All Content

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on May 8, 2012

Head Comment: CORRECTION: Page 5, paragraph 1, line 10, has been changed to read "...application of the correct legal standards to the evidence found in the record." Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Tenn. 2001). It is not the role of the appellate courts to "tweak [parenting plans] . . . in the hopes of achieving a more reasonable result than the trial court." Id.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Jon S. Jablonski, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Georgette Marie Bargmann.

Attorneys 2:

John D. Schwalb, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Kurt Alan Bargmann.

Judge(s): DINKINS

In this divorce action, Mother appeals the trial court’s permanent parenting plan, residential schedule, child support determination, and division of marital property and debt. We affirm the designation of Father as primary residential parent; modify the residential schedule and award of unpaid child support; and vacate the “paramour provision” in the parenting plan and the “equalization payment” from Mother to Father. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.