Husband with $900K of Assets Ordered to Pay $100K Lump Sum Alimony
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 11 years married.
Karen Gaye Thompson Bounds v. Kenneth Newton Bounds
The husband and wife in this Bradley County, Tennessee, case were married in 2006. At the time, the wife was working as a receptionist and legal assistant, but was laid off about six months after the marriage. She looked for about two years for a new job but gave up the search after about two years. The husband was disabled and not employed during the marriage. In 2017, the wife filed for divorce, and the case went to trial.
The wife was 67 years old at the time of trial and was in good health. She was receiving $286 per month from an annuity, which would continue for 17 years. She had also recently received an inheritance of $15,000. Her main source of income was a railroad spousal annuity of $922, which would be reduced to $645 after the divorce. Her total assets at the time of trial were about $40,000, consisting mostly of savings from the annuity and inheritance.
After leaving the marital residence, the wife moved into an apartment and paid $984 per month rent.
The husband was 72 years old and had been disabled since 1996. Between his disability and railroad pension, his income was about $3,900 per month.
The trial court divided the parties’ property and awarded the wife an additional $100,000 alimony in solido. The wife was also awarded her attorney’s fees. The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The husband first argued that the lower court had erred in awarding the alimony. The appeals court first noted that trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to alimony awards. An appellate court can reverse only if the trial court applied the wrong legal standard or made a decision that was clearly unreasonable. It then reviewed the relevant statutory factors.
The husband argued that the lower court had misapplied one of the most important factors, namely, the wife’s need and his ability to pay. He argued that paying the $100,000 jeopardized his ability to meet his future needs. But the appeals court disagreed.
It first noted that the husband had over $900,000 in assets, whereas the wife had only $42,000 in assets. The wife had a monthly deficit of $1,200, but the husband had an excess of over $1,200. Since the trial court had considerable discretion, the appeals court ruled that it would not second guess the findings.
The appeals court also agreed with the lower court that the wife was entitled to her attorney fees. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
No. E2017-02366-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2018).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
