Alimony Reduced When Exceeds Engineer’s Available Income
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 43 years married.
Sandra Zoe Jeanette Naylor v. William Lee Naylor
The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1970 until the wife filed a complaint for divorce in 2014. After dividing the marital property, the court turned to the issue of alimony. The wife was 63 years old at the time of trial, and hadn’t worked outside the home for 18 years. Because of the husband’s work, they had moved frequently, which the wife claimed prevented her from receiving education or training. At the time of divorce, she had no income.
She paid her adult son $800 per month to maintain the nine acre property where the marital home was located.
The husband was 64 years old and earned an income of over $6,000 per month as an engineer, plus occasional bonuses and per diem. He testified that he hoped to retire at 65, and that he would receive approximately $2,500 per month social security if he retired then.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court set the husband’s alimony obligation at $2,000 per month. The husband then appealed a number of issues, including the alimony award, to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In his appeal of the alimony issue, the husband pointed to the trial court’s finding that he had only $1,644 per month available after expenses, and that the trial court erred in setting alimony higher than this amount. He also argued that the trial court had not properly considered pensions which had been awarded to the wife.
After grappling with the property division issues in the case, the appeals court turned to the question of alimony. It noted that trial courts have broad discretion in setting alimony, and that the award will not be disturbed unless the evidence preponderated against it. It then looked at the statutory factors and how the lower court had applied them.
It first looked at the fact that the adult son had been living with the mother, and noted that this might be evidence that the need for alimony is lessened. However, the appeals court noted that the son had lived there prior to separation, and after considering all of the circumstances, it concluded that this evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s award.
The appeals court also found that, under the circumstances, the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s making the alimony award permanent. Even though she might be able to get a minimum wage job, the appeals court found that her employment prospects were limited.
The appeals court did look more favorably at the husband’s argument that the alimony award exceeded his available income of $1,644 per month. After reviewing the evidence, it found that an award in excess of this amount was an abuse of the lower court’s discretion. Therefore, it lowered the alimony obligation from $2,000 to $1,644.
After considering a number of other issues, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in part with the modification of the alimony. It sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
No. W2016-00038-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2016).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
