No Alimony for Extravagant Spending TN Wife After Tumultuous 15 Years
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 15 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Stacy Ramsey v. Phillip Ramsey – Tennessee divorce alimony.
The husband and wife were married in 1993. The husband had two children from a previous marriage, and the children lived with the couple during the marriage. The wife also had a daughter from a previous marriage, and the husband adopted the daughter. They also had one child together, who was born in 1994. In 2008, the parties separated after what they both called a tumultuous marriage. The wife had struggled with depression and was recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Various issues were litigated, including alimony.
The trial court did not make any award of alimony, and the wife appealed this issue to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and argued that she should have been granted alimony in futuro. In support of this argument, she pointed out the disparity in income between the two spouses. She argued that she would not be able to maintain a standard of living comparable to her husband’s, or comparable to the one enjoyed by the parties prior to their separation. Also, she argued that her mental health condition interfered with her ability to work and would cause a limited future earning capacity.
The Court of Appeals pointed out that the amount of alimony is an issue that is within the trial court’s discretion, and that the trial court is best suited to review the particular circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Court of Appeals does not normally interfere unless the trial court’s discretion has manifestly been abused. The Court then looked at the relevant factors in determining alimony.
The trial court had determined that alimony would have been “unjust” given the circumstances of the case. She had quit her job and voluntarily left the marriage for another man. In addition, she had incurred debt from extravagant purchases that were not in the family’s best interest. The trial court made the determination that she had a substantial earning capacity. She was licensed as a private investigator, and had worked for numerous agencies. She had turned down job offers. In 2007, she had income of $32,000, and had income of $22,000 for a few months in 2008.
In 2009, her physician advised that she was unable to work, but that this was only temporary.
The Court of Appeals examined the evidence and determined that the evidence supported the trial court’s findings. When the wife was working, her wages were similar to the husband’s. She had not physical ailments that would prevent her returning to work. Also, the couple had no young children that would require a stay-at-home parent.
The marital assets had been divided between the parties, and the Court of Appeals agreed that there was no need for future alimony for the wife. Therefore, it affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to the alimony.
Because some other issues were reversed in part, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to consider those issues.
No. E2012-01940-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Oct. 29, 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.
