Ex-Husband Must Continue to Pay Half of Pension to Ex-Wife 14 Years After Tennessee Divorce

Tennessee property division modification law case summary from the Court of Appeals.

Josephine Whitthorne Young v. William F. Young, Jr.

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were divorced in Shelby County in 2000 after 33 years of marriage.  The wife received various forms of alimony, which included an award of alimony in solido in the form of half of the husband’s pension. The husband retired in 2001, and for over a decade, the husband dutifully forwarded half of his pension.  Through 2014, the husband had paid over $260,000.  But in the summer of that year, he filed a petition to terminate this obligation, and asked the wife to reimburse payments made over the years.  He argued that he had overpaid, since the original decree required him to pay only half of the then balance, which worked out to about $30,000.  He argued that he was never required to pay, as he did, half of the actual benefits received after retirement.

The wife argued that the husband was not allowed to bring up the issue, since it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The trial court agreed with the wife and dismissed the husband’s petition.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals first held that it was error to dismiss the petition because of res judicata.  The exact issue had not been raised previously, and for that reason, the doctrine did not apply.

The appeals court then turned to the interpretation of the original divorce decree.  The husband argued that the language called for a division of the then existing balance, rather than division of future payments.  But the court disagreed with this interpretation. The court noted that the pension plan was clearly a marital asset, since it had accrued over the length of the long marriage.  Awarding this asset as alimony in solido, the court pointed out, was merely a method of dividing this marital asset. The court looked to the Tennessee statutes regarding pensions to bolster this conclusion.  Even though the pension was not fully vested at the time of divorce, the appeals court concluded that it was proper to divide the unvested portion, which would only be paid out as benefits over the years. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed on this issue, while reversing other parts of the lower court’s ruling.

No. W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.