TN Husband Married 9 Yrs to Pay Over $3,156 per Month Alimony in Futuro to Wife
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 9 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Danny Grubbs Dodd v. Judith Gail Paris Dodd — Tennessee alimony and divorce law 9 years married
Danny Dodd (“husband”) and Judith Dodd (“wife”) were married in December 2002, and had also been married to each other once before. They had two children together during the first marriage. Husband owned and operated several businesses, and wide worked as a substitute teacher and teacher’s aide at an elementary school. When they married in 2002, husband was the owner and operator of Easy Tree Service. In 2004, husband sold Easy Tree Service and purchased a second business, Walton Ferry Storage. In June 2010, husband sold the storage business and purchased land to build his next business, Dodd’s Country Store.
In 2011, husband filed for divorce alleging that wide was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. Wife answered and counter-sued for divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct, adultery, and irreconcilable differences. Wife then filed a Petition for Contempt alleging that in May 2011, husband purchased a residence in Buchanan, Tennessee, which he had titled in the name of Dodd’s Country Store, encumbering other marital assets in violation of the injunction issued at the filing of the divorce complaint. After a trial, the court dismissed husband’s complaint and granted wide a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The court also divided the marital assets and debts, and determined that the wife was economically disadvantaged and awarded her alimony in futuro of $3,156 per month.
Husband claimed that the trial court erred in awarding future alimony under the facts of the case and that the amount of that alimony, regardless of classification, was improper and an abuse of discretion.
Husband argued that there was no evidence indicating whether wife could “rehabilitate herself” or had made any “reasonable efforts” to do so, no evidence indicating the standard of living during the marriage, and no evidence of husband’s ability to pay alimony. The court of appeals explained that future alimony was appropriate when the disadvantaged spouse is unable to achieve—with reasonable effort—earning capacity permitting the spouse’s standard of living after the divorce to be comparable to that which was enjoyed during the marriage, or to the post-divorce standard of living expected to be available to the other spouse.
The trial court also made findings of the evidence about husband’s ability to pay and his credibility, noting that it was not presented with any proof of the amount of his monthly expenses. The husband claimed he did not have the ability to pay, but nothing in the record showed his monthly expenses. The trial judge went further to comment, “Now, I also know you’re living in a $325,000 house, and I’m not going to let you hide behind that mortgage payment and claim I can’t pay alimony because I’ve got this mortgage payment on a house that I bought in violation of the order.” The trial judge found “absolutely no credible proof” showing that he did not have the ability to pay, “taking into consideration that he’s not going to hide behind a 5,000 square foot house purchased in violation of a statutory injunction, say that, and the absence of proof.”
There was substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s determination that wide could not be rehabilitated and could not establish the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage; by contrast, husband did not cited to evidence that preponderates against the court’s findings in that regard. The proof showed that wife was 56 years old and had worked in a local public school as a substitute teacher and aide since 1998. She stated that her only other work experience was work in restaurants, banks, and department stores. Wife testified that she completed high school and attended some college. Wife’s income and expense statement was entered into evidence showing a monthly income of $447 and monthly expenses of $3,825.18. The couple enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage. The proof also showed that husband was self-employed and ran a convenience store and restaurant he opened in 2010. He introduced a profit and loss statement for the business showing a net loss of $8,253.40 between January and October of 2011, and testified that he did not draw a salary from the business. He also admitted into evidence a profit and loss statement that husband used to secure the loan for his Henry County home which listed the store’s net income as $105,328.76 for the period of February 22 through April 30. He did not admit into evidence or produce his individual or business tax return for 2010.
The court of appeals said that the trial court applied the correct legal standards in awarding future alimony by determining that wife was economically disadvantaged and was not capable of rehabilitation. Further, the amount of alimony awarded was supported by wife’s testimony as well as her income and expense statement, and the amount of the award, it said, was not clearly unreasonable. The appellate court gave great weight to the trial court’s finding that husband lacked credibility, which finding was based in large part on his failure to provide documentation of his income and monthly expenses. The trial court’s award of alimony was affirmed.
No. M2012-00153-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 126194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 09, 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.
