“Pickup Man” Country Music Star Gets Pickup & Pays Four Types of Alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 17 years married.

Joe Logan Diffie v. Theresa Crump Diffie

This 2019 Tennessee Court of Appeals decision marked the end of the third marriage of country singer-songwriter Joe Diffie.  The husband and wife were married in 2000.   The Husband filed for divorce in Williamson County in 2015 on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.  The wife filed a counter-claim on the grounds of adultery and later added inappropriate marital conduct. They had one child together.  The case went to trial in 2017.

The wife had graduated from high school in 1987 and attended the police academy, becoming a police officer in Florida.  She later worked for a company that transports prison inmates.  She later managed restaurants and did office work.

The husband had served in the military and moved to Nashville in 1986, where he began his career as a successful recording artist and songwriter.  His debut single went to number one on the country charts, and the first six songs he wrote also went to number one.  His career peaked in the 1990s, but he remained popular and toured.

The trial court first divided the parties’ property.  This included the 2013 Ford F150, which was awarded to the husband.  After dividing the property, the court addressed alimony.  The wife was awarded four types of alimony:  First, she was awarded rehabilitative alimony of $1,600 per month for 12 months.  Second, she was to receive transitional alimony of $4,000 per month for 54 months.  The trial court noted that this was to assist on the mortgage payment for the marital residence.  Third, she was awarded alimony in futuro of $2,000 per month starting with the payoff of the mortgage.  She was also to receive an additional $1,000 per month for health insurance.  Finally, she was to receive alimony in solido of almost $75,000 to cover attorney fees and expert witness fees.

Both parties brought appeals to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and raised various issues, including questions related to alimony.  The husband argued that all four types of alimony were not called for, and the wife argued that the amounts were inadequate.

After addressing the property issues, the appeals court turned to a discussion of alimony, tackling the rehabilitative and in futuro awards first.  The husband argued that awarding both in the same case was improper.  The appeals court noted that rehabilitative alimony is a short-term support until the spouse gets back on their feet, whereas alimony in futuro is long-term support in cases where rehabilitation is not feasible.

Because of this condition, the court next looked at whether this was a case where partial rehabilitation might be possible.  In such cases, it might be appropriate to award both.  But this requires a finding by the lower court that the spouse can be only partially rehabilitated.  After examining the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that this was a case where partial rehabilitation was possible.  Therefore, it affirmed that portion of the lower court’s order.

The husband next argued that it was improper to award both transitional and rehabilitative alimony in the same case.  Here, the appeals court agreed with the husband, that transitional alimony should be awarded only in cases where rehabilitation is not necessary.  Therefore, it was error to award both.  After examining the evidence, the court concluded that it was error to award the rehabilitative alimony.

The court next turned to the amount of the alimony.  Here, the lower court had noted that the husband’s income, at some unknowable point in the future, would decline when the rigors of live performance tours became too much for him.  Therefore, the lower court set the alimony at a level where it believed the husband could sustain the payment.

But the appeals court pointed out that the award must be based on factors known at the time of the hearing.  Accordingly, the trial court erred in relying on an unknowable point in the future.  That amounted to an improper reduction.  The appeals court held that the case would need to be sent back for a redetermination, but until that order, the previous amounts would remain in effect.

Finally, the appeals court addressed the alimony in solido awarded to cover attorney fees and witness fees.  After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court held that the amounts were proper.

For these reasons, the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

No. M2018-00267-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.