Tennessee Engineer Husband Not Entitled to Permanent Alimony from Surgeon Wife
Tennessee alimony case summary in divorce.
Heather Anne Gulish Gladwell v. Tony Neil Gladwell, Jr. – Tennessee divorce alimony law 16 years married
The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in Pennsylvania in 1997 when the wife was 28 and the husband 26. The husband was an engineer and the wife an orthopedic surgeon. They moved to Tennessee in 2003 and had three children. In 2013, the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. The husband also asked for divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct, irreconcilable differences, and adultery. He also asked to be named primary residential parent. Despite the acrimonious proceedings that followed, the trial court ordered mediation, and the parties were able to work out most property and custody issues. After resolving the other issues, the trial court set alimony. Since the husband had not worked outside the home since 2003, the court ordered rehabilitative alimony to be paid to him in the amount of $2000 per month for 36 months, as well as attorney’s fees in the amount of $60,000. The husband appealed a number of issues to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The wife made a motion to stay the payment of alimony until those issues were resolved.
After addressing the other issues, the appeals court turned to the question of alimony. The husband argued that the alimony should not be limited to rehabilitative alimony. He argued that he was entitled to alimony in futuro to continue until death or remarriage.
The appeals court first noted that trial courts have a great deal of discretion when it comes to alimony. The purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to assist the economically disadvantaged spouse to become self-reliant again.
The trial court had noted that the husband had a degree in electrical engineering with a minor in computer science. The husband had testified that he needed additional education to get back into the workforce, and the trial court had held that the case was proper for rehabilitative alimony. Based upon its review of the evidence, the appeals court held that this award was within the trial court’s discretion.
The court held that the award of alimony in solido to pay the husband’s attorney’s fees was not appropriate, since he was able to bear these costs after the property settlement. Therefore, it reversed this award.
For these reasons, other than the award of attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. W2014-01095-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2015).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
