Alimony After 25 Yr Marriage Depends on If Wife Can Be Rehabilitated
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 25 years married.
Tracy Lynn Hallums v. Bruce Alan Hallums
The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1990. Two children were born, only one of whom was still a minor at the time of their 2014 divorce. The trial court granted a divorce to the wife on the grounds of the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. The mother was named the primary residential parent and child support was set. In addition, the trial court awarded the wife $1500 per month of alimony in futuro, and awarded her almost $14,000 to cover her attorney fees and expenses. The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and argued that these awards were inappropriate.
The appeals court first summarized Tennessee law regarding the types of spousal support that can be awarded and the relevant statutory factors to be addressed in making the award.
In this case, the husband argued that the award of permanent alimony was improper, since there had been no evidence that the wife was incapable of being rehabilitated. This finding is necessary before a court can award permanent alimony, as opposed to temporary rehabilitative alimony.
The appeals court agreed that the lower court had not made adequate findings about whether rehabilitation was feasible, or whether an award of transitional or rehabilitative alimony should have been made instead. The appeals court noted that it normally defers to the trial court in such matters, but in this case, there was not enough of a record to affirm the decision for that reason.
The court noted that rehabilitative or transitional alimony are favored, and that it is necessary for a court to determine that these would not be feasible before awarding permanent alimony. The appeals court noted that there was some evidence regarding the possibility of the wife passing her CPA exam, but without specific findings, the alimony award would need to be vacated.
On the issue of attorney fees, the appeals court held that the lower court had acted properly, and affirmed the award. It did, however, decline to award additional attorney fees to either party for the appeal.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated a portion of the lower court’s order and remanded the case for additional fact finding.
No. M2016-00396-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
