Husband Can’t Be In Contempt Absent Finding of Ability to Pay

Tennessee case summary on post-divorce alimony collection.

John C. Helton v. Esther R. Helton

Husband Can’t Be In Contempt Absent Finding of Ability to Pay

The husband and wife in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case divorced in 2016.  Their marital dissolution agreement was approved by the court, and called for the husband to pay alimony of $4,000 per month until the marital home was sold, and then $5,000 per month.  It also provided that the husband was to be responsible for the son’s student loan debt.

In 2018, the wife filed a petition for contempt.  She alleged that the husband had failed to take responsibility for the student loan debt.  The husband argued that the student loans were in deferment, and for that reason he could not be in contempt.

The trial court found the husband to be in civil contempt for failing to pay the student loan debt, and failing to pay alimony as ordered.  It found that he was in arrears for $55,000 and entered judgment against him.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He argued that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt, since the trial court had not properly considered his ability to pay.

The appeals court began by noting that one of the essential elements of civil contempt is that the conduct be willful.  Willfulness requires that the person have the ability to pay at the time the obligation was due. 

The lower court had stated that the husband’s violation was willful.  But there was no finding about the husband’s ability to pay.  There was no explanation as to why the trial court had found the failure to be willful.

In fact, the trial court had even noted that the husband’s financial situation was dire and his income was substantially less than it had been before.  These findings supported a conclusion that the husband was not able to pay.

Because there was no express finding as to ability to pay, the finding of willfulness, and the holding that the husband was in contempt, were not supported.

The court also held that the lower court should prepare findings explaining its reasoning for awarding attorney’s fees to the wife.  And since the husband prevailed on the appeal, the court denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s order and remanded the case.

No. E2020–00599-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15,  2021).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.