Alimony to Be Set w/out Considering Wife’s Parents’ Business

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 17 years married.

Jennifer Erdman v. Mark Erdman

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were married in 2000.  The wife had one child from a prior marriage, and six children were born during the marriage.

At the time of the marriage, the wife was employed by her parents’ business, but she stopped working in 2001 when the first child was born.  She was a homemaker for most of the marriage, but occasionally did some jobs.  The husband was a drug sales representative and earned about $190,000 in 2017.

The wife filed for divorce in 2015, and went back to work for her parents’ business, earning about $50,000 per year.

The case went to trial in 2017 and 2018 before Judge Deanna B. Johnson.  The husband was granted sole decision-making authority regarding the children’s extracurricular activities.  The wife did not receive any alimony, and she appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

She first argued that the property had been divided improperly.  The husband had a 401(k) with a premarital value of $611,000.  The value had gone down during the early days of the marriage, and loans were taken out against the account for marital expenses.  The husband continued to make contributions during the marriage.  The trial court had concluded that $611,000 of this account was the husband’s separate property.

The appeals court, after examining all of the transactions concerning this account, concluded that the trial court had erred.  While it was not possible to make the final determination, the appeals court sent the case back to compute the value of the husband’s share.  In particular, it noted that since part of the account had been transferred to a new IRA, the new IRA was marital property.

The appeals court also found that the division of real property had not fully considered all of the relevant evidence, and sent the case back for this division to be done again.

The Court of Appeals also sent the case back for a re-examination of the alimony award.  In particular, the lower court had looked at the profitability of the wife’s parents’ business.  The appellate court commented: “Namely, we are concerned with the trial court’s direct highlighting of evidence that Wife’s family businesses earn over $18.7 million annually.” But the appeals court pointed out that she had no interest in that company, and that reliance on that factor was improper when determining the need for alimony.

The wife also questioned the trial court’s ruling about decision-making for the extracurricular activities.  On this point, the appeals court examined the evidence and held that the lower court had acted properly.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.

No. M2018-01668-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.