Tennessee Wife Entitled to Alimony in Futuro After 28 Year Marriage

Tennessee alimony law case summary following 28 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.

Mark Burell Parrish v. Tammy Jo Scott Parrish – Tennessee divorce alimony 28 years married.

The husband and wife were married in 1982 and separated in 2010.  The husband filed a complaint for divorce in Henderson County, alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences.  The wife did not answer, and the trial court granted the divorce by default.  The wife later filed a motion to reopen the judgment, which was granted.  The parties mediated most of the property issues, but were unable to agree to some issues, including alimony.  In 2012, the court granted her an award of alimony of $850 per month, until death or remarriage.  For factual findings, the trial court noted only that the wife had “many physical and educational limitations” and that she could not be rehabilitated.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals first noted that the record was very sparse, and commented that current law requires more detailed findings of fact by the trial court.  Normally, it would remand the case, but it also noted that it had the discretion to “soldier on” if the legal issues are otherwise clear.  In this case, it found that the legal issue was clear, and that the trial court had provided sufficient oral statements to make review possible.  Therefore, it did not remand the case for additional findings.

Normally, Tennessee law favors rehabilitative alimony.  In this case, the trial court had instead ordered alimony in futuro, until the wife’s death or remarriage.  The factors that it found most important were the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay.  In reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals noted that it must give great deference to the trial court’s determination.  In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the husband earned over $30 per hour.  The wife, on the other hand, hadn’t worked since 2007, and had been primarily in charge of taking care of the house and children during the marriage.  She had worked as a beautician, but her license had lapsed.  She suffered from meuropathy, carpal tunnel, arthritis, and some back problems, and these conditions all affected her earning capacity.  She testified that, at most, she could earn about $300 or $400 per week, but that she had no current source of income.  She was receiving food stamps, and the court found that she was economically disadvantaged.  The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court had found the wife’s testimony to be credible.

Finally, the Court considered the duration of the marriage and the fact that the wife had been largely in charge of housekeeping and child care during most of that time.

The husband pointed out that the wife had been denied social security disability benefits, but the Court of Appeals held that this was not necessarily strong evidence of her ability to work.

After considering all of these factors, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had acted within its discretion in awarding alimony, and affirmed the judgment.  However, it denied the wife an award of attorney’s fees for the appeal, and found that the appeal had not been frivolous or taken solely for delay..

No. W2013-00316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2013).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Law in Divorce | Answers to FAQs.  Also, for legal updates, news, analysis, and commentary, see our Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Alimony category.  A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.