No Alimony After Getting Half of Husband’s Veterinary Practice

Tennessee case summary on Veterinary practice valuation and alimony in divorce.

JOHN WILLIAM OWENS v. MEREDITH ELIZABETH OWENS

The contentious marriage in this Meigs County, Tennessee, case ended in divorce in 2019.  The husband’s mother described the marriage as always having been a battle, and that the spouses “argued and fussed the whole time they’ve been married.”  Both were 52 at the time of trial, and both had veterinary degrees from Auburn University.

They built a house in Tennessee in 2000, and the wife worked full time until their first child was born the next year.  She testified that she wanted to work full time, but that the husband objected.  After the children were born, she worked between two and four days per week.

At the time of the divorce, the husband had a 45% interest in his veterinary practice, and his expert witness, William Robert Vance, Jr., C.P.A., valued his interest at $464,000, which was less than a value he had assigned as part of the practice’s operating agreement, about  $1.1 million.  The expert attributed this difference to discounts for lack of marketability (10%) and lack of control (20%).  The expert testified that he applied the market approach to the overall business value.

The wife’s valuation expert was Dr. Richard Alan Goebel, a doctor of veterinary medicine who worked for Simmons and Associates, a firm which provided transactional service in connection with the sale of veterinary practices.  He set the husband’s interest as having a value of $1.2 million.

Among the accusations in the case was an intimate relationship which the husband had with an employee, who was 20 years old at the time.  She had given the husband a cell phone to use to communicate with her, and he kept it in a drawer at work, or under the seat of his truck.  She testified that she was often present at the parties’ home, since the husband wanted her to become familiar with the children before he left his wife.  He told her that had received some court papers, and that he didn’t intend to name her when he answered.  He told her that if he were subpoenaed, he would say that he forgot to include her.

After a trial, Judge Casey Mark Stokes issued the court’s ruling.  The court set the value of the husband’s interest in the practice at $850,000, and also valued the other properties.  The court awarded each party half of the marital property, and also set custody as 50/50, with the husband being named primary residential parent.  After some post-trial motions, the wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

After deciding a procedural issue, the appeals court first turned to the custody ruling.  After reviewing the evidence and the statutory factors, the court agreed that the mother should be named primary residential parent, with the father getting reasonable, but not equal, visitation.

The wife next argued that the trial court erred in valuing the veterinary practice as it had.  The trial court had looked at the two competing opinions, and concluded that the actual value was “in the middle.”   The appeals court noted that valuation is not an exact science, and affirmed, given that the value was within the range of values suggested by the competent evidence.

The appeals court examined the remainder of the property division and similarly concluded that the trial court had acted properly.

The wife next appealed the trial court’s decision to deny her alimony.  She pointed out her earning capacity, while being about $500 per day, was less than her husband’s.  She also pointed out that she had sacrificed her career in order to be mother and homemaker, to the point that her husband’s earning capacity was several times hers.

The trial court concluded that the wife had not established that she was the economically disadvantaged spouse.  After reviewing the evidence, especially the fact that she had been awarded half the value of husband’s interest in his practice, the appeals court agreed that the trial court had not abused its discretion.  Therefore, it affirmed the denial of alimony.

The appeals court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees, and also ruled that the trial court had not erred by not making a specific determination as to which spouse was at fault for the divorce.  It also denied her request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.

No. E2020–01470-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24,  2021).

TN wife gets no alimony after being awarded half of husband’s interest in practice.

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and view our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?

To learn more, see Business Valuation in Tennessee Divorce.