Cardiologist to Pay Alimony in Futuro After 26 Yr Marriage

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 26 years married and cardiologist practice valuation.

Alexander Stratienko v. Lisa Stratienko

The husband and wife in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case were married in 1989 and had two adult daughters.  The husband was a cardiologist in Chattanooga who had started his own practice in 1999.  The parties also owned a business which built and managed the office building in which the medical practice and other professional practices were located.

The parties had moved to Chattanooga in 1993, and their younger daughter was born three years later.  For several years, the wife was a stay at home mother while the husband worked in the medical practice.  When the practice was started in 1999, the wife assisted with the business operations but was not compensated for her work.

In 2002, the wife’s father died and she inherited a third of his $1.3 million estate.  About this same time, the parties began building the commercial building.  Soon thereafter, the husband was involved in litigation regarding his hospital privileges, and he agreed that the wife spearheaded much of the effort involving this litigation.

The parties’ marriage began to deteriorate about this time, and the husband left the marital residence in 2011.  He withdrew $375,000 from their joint checking account, leaving only $5000 for the wife’s use.  He informed the wife that he would provide an allowance of $5000 per month.  He continued to provide the allowance for eight months, after which she was forced to liquidate her separate assets.  The husband filed for divorce in 2013.  Shortly afterwards, the trial court ordered the husband to pay temporary support of $20,000 per month, which was later reduced to $18,000.  The wife was ordered to pay taxes and insurance on the residence.  Various temporary orders were issued, and trial was held in 2014.  The trial court issued its opinion in 2015, at which time both parties were 62 years old.

The trial court found that the husband had vastly greater vocational skills and earning capacity.  It also noted that the wife had relocated several times to support the husband’s career and to care for his parents.

The court then divided the parties’ property, including the medical practice, which it valued at $245,000.

The wife was awarded alimony, since the husband had an ability to pay and the wife had a need.  It found that neither rehabilitative or transitional alimony would provide the wife with a comparable standard of living, it found that long-term alimony was appropriate.

The court found that the wife’s reasonable needs were $15,500 per month, and that she had investmet income of $9,740 per month.  Therefore, it awarded alimony in futuro of $5,000 per month, plus alimony in solido of $4,500 per month.  The alimony in solido was to continue for ten years.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, raising various issues, including the propriety of the alimony and the valuation of the medical practice.

After first concluding that the temporary alimony award was appropriate, the appeals court turned to the alimony awards in the final judgment.  The husband argued that rehabilitative or transitional alimony would have been more appropriate in the case.  The trial court had noted that, while the wife had a bachelor’s degree and some coursework for her master’s degree, the husband had extensive credentials in cardiology, and worked in a practice that the wife had helped build.  Also, other than her work with husband, she had not worked outside the home.

Even though there was no medical testimony, the wife also testified that she had an autoimmune disorder which was quite debilitating.

After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the evidence supported the lower court’s finding that transitional or rehabilitative alimony was not appropriate.  It noted that the disadvantaged spouse’s standard of living after the divorce should be reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.  And given the facts of the case, the appeals court agreed that this could not be achieved with rehabilitative or transitional alimony.

Turning to the amount, the Court of Appeals agreed that there was a significant income disparity between the parties.  After examining the evidence, it agreed with the trial court that the amounts awarded were supported by the evidence.

After addressing insurance issues, the appeals court turned to the valuation of the medical practice.  The husband argued that the trial court’s valuation of $245,000 was excessive because it did not take into account the tax liability of the business.  The husband’s expert, Randall Herbert, valued the business at about $209,000 after subtracting accrued income taxes.

The wife’s expert, Shannon Farr, valued the practice at about $280,000.  She argued that a reduction for estimated tax liability was improper, since this could usually be “zeroed out” by means of paying a bonus at the end of the tax year.

After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court held that the lower court had properly valued the practice.  It noted that the valuation was within the range of the evidence submitted, and none of the evidence preponderated against that value.

After affirming the alimony and valuation rulings, the Court of Appeals addressed other issues in the case and made some modifications.  It therefore remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.

No. E2016-00542-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.