Husband to Pay $1.5K/Mo. Alimony in Futuro After 34 Yr Marriage

Tennessee case summary on property division and alimony after 34 years marriage in divorce.

Freida Louise Climer v. Stephen Franklin Climer

The husband and wife in this Madison County, Tennessee, case were married in 1983.  It was the husband’s second marriage but the wife’s first.  After 34 years of marriage, the wife filed for divorce.  She alleged adultery and inappropriate marital conduct.  The trial court awarded the wife a divorce on these grounds, divided the property, and awarded the wife alimony in futuro of $1,500 per month.  The wife was also awarded her attorney’s fees.  After the judgment was corrected in post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and alleged various issues.  The wife also brought an appeal.  The appeals court first turned to the issues surrounding property classification and division.

Much of the husband’s property had been classified as his separate property.  These included real property and interests in various businesses.  The husband’s appeal focused on a parcel that the wife had quit claimed to the husband in 2011.  The wife admitted signing the quitclaim deed, but argued that she didn’t know she was signing away her interest in the parcel.  The trial court held that the deed was invalid because it wasn’t supported by consideration and was improperly notarized.

The evidence showed that the husband had presented the deed to the wife while she was cooking dinner and asked her to sign it.  The notary stamp on the document was added later, by the husband’s secretary and later paramour.

Because it found the deed invalid, the trial court found the parcel in question to be partially marital property.

On appeal, the husband argued that, notwithstanding the invalid deed, the property was a gift from the wife.  However, the appeals court held that the husband had not adequately raised his gift theory in the trial court.  Therefore, he was not allowed to raise that issue later on appeal.

For these reasons, the appeals court concluded that the trial court had properly considered the property to be marital.

The husband also argued that the trial court should have awarded him interest in a business as his separate property.  The husband argued that he had inherited the business.  But upon reviewing the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the lower court had ruled properly.

After settling these and other property issues, the appeals court turned to the issue of alimony.  It first noted that the trial court has broad discretion in making alimony awards.

The husband argued that he was unable to pay the $1,500 per month awarded.  While the appeals court did concede that the husband’s earnings were difficult to compute, it did note that he had considerable assets, including stock in a business which he operates.

After reviewing all of the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that the alimony award was proper.

The Court of Appeals also awarded the wife her attorney’s fees on appeal.  It affirmed the judgment, but remanded the case to compute the amount of those fees.

No. W2018-01810-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.