Tenn. Husband Receives Transitional Alimony After 17 Years of Marriage
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 17 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfield – Tennessee Alimony Law – 17 years married. Note: this is the second case summary of this opinion on the Tennessee Family Law Blog.
Patricia Carlene Mayfield, the wife and Phillip Harold Mayfield, the husband, met while she was in pharmacy school and he was working as a maintenance machinist. When her parents stopped paying for her schooling, the husband paid $10,000 in fees for the wife to complete her doctorate in pharmacy. In 1989, the wife started work full-time as a pharmacist, moved in with the husband and began paying for the husband’s house and land payments on the husband’s family property. The husband worked for a tool and die machine shop and planned to work in farming. He soon lost his job and focused on farming. The parties married in August 1992 and had two children, a daughter in 1998 and a son in March 2001. The parties agreed that the husband would stay home to care for the children and work on their farm.
In April 2007, the husband became abusive. The husband hit and slapped the wife and a number of occasions broke her nose. Following an incident in January 2008 in which the husband ripped off the wife’s clothes and forced her outside, the wife took the children and moved out. In January 2009, after 17 years of marriage, the wife filed for divorce. In 2009, the wife earned over $127,000 a year. The husband’s earning capacity was estimated at approximately $45,000 a year. The trial court designated the wife as the primary residential parent, the marital property was divided and the wife received discretionary costs. The husband was denied rehabilitative alimony by the trial court and appealed this decision.
On appeal, the husband asked for both rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro. He argued that the parties agreed that he would stay home and care for the children, which meant he remained out of the workforce for an extended period while the wife advanced her career. As a result, he required rehabilitative alimony to enable him to retrain or obtain an education that would allow him to reach the standard of living he had when the couple was married. The father also argued that he should receive alimony in futuro to compensate for the disparity in his earning capacity.
The court held that when determining spousal support, the court first determines if one spouse is economically disadvantaged relative to the other spouse. If the petitioning spouse is at a disadvantage, the court then determines the amount of alimony to be paid based on the petitioning spouse’s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay, with greater consideration given to the economically disadvantaged spouse.
There other factors that a court may also weigh to determine alimony. The court may look at the different roles of each spouse and it may consider the economic contribution made by the primary caregiver and homemaker. The court may also consider the economic disadvantage one spouse has as a result of contributing to the marriage as homemaker, and the need to provide a similar standard of living after the marriage as enjoyed during the marriage.
Taking these factors into consideration, the court of appeals denied both types of alimony. The court held that rehabilitative alimony was inappropriate since the husband was “capable of finding suitable employment utilizing his skills in farming or in the tool and die industry.” During the lower court trial, Rodney Caldwell, a vocational expert, testified that the husband had gained transferrable skills in his work in farming and in the tool and die industry and was capable of finding employment in either field. It should be noted that the husband’s brother, who himself worked in the tool and die industry, said the husband would have trouble finding work since everything was now computerized and the husband would need to return to school and learn in order to adapt. The court also denied alimony in futuro, holding that the husband had the ability to achieve an earning capacity that would help him maintain his standard of living.
The court of appeals, however, took it’s own initiative and granted the husband transitional alimony, which is not aimed at rehabilitation but rather “designed to aid a spouse who already possesses the capacity for self-sufficiency but needs financial assistance in adjusting to the economic consequences of establishing and maintaining a household without the benefit of the other spouse’s income.” See Gonsewsky. The husband remained at home caring for the children. Based on the daughter’s testimony, the husband also took care of most of the household responsibilities. In this way, he suffered “an economic detriment for the benefit of the marriage” and should therefore receive transitional alimony. When awarding the amount ($2,000 a month for 36 months), the court took into consideration the modest lifestyle the family led, including the choice to live in a small house at the husband’s request, the amount of marital property that the husband already received, and the husband’s fault in the breakup of the marriage.
No. M2010-01383-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2012).
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.
