TN Alimony and Child Support Can’t Be Combined If Result Is a Cap on Alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 36 years married.

Robert Howard Lubell v. Deborah Jo Lubell

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1976 and divorced in 1988.  Shortly after the 1988 divorce, they began cohabitating, and remarried in 1991.   In 2012, they both filed for divorce a second time.  At that time, the husband was 58 and the wife was 56.  They had two adopted children, a son age 14 and a daughter who was 12.  The son was diagnosed with a form of autism and Asperger’s syndrome, and attended a private school which was designed to meet his needs.  The daughter attended another private school.

During the marriage, both the husband and wife earned most of their income from a nonprofit which they had founded.  The nonprofit, a Christian radio station, had a net worth of about $1.1 million, with annual revenues of about $2.1 million and salary expenses of $1.1 million.  The husband’s income was $190,000 per year at the time of the divorce.  When the wife had been employed there, her income was a commission, peaking at about $60,000 per year.

After trial, the court awarded the wife transitional alimony and child support.  Under the order, she was to receive combined alimony and child support of $2,750 per month for three years, followed by $2,000 for three years, followed by $1,750 for two years, followed by $1,000 for two years.  The wife had also argued that the nonprofit was the husband’s alter ego, and should be treated as a marital asset.  The trial court, however, did not go along with this approach.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first agreed with the trial court that the nonprofit could not be considered a marital asset.  It then turned to the question of alimony.  The wife argued that the trial court should have awarded alimony in futuro rather than transitional alimony.  She also argued that it was error to cap the child support by combining it with the child support.

The appeals court first addressed the type and duration of alimony, and discussed the differences between alimony in futuro and rehabilitative alimony.  It noted that the legislature favored short-term rehabilitative alimony.

The court then carefully reviewed the lower court’s findings and the statutory factors to be considered.  It noted that both parties were well educated and in good physical condition.  While the long duration of the marriage favored an award of long-term alimony, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the factors favored rehabilitative alimony.

The Court of Appeals did agree with the wife, however, that the trial court should not have combined the child support and alimony.  Because child support is, under statute, subject to later modification, the effect of combining the two was to put a cap on the amount of alimony.  After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that a monthly alimony amount of $2,075 was appropriate, in addition to child support payments.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s order and remanded the case.

No. E2014-01269-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.