Tennessee Wife With PTSD Gets $4.5K/Mo. Alimony in Futuro
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 24 years married.
Jodi Lynn Jenkins v. Steven Louis Jenkins
The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1990 and had three children. At the time of their 2014 divorce, they were able to agree on most issues, but a trial was held on the issue of alimony and attorney’s fees. After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court awarded the wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $3,500 until the husband’s child support obligation ended, at which time the alimony would increase to $4,500. The wife was also awarded $5,000 in attorney’s fees. The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
During the marriage, the wife had earned her degree in elementary education with a special education endorsement. She taught for about a year early in the marriage before transitioning to a stay-at-home parent. She also taught English as a Second Language for brief periods when they were living in a foreign country. During that time, the wife began experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder which she said related to sexual abuse she had suffered as a child.
She testified that she was unable to work as a teacher, but because she found yard work therapeutic, she established a business to do various services, and was earning about $1,000 per month at the time of trial.
The husband was in graduate school when the parties met, and worked during the marriage in various teaching and technology positions. At the time of trial, he was employed by Bank of America with a gross income of more than $12,000 per month. He also had a software business which had net income of about $700 per month. The couple also had income from rental properties.
The appeals court began by noting that trial courts have a great deal of discretion when it comes to alimony, and those decisions shouldn’t be second guessed unless clearly unreasonable.
The husband argued that the award of alimony in futuro was unreasonable, because the wife could have been rehabilitated to a standard of living similar to husband’s. But the appeals court reviewed the evidence and the applicable statutes and disagreed with this position. In particular, it pointed to the lower court’s finding that the husband had a much greater earning capacity. The lower court recognized that the wife might be “slightly underemployed,” but that she could not increase her income without additional education. Since she was the economically disadvantaged spouse, the lower court had ruled that rehabilitation was not feasible in the case.
The appeals court carefully reviewed the evidence and agreed with the trial court’s findings. It noted that the husband’s earning capacity was significantly greater, and that the wife had a need for alimony.
The appeals court went on to affirm the lower court’s award of attorney’s fees, and also awarded the wife her attorney’s fees on appeal. Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s judgment in all respects, and sent the case back for the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees for the appeal.
No. E2014-02234-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2015).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
