Husband’s Life of Leisure Means Limited Alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 17 years married.

Fiona Eischeid Flodin v. Tan Scott Flodin

The husband and wife in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case were married in 2001 and had no children.  The wife was originally a bartender but became a successful real estate agent, earning $186,000 per year.  At the beginning of the marriage, the husband worked for a tile and granite company and never earned more than $35,000 per year.  He was laid off in 2009.  The husband took the position that he contributed by helping the wife with her business, but the wife took the position that his contributions were minimal.

The husband became upset upon learning that the wife had kissed another man, and the marriage broke down.  In 2017, the wife filed for a divorce.  At the trial, the wife testified that she worked 10-12 hours per day, but that the husband would play video games and watch TV most of the day.  There was conflicting testimony of vocational experts as to the husband’s job prospects.

Another issue at trial was the valuation of property owned by the couple, and the valuation of the wife’s 8.5%  share of her real estate business.

In 2018, the trial court, Judge L. Marie Williams, entered the divorce judgment.  The wife was awarded 62% of the marital estate, but the husband was to receive transitional alimony of $2,000 per month for six months, or until one of their properties was sold.

In making her ruling, Judge Williams found that all of the witnesses were credible, with the exception of the husband.  In particular, the trial court found that the husband simply preferred playing video games, watching TV, and drinking to work outside the home.  While he did do some errands for the wife’s business for a few hours per week, it was minimal.  There was no credible evidence that the husband’s not getting a job was a mutual decision.  Also, there was no evidence that the husband contributed as a homemaker, since the wife did all of the cooking, shopping, cleaning, and tending of the house.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He argued that the valuation of the marital property was in error, that it was distributed incorrectly, and that he should have received more spousal support.

After addressing the valuation issues, the appeals court turned to the division of the property.  It noted that the lower court had divided the estate 62% to the wife and 38% to the husband on the grounds that the wife made the overwhelming contributions.  The Court of Appeals agreed that the lower court had acted within its discretion in taking into account the husband’s “chosen leisurely lifestyle.”  For that reason, it affirmed the property division.

The appeals court next turned to the issue of alimony.  The husband argued that transitional alimony for a longer period, 60 months, would have been more appropriate.  But once again, the appeals court pointed out that the husband was “neither a homemaker nor wage earner” and that he suffered no economic detriment as a result of the marriage.   Based upon all of the evidence, the Court of Appeals agreed that the lower court’s award was appropriate.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. E2018-01499-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 26,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.