MD/Wife to Pay $2.4K/Mo. Alimony in Futuro to Stay at Home Dad
Tennessee case summary on divorce, child support, and alimony after 24 years of marriage.
Christina Lee Cain-Swope v. Robert David Swope
The husband and wife in this Davidson County, Tennessee, case were married in 1991. After the birth of the first of their three children, the husband became a stay-at-home father while the wife finished medical school.
The wife filed for divorce in 2013, and the court entered its final order in 2015. The wife was ordered to pay $2,400 per month in alimony in futuro and an additional $10,000 alimony in solido. She was also ordered to pay $793 per month child support.
The wife then brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals which affirmed the award of alimony, but held that the amount would need to be adjusted.
After that first appeal was decided, the mother filed a petition to modify child support, since one of the children was about to reach the age of majority. The trial court also re-opened the evidence on the issue of alimony. Hearings were held on both issues.
The case was decided by Judge Philip E. Smith, who again held that the alimony award of $2,400 was appropriate. In so doing, the court questioned some of the wife’s statements of income and expenses. The wife also argued that child support should take into consideration that she paid private school tuition, but the court held that this expenditure was voluntary. The court did lower child support because one child had reached majority, but did not make any other adjustments. The wife brought a second appeal.
The appellate court first addressed the child support issue, looking at whether the educational expense warranted a reduction. The trial court had held that the issue was not properly before it because of language in the first Court of Appeals opinion. However, the appellate court’s second opinion stated that the first opinion had mistakenly relied upon a proposed parenting plan that had never been adopted. Because of this misunderstanding, the appeals court held that the trial court could have considered the issue. It went on to hold that educational expenses can result in a downward departure in appropriate cases. The appeals court gave some guidance on how to apply that principle, but held that the trial court should use its discretion in deciding whether a departure was appropriate in this case. Therefore, it remanded the case for that determination.
The court then turned to the issue of alimony. She argued that she had a financial deficit each month, and that the amount awarded was excessive.
The appeals court first noted that the husband was entitled to alimony, and this issue had been decided by the first appeal. As to the amount, the appeals court stated that it was somewhat troubled by the trial court’s failure to make specific findings as to the wife’s ability to pay. While the trial court found an ability to pay, it did not disclose the facts necessary to show how it reached that conclusion. However, in this particular case, there was sufficient information for the appellate court to reach a conclusion. In particular, it noted that the trial court had specifically found that the wife’s expenses were overstated. It concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the award. In particular, it looked at the wife’s statement of expenses and concluded that it was unreasonable.
It did note that some expenses rejected by the lower court, such as the private school tuition, were improperly excluded. But even so, it held that the evidence supported the award of $2,400.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.
No. M2018-02212-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2020).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
