Reduction in Alimony Means Smaller Share of House Equity

The husband and wife were married in 1983, and in 2017, they moved to Clarksville, Tennessee, and purchased a house.  The original plan was for their daughter and her children, who lived in Chicago, to move to Clarksville and live in that house, but this plan never materialized.  However, the grandchildren did eventually come to live in Tennessee.  At the time of their 2023 divorce, the house was worth $440,000, with about $217,000 equity.

The trial court made an extensive oral ruling.  The husband argued that remarks made showed bias against him.  Among other things, the trial court announced, “I’m not going to be stingy to you like you want to be to her.”

The trial court awarded $50,000 of the house equity to the husband, with the remainder going to the wife.  The trial court explained that this was to compensate for the fact that the wife was getting less alimony than she would otherwise.  The wife was awarded $1500 per month for about five years, followed by $900 per month.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

His primary complaint on appeal was an apparent lack of impartiality by the court.  But the appeals court disagreed, finding that there was no bias.  While it conceded that the lower court had a strong negative reaction to the husband’s arguments, and more temperate language was cautioned, there was no evidence of bias, since the comments were reactions to positions taken by the husband during the case.

The husband also challenged the allocation of equity, since the wife wound up with three-fourths.  The appeals court first noted that property division is a fact-intensive inquiry, and the lower court has broad discretion.

The husband argued that the lower court erred in considering that the grandchildren would be living with the wife.  But the Court of Appeals held that this was not error, since a court can consider all relevant factors.

The husband also argued that the property division award was simply too disproportionate.  But the appeals court again disagreed, noting that the lower court had taken into consideration the lower alimony.

The husband also pointed out that the written order contained no provision requiring the wife to refinance after five years, since this provision was included in the oral ruling.  The appeals court concluded that this omission was inadvertent, and sent the case back for correction of the written order.

The Court of Appeals remanded for correction of that error, but otherwise affirmed the lower court’s judgment.  The costs of appeal were taxed to the husband.

No. M2024-00030-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2025).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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

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