Judge takes Johnson v. Johnson motion to alter or amend under advisement after multi-hour hearing

The Cheatham County court spent the bulk of a contested docket hearing on Troy Bruce Johnson's motion to alter or amend the final divorce decree entered following a default proceeding. Defense counsel presented testimony, bank statements, and an itemized summary purporting to show $94,265.96 in payments by Johnson for the family between the April 2022 separation and the decree's entry; counsel asked the court to reduce or eliminate a $26,016 retroactive child-support judgment and to adjust the retirement-account judgment and other money judgments accordingly.

Key contested factual points contained in the transcript and exhibits included:

- A 2022 gross Vanguard/retirement distribution of $56,001.52 (1099-R) that the defense says was subject to $11,002.30 in federal withholding and a 10% early-withdrawal penalty; the decree awarded the wife one-half of the distribution and the defense asked the court to calculate the award based on net proceeds actually realized rather than the gross distribution.

- Defense counsel asserted Johnson made large recurring payments (mortgage, pool, car, insurance, groceries, sports fees and other family expenses) after separation totaling about $94,265.96; counsel argued that sum should offset retroactive child-support arrearages and portions of other judgments.

- Plaintiff's counsel countered that the divorce decree and incorporated child-support worksheets properly set arrearages and other money judgments, that tax and payroll records needed to be examined, and that there was insufficient basis to set aside or materially alter the prior decree.

- Documentary exhibits admitted and discussed included bank statements, payment histories for mortgage and pool loans, Venmo/POS summaries, HSA charges for medical care, school and sports payments, and documents showing payoff amounts at closing, including a $20,125.54 payoff of a post-decree loan recorded in the closing payoff statement.

- The record includes testimony that a deed-of-trust/loan in the $20,000 range was recorded contemporaneously with the entry of the divorce decree; the defendant invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned about forging signatures and other conduct related to that loan.

- The parties disputed personal property that the defendant claims was awarded to him in the decree but was not delivered; a partial inventory was produced and the parties identified some items that were delivered to counsel's office and some still in dispute.

After receiving extensive testimony and exhibits, the presiding judge declined to rule from the bench. The judge said he would review the complete record, the prior orders of the court, and applicable authority, take the motion under advisement and return a written ruling. The judge set a further contested-docket appearance (the court announced the next setting on the record as the fourteenth on the contested docket) for continued proceedings and directed the parties to submit any supplemental authorities if they wished.

No final monetary adjustments or changes to the decree were ordered at that hearing; multiple factual and evidentiary issues (tax returns for 2023/2024, valuation of disputed personal property, and reconciliation of bank-account deposits and withdrawals) remained open on the record.