working lawyers can’t read them. And if working lawyers don’t read them, what’s the point?

Source: Addis v. Addis (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, July 15, 2025).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.