Tennessee Wife Awarded Divorce When Husband Turns off the Toilets

Tennessee law case summary on grounds for divorce and child support in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Sharon Clayman Sitz v. William Grant Sitz – Tennessee divorcing a control freak

The husband and wife were married in October 1993 and had one child, who was born in 1999.  In 2010, the wife filed for divorce.  At the time of trial, the husband was 55 and the wife was 50.  The husband had degrees in chemical and civil engineering and worked at the time of the marriage as a plant manager.  He started a consulting firm in 1995, but his self-employment income steadily declined.  He always showed a loss for his business, and worked various temporary jobs, most recently as a service writer for Walmart, earning less than $8 per hour.

The wife worked as a pharmacy materials manager and earned about $30,000 per year.  She also paid for the family’s health insurance.  The husband was ordered to pay temporary child support pending trial, but accrued an arrearage of over $5,000.  He was held in contempt and went to jail, but was current on the child support obligation at the time of trial.

The wife testified that she filed for divorce because of the many “rules” that the husband instituted in the home.  For example, to save money on water, he turned off the water to the toilets and saved the bathing water for flushing.  The hot water heater was kept off until immediately before showers.  The husband took showers with their son to save water.  He kept the thermostat turned up in the summer to a point where the wife became nauseated.  He timed the wife’s use of a blow dryer, and forbade use of the dishwasher or clothes dryer.  He set the bedtime for his wife and son at 7:00 PM.  At one pre-trial hearing, he testified, “it’s my house, my rules.”  He later clarified that his wife was simply “outvoted” with respect to the thermostat.

The husband also testified that the wife had a “bizarre control thing”, relating to the son’s choices of video games and TV shows.  The husband downplayed the concerns of the son’s therapist, noting that the therapist had not actually observed life in their household.

A court-appointed psychologist concluded that neither husband nor wife had any diagnosable mental disorder.  The husband’s own therapist, however, testified that the husband had a mild adjustment disorder.

The trial court granted the wife a divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct.  It named the wife the primary residential parent and granted the husband parenting time every other weekend and one afternoon a week.  It also ordered both parties to keep the temperature between 68 and 72 degrees, keep the hot water and toilets turned on, and not to bathe or shower with the child.  The trial court found that the husband was voluntarily underemployed, and imputed an income of $6,608 per month.  It set child support at $898 per month.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that the order constituted legal kidnapping, since he had done most of the child rearing.  The Court of Appeals, however, found that the trial court’s findings were well within the trial court’s discretion.  It took particular note of the fact that the child’s therapist supported the plan that the court adopted.

The husband also contested the finding of voluntary underemployment.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the husband had been employed only sporadically and had not utilized his considerable education, skills, and experience.  The Court of Appeals found that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding as to the husband’s potential income.

Finally, the husband argued that his “energy and water conservation rules” did not rise to the level of inappropriate marital conduct.  The court held that these rules actually rose to the level of causing “pain, anguish or distress” and made life “unendurable” for the wife.

The Court of Appeals did order one correction in the property division and remanded for that purpose.  In all other respects, however, it affirmed the trial court.

No. E2012-01726-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2013).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation.  Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce.  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.