Husband Gets Alimony Reduced After Retirement
Tennessee alimony modification case summary.
Randall G. Himes v. Elizabeth Bates Himes
Husband Gets Alimony Reduced After Retirement
The husband and wife in this Wilson County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2011 after 29 years of marriage. The parties had entered into a marital dissolution agreement that called for the husband to pay $5000 per month alimony until the wife’s remarriage or death. The husband was also to maintain a $500,000 life insurance policy. In 2016, after the husband was terminated from his job, this was modified to $2500 per month, but the insurance requirement remained in place.
In 2017, the wife filed a petition for contempt and to modify alimony. She alleged that the husband had let the insurance policy lapse, and that the husband’s income had increased. The husband also made a request to modify, in that his retirement plan had resulted in a reduction in income. He also pointed to a dramatic increase in life insurance premiums.
At the time of trial, the husband had lost his job and retired. He expected income of $2650 per month. The wife admitted that she had the ability to work, but had been out of the job market for over 30 years. She was eligible for social security benefits of about $980 per month, but wanted to wait to draw them. Her mother had recently died, and she stood to inherit a portion of an estate valued at $2.6 million.
The trial court first held that the husband was not in contempt, given the dramatic increase in life insurance premium and the husband’s diligent efforts to find a replacement policy. It granted some relief to both parties. The wife was granted a retroactive increase, and she was awarded a judgment of $16,000 to cover that increase. But going forward, the alimony was reduced to $1500 per month. The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the wife also raised issues in the appeal.
The appeals court noted that the prerequisite for a change of alimony was a substantial and material change. The court first addressed the retroactive increase. The trial court had based this on the fact that the husband had secured new employment, even though that employment had ended by the time of trial. The appeals court agreed that this employment significantly impacted the husband’s ability to pay, and thus constituted a material change of circumstances. Therefore, it affirmed most of the award, although it noted that the increased income was not present for a few months. Therefore, it modified the judgment from $16,000 to $14,000.
The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the husband’s decision to retire was reasonable. Therefore, it affirmed the reduction of alimony going forward.
The appeals court also agreed that the wife was entitled to post-judgment interest. However, it denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment as modified.
No. M2019–01344-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2021).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Modification in Tennessee Law | How to Modify Alimony.
