Wife With Real Estate License Not Entitled to Alimony in Futuro
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 28 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Lisa Goodpaster Riggs v. Kenneth Lee Riggs – Tennessee divorce alimony law married 28 years
Husband and wife were married in 1978. After 28 years of marriage, the wife filed for divorce and alleged irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. (Both parties admitted to at least one affair each during the course of the marriage.) The trial court granted the divorce, and specifically found that the wife was a battered wife. The trial court found that the wife had “absolutely no ability to earn income” and awarded her alimony of $1200 per month. The trial court also ordered the sale of the parties’ residence, and awarded her 60% of the equity. It also awarded her attorney’s fees of $5000.
The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and argued that the trial court had erred in finding that wife had no ability to earn income, in awarding alimony, and in awarding attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals first found that the trial court had erred in finding that the wife had no ability to earn income, since the evidence preponderated against that finding. The wife had held a real estate license since 2004. There was also evidence that she was able-bodied, able to travel, and able to enjoy a social life. Even though she had not yet sold any houses, and the Court agreed that there would be start-up expenses for a real estate business, the Court found that she would be able to use her license to earn income. The Court commented that “the award of alimony in futuro [would rob] her of any motivation to seek self-sufficiency.”
The Court of Appeals did concede that transitional alimony would be appropriate while the wife started her business. However, there was no evidence in the record as to her needs for the business. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of alimony, but remanded the case to determine the amount the wife would need to get her business off the ground, for the purpose of awarding transitional alimony.
The Court of Appeals did hold that the award of attorney’s fees was proper, since the wife had no means to pay for an attorney at the time of the divorce. The husband, on the other hand, was earning $70,000 per year and had the ability to pay. However, the Court of Appeals denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.
250 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2007).
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.
