MARY ANNE OSESEK v. MICHAEL W. OSESEK - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Mar 9, 2012

Head Comment: CORRECTION: On page 7, within line 6, there was an extra space between the word "assets" and the period at end of sentence.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1: Stanley A. Kweller and Robert L. Jackson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Michael W. Osesek.

Attorneys 2: Mary Arline Evans and Charles R. Niewold, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Mary Anne Osesek.

Judge(s): DINKINS

Husband filed a petition to terminate or modify the amount of alimony in futuro he was obligated to pay, asserting that a post-divorce decrease in his income as well as the fact that Wife secured employment after the divorce constituted substantial and material changes in their circumstances which warranted the elimination of or a reduction in the amount of alimony. The trial court held that, while the loss of Husband’s job was not anticipated, there was not a substantial and material change of circumstances because Husband had other assets from which to continue to make the alimony payments; the court accordingly dismissed the petition and awarded Wife her counsel fees. Husband appeals the dismissal of the petition and award of attorney fees to Wife. We affirm the holding that Husband’s assets are available to satisfy his alimony obligation and the award of attorney fees to Wife. We vacate the dismissal of the petition and remand for further consideration.

Attachments: