Alimony Ruling Lacked of Evidence of Husband’s Extra Income

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 20 years married.

Jeanette Arnold Buntyn v. Stevonski Elliott Buntyn

The husband and wife in this Madison County, Tennessee, case were married in 1994 and had two children.  The wife was a social worker, and the husband was employed by a tire and wheel company.  In 2013, the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences.  The trial court entered its final decree in 2014, divided the parties’ property, adopted a parenting plan, and ordering the husband to pay $100 per month of alimony in futuro.  The husband appealed the alimony order to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that alimony depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, and that an appellate court should not second guess the trial court’s decision.  Instead, the appeals court reviews for an abuse of discretion and whether the decision is supported by the evidence.

The trial court had examined the wife’s income and expenses and concluded that her need was $1294 per month.  It also concluded that the husband had a shortfall, but that the husband had “extra income” that the husband had not divulged.

The appeals court first pointed out that rehabilitative and transitional alimony are preferred, but that the lower court had not made any findings as to why these could not have been employed.  In particular, the lower court had not made any finding as to why rehabilitation of the wife was not possible.

The appeals court also pointed out that there was unsatisfactory evidence that the husband had an ability to pay.  In particular, there was no description of the “extra income” or its amount.

For this reason, the appeals court sent the case back for the lower court to make a proper determination.  In particular, it asked the lower court to make a ruling as to whether rehabilitation was possible.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the award of alimony and remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. W2016-00398-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.