TN Wife With Limited English Ability Awarded $1,500/Mo. Alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 6 years married.

Vicente Acosta v. Kity Sonia Acosta

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in Mexico in 1999 and divorced in 2002.  In 2005, they remarried in Georgia.  They had no children from the marriage, but the wife had three adult children who were born prior to the marriage.  In 2010, they separated again, and the husband filed for divorce in 2011.  After the 2014 trial, the trial court set rehabilitative alimony at $1,000 per month for two years.  After the parties submitted their findings, the court requested additional evidence on the subject of alimony.  After receiving that evidence, the trial court set alimony at $1,500 per month.  The husband was given a credit of $250 per month, based upon the wife’s dissipation of assets.  In making the higher award, the court concluded that the wife was economically disadvantaged with a need for alimony, and that the husband had an ability to pay.  The trial judge noted that the factors considered included the husband’s domestic violence.  In addition, rather than making the alimony rehabilitative for two years, the trial court set alimony in futuro, to continue indefinitely.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that the trial court had erred in re-opening the evidence after making an initial ruling.  The appeals court first held that under the circumstances of the case, there had been neither serious inconvenience nor injustice to the husband, and that this procedure had been proper.

The appeals court then examined the amount of the award and the relevant statutory factors.  It noted that the husband was employed as an assistant restaurant manager with an average income of over $52,000, but that the wife had a very limited employment history.  She also spoke little English, and the trial court found that there would be a significant language barrier to employment.

After weighing all of the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings, and affirmed the award of alimony.  It also assessed the costs of the appeal against the husband.

No. E2015-00215-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.