Attorneys’ Fees – Family Law (Domestic) Cases

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

Lazaroff v. Lazaroff, No. M2022-01004-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2023).

Parker v. Parker, No. E2022-00720-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2023).

Davalos v. Dale, No. E2022-00859-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2023).

Stooksbury v. Varney, No. E2021-01449-COA-R3-JV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar 27, 2023).

Buntin v. Buntin, No. E2022-00017-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2023).

As to our review of the trial court’s decision concerning attorney’s fees in a divorce action, this Court has stated:

Our review of an award of attorney’s fees is guided by the principle that “‘the allowance of attorney’s fees is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere except upon a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.’” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352, 359 (Tenn. 2005)). “Reversal of the trial court’s decision [regarding] attorney fees at the trial level should occur ‘only when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474, 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Hernandez v. Hernandez, No. E2012-02056-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5436752, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013).

Grider v. Grider, No. M2022-00213-CO-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023).

We review a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees according to an abuse of discretion standard. See Wright ex rel Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011); In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (“[A] trial court will be found to have ‘abused its discretion ‘ only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.”) (internal citations omitted).

Cooke v. Cooke, No. E2022-00049-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2022).

We also review a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees according to an abuse of discretion standard. See Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011); In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (“[A] trial court will be found to have ‘abused its discretion’ only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.”) (internal citations omitted)).

Self v. Self, No. E2021-01130-COA-R3-CV, p. 8-9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022).

As to our review of the trial court’s decision concerning attorney’s fees in a divorce action, this Court has stated:

Our review of an award of attorney’s fees is guided by the principle that “‘the allowance of attorney’s fees is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere except upon a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.’” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352, 359 (Tenn. 2005)). “Reversal of the trial court’s decision [regarding] attorney fees at the trial level should occur ‘only when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474, 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Hernandez v. Hernandez, No. E2012-02056-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5436752, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013).

Taylor v. Taylor, No. E2021-01281-COA-R3-CV, p. 11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022).

A trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party under section 36-5- 103 “is within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not overturn the trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion.” Strickland v. Strickland, 644 S.W.3d 620, 635 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).

Murdock v. Murdock, No. W2019-00979-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. March 2, 2022).

Awards  of attorney fees are within the sound  discretion of the trial court.   Kincaid v.  Kincaid,  912  S.W.2d  140,  144  (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). However,  this  Court  has  explained that awards of attorney’s fees as alimony  in solido

“are  appropriate .  . . only  when  the  spouse  seeking  them  lacks  sufficient  funds to  pay  his  or  her  own  legal  expenses,” Brown  v.  Brown,  913  S.W.2d  163, 170  (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)  (citing  Houghland  v.  Houghland,  844  S.W.2d 619,  623  (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992),  and  Ingram  v.  Ingram,  721  S.W.2d  262, 264  (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)),  or  would  be  required  to  “deplete  his  or  her resources  in  order  to  pay  these  expenses.”  Id.  (citing  Harwell  v.  Harwell, 612  S.W.2d  182,  185  (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980)).  Where  one  party  has  been awarded  additional  funds  for  maintenance  and  support  and  such  funds  are intended to provide the party with a source of future income, the party need not  be  required  to  pay  legal  expenses  by  using  assets  that  will  provide  for future  income.  Batson  v.  Batson,  769  S.W.2d  849,  862  (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Nelson v. Justice, No. E2020-01172-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2022)

“In a divorce case, an award of attorney’s fees is treated as an award of alimony in solido.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1, 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 235; Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379, 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). The determination as to whether to award attorney’s fees is “largely left within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court clearly abused that discretion.” Id. (citing Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tenn. 1995)).

Gergel v. Gergel, No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV, p.13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).

As to our review of the trial court’s decision concerning attorney’s fees in a divorce action, this Court has stated:

Our review of an award of attorney’s fees is guided by the principle that “‘the allowance of attorney’s fees is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere except upon a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.’” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352, 359 (Tenn. 2005)). “Reversal of the trial court’s decision [regarding] attorney fees at the trial level should occur ‘only when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474, 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Hernandez v. Hernandez, No. E2012-02056-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5436752, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013).

Williams v. Williams, No. E2021-00432-COA-R3-CV, p. 8-9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2022).

As to our review of the trial court’s decision concerning attorney’s fees in a divorce action, this Court has stated:

Our review of an award of attorney’s fees is guided by the principle that “‘the allowance of attorney’s fees is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere except upon a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.’” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352, 359 (Tenn. 2005)).  “Reversal of the trial court’s decision [regarding] attorney fees at the trial level should occur ‘only when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474, 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Hernandez v. Hernandez, No. E2012-02056-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5436752, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013).

Liebetreu v. Liebetreu,  No. M2021-00623-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2022).

Father asks that this Court award him fees and costs incurred on this appeal pursuant to section 36-5-103(c). That statute provides:

A prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees, which may be fixed and allowed in the court’s discretion, from the nonprevailing party in any criminal or civil contempt action or other proceeding to enforce, alter, change, or modify any decree of alimony, child support, or provision of a permanent parenting plan order, or in any suit or action concerning the adjudication of the custody or change of custody of any children, both upon the original divorce hearing and at any subsequent hearing.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-103(c). “Whether to award attorney’s fees on appeal is a matter within the sole discretion of this court.” Ellis v. Ellis, 621 S.W.3d 700, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Luplow v. Luplow, 450 S.W.3d 105, 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014)). In determining whether to award such fees on appeal, “we consider the ability of the requesting party to pay the accrued fees, the requesting party’s success in the appeal, whether the requesting party sought the appeal in good faith, and any other equitable factor that should be considered.” Id. In light of the above discussion, we decline to award Father his attorney’s fees on appeal.