Tennessee Cardiologist’s Wife Awarded Alimony in Futuro After 28 Years Married
Tennessee alimony law case summary following about 28 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Thomas Joseph Salvucci v. Rhonda Joan Correnti Salvucci – Tennessee divorce alimony in futuro after 28 years married
Thomas and Rhonda Salvucci were married in 1983 and were the parents of two grown children. When the first child was born in 1988, they agreed that wife would not work outside the home. The husband continued his work as a cardiologist, and the wife was a homemaker. They ultimately moved to Jackson, Tennessee.
In 2011, the wife filed for divorce in Madison County, Tennessee. She alleged irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct and sought alimony. The husband also alleged inappropriate marital conduct on the part of the wife. The wife later alleged adultery, which the husband finally admitted.
At the time of the divorce trial in 2012, the wife was 54 and the husband 58. The wife had moved to Pennsylvania to be closer to her family, and the husband had taken a job in Kentucky, with an initial salary of $550,000 per year.
The wife had not worked outside the home since early in the marriage, but maintained her certification as a medical technician. She believed that her employment prospects would be dim after so many years out of the workforce. She offered an affidavit showing that her expenses were over $15,000 per month.
The trial court detailed the couple’s moves early in the marriage, which began when the husband was doing his internship. The court concluded that the wife was entitled to $10,850 per month in alimony. After some post-trial motions, this amount was increased to $11,850 per month. Believing that this amount was excessive, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court first noted that its review of the case was de novo, but with a presumption of correctness of the lower court’s factual findings. The appeals court focused on the fact that the parties were well into their fifties at the time of trial, and the wife had been a homemaker for over 25 years. The wife in this case, unlike an earlier case advanced by the husband, had no income at all. While Tennessee generally favors rehabilitative alimony, the appeals court agreed that it was not appropriate in this case. The court carefully reviewed how the lower court had applied the appropriate factors, and concluded that there had been no abuse of discretion in the original award.
The appeals court then turned to the issue of whether the trial court had acted appropriately in increasing the amount after making its initial determination. The court reviewed the evidence presented by the wife in her motion for reconsideration and held that it did not support the trial judge’s modification of the award. In particular, the lower court had taken a closer look at the tax consequences of the original award, but this data did not represent any change in circumstances which would allow a modification of the original judgment.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the original award, but reversed the $1,000 per month increase.
No. W2013-01967-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2014).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Law.
