Music Manager Must Pay $17.5K Per Month Alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 19 years married.

Richard Egan v. Rachael Marie Bailey Egan

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case had been married almost 20 years at the time of their divorce.  They had settled most issues, but were unable to agree on alimony.

The parties lived in California when they got married.  The husband worked as a “day-to-day manager” for musical acts, and the wife worked in a high-end women’s store.  A few year later, the husband formed his own management company and moved to Nashville.  His income between 2011 and 2015 ranged from a low of $424,000 to a high of $3.6 million.  After the birth of their first child, the mother stopped working outside the home.  The value of the total marital estate was about $4.4 million.

The trial court granted the wife alimony in futuro of $17,500 per month.  This was based on a number of factors, including the husband’s average gross income of about $136,000 per month.  The court rejected the husband’s claim that the couple was actually heading toward bankruptcy.  After post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which noted that trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to spousal support.

The husband argued that alimony in futuro was inappropriate, since the wife had the capacity for self-sufficiency.  But the lower court had found that the wife couldn’t be reasonably rehabilitated, and wouldn’t be able to reach anywhere near the husband’s earning capacity.  She hadn’t worked outside the home for 18 years, and had only a high school diploma.

The husband argued, however, that the standard of living was “an illusion, fueled by crippling debt,” and that he expected a much lower standard of living after the divorce.  He pointed out that his most popular client was not even touring, meaning that there would be little income.

But the trial court rejected this argument, pointing to an accumulation of assets.  After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed that the evidence supported these findings.

The husband also argued that the amount was inappropriate, since the wife did not have a need for $17,500 and he had an inability to pay.  But the appeals court reviewed the evidence, particularly the tax consequences, and concluded that the lower court acted properly in setting the amount.

Finally, the husband argued that the statutory factors did not support an award for an indefinite period of time.  But after reviewing the evidence, the court agreed with the lower court that the proper statutory factors had been followed.

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

No. M2019-00676-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.