Wife Gets $5.5K x 30 Mos. + $4K Alimony In Futuro After 24 Yrs.

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 24 years married.

Michelle Henry v. Richard H. Henry

The husband and wife in this case were married in Davidson County, Tennessee, in 1995.  The wife had two children from a prior marriage, and they had one child together.  In 2018, the wife filed for divorce in Putnam County, and trial was held in 2019.  The wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and inappropriate marital conduct.

The court split the marital property, giving 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband, with the husband responsible for all debt.  The ring was awarded to the wife, since the court held that the husband had made a gift of the ring, which had been his mother’s, to the wife.  The wife was awarded $15,000 alimony in solido to cover her attorney’s fees for a successful motion to have the husband jailed for contempt.  The wife also received transitional alimony of $5,500 per month for 30 months.  After this period, he was ordered to pay alimony in futuro of $4,000 per month.  As additional alimony, the husband was ordered to continue the premium on his life insurance policy until the wife was 67.

Dissatisfied with the way the case went, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first turned to the ring.  The trial court’s ruling had been based in part on the testimony of the wife’s adult daughter.  The husband argued that her testimony should have been thrown out, since she remained in court to hear other testimony after testifying herself.  She then testified again as to the ring.

However, the appeals court ruled that the husband had failed to make an objection.  Therefore, the issue was waived.

The appeals court next turned to the 60/40 split of property.  The husband argued that the division was inconsistent with the factors contained in the Tennessee statute.  He argued that he should have received 60 percent instead.

The Court quickly dispensed with this argument.  When property division is at issue in a divorce appeal, the court rules require a list of assets and their value to be included in the brief.  It quoted an earlier case that called this table to be “essential.”   No such table was found in the husband’s brief.  Therefore, the court threw out this portion of the appeal.

Finally, the appeals court turned to the issue of alimony.    The husband argued that it was error to include alimony in futuro on top of transitional alimony.  He argued that the wife already possessed the skills needed to adjust to the single life.  He also argued that her needs were unreasonable.  The husband, however, conceded that the wife had at least some need for support, and the appeals court found the lower court’s decision to be appropriate.

It noted that the wife was 58 and had a tenth-grade education and GED.  During the marriage, she had worked outside the home for only 8 weeks.  She had no work experience or job skills.  She had about $9,000 per month in expenses, including an upcoming surgery.  While the husband claimed that his income had dropped to only $4,000 per month, the trial court didn’t find this credible and instead pegged his income at about $10,000.

After reviewing the evidence and the statutory factors, the appeals court agreed that the trial court’s findings were reasonable.

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

No. M2019-01029-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.