Pursuant to Rule 59.04, Husband argues that the Court should alter or amend the Final Decree of Divorce concerning the following issues: (1) imputation of income to Husband; and (2) the Permanent Parenting Plan. The Court finds these requests are devoid of merit.
The purpose of a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend a judgement is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct errors before the judgement becomes final. In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Bradley v. McLeod, 984 S.W.2d 929, 933 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (overruled in part on other grounds by Harris v. Chern, 33 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2000). The motion should be granted in the following circumstances: (1) “to correct a clear error of law or to prevent injustice,” (2) if the law changes before the judgement becomes final, or (3) if additional evidence becomes available that was previously unavailable. Id. (citing Bradley, 984 S.W.2d at 933). Under either Rule 59 or Rule 60.02, the movant must show that the new evidence was not known to the moving party prior to or during trial and that it could not have been known to him through exercise of reasonable diligence. In re I.G., No. …show more content…
The Court finds this argument to be without merit, as the Court in its considerable discretion determined both that Husband was voluntarily underemployed and failed to provide sufficient reliable income information. A Court may impute income to a party if “. . . there is no reliable evidence of income” even if the party is not willfully underemployed. Tenn. Comp. R. Regs. 1240-2-4-.04(3)(d)(2). Husband failed to timely provide his discovery request pursuant to this Court’s Order. Thus, the Court found Husband had not provided sufficiently reliable information about his income for the past two years, so the Court looked at the average of reported income based upon Exhibit
The purpose of a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend a judgement is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct errors before the judgement becomes final. In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Bradley v. McLeod, 984 S.W.2d 929, 933 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (overruled in part on other grounds by Harris v. Chern, 33 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2000). The motion should be granted in the following circumstances: (1) “to correct a clear error of law or to prevent injustice,” (2) if the law changes before the judgement becomes final, or (3) if additional evidence becomes available that was previously unavailable. Id. (citing Bradley, 984 S.W.2d at 933). Under either Rule 59 or Rule 60.02, the movant must show that the new evidence was not known to the moving party prior to or during trial and that it could not have been known to him through exercise of reasonable diligence. In re I.G., No. …show more content…
The Court finds this argument to be without merit, as the Court in its considerable discretion determined both that Husband was voluntarily underemployed and failed to provide sufficient reliable income information. A Court may impute income to a party if “. . . there is no reliable evidence of income” even if the party is not willfully underemployed. Tenn. Comp. R. Regs. 1240-2-4-.04(3)(d)(2). Husband failed to timely provide his discovery request pursuant to this Court’s Order. Thus, the Court found Husband had not provided sufficiently reliable information about his income for the past two years, so the Court looked at the average of reported income based upon Exhibit