Married 22 Yrs, Husband Must Pay In Solido and Rehabilitative Alimony
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 22 years married.
Dinah Bostic Norman v. John Arthur Norman IV
The wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case filed for divorce in 2014 after 22 years of marriage. They were the joint owners of a durable medical supply equipment company. Shortly after filing the divorce, the wife obtained a restraining order.
During the marriage, both parties contributed to the success of the business. The wife was the public face of the company, while the husband was responsible for the financial aspects.
Because of the restraining order, the husband was excluded from the business for a few months, and on his return, he testified that the company was in disarray. About 90% of the company’s business came from the Veterans Administration, and the agency had placed the company on probation due to quality issues. The husband learned that the wife had used company funds to pay a personal friend and family members, and the company bank account had a negative balance.
Trial was held, and the court found that many of the wife’s accusations were unsupported by the evidence. In particular, it awarded the company to the husband, and based this ruling on the wife’s conduct.
After deciding the other property issues, the court then turned to the question of alimony. It first awarded the wife alimony in solido in the amount of $115 thousand, but allowed the husband to pay this award in 48 monthly installments. It also awarded the wife $2,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for 48 months. And because it found that the wife could not be completely rehabilitated, it awarded an additional $3,000 per month alimony in futuro.
The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. After first addressing the property distribution issues, it turned to the question of spousal support. It first noted that trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to alimony, and the standard for reversing is strict.
For the award of alimony in solido, the husband argued that the trial court should not have provided interest on amounts paid over time. However, the appeals court examined the order and determined that this had been appropriate.
As to the future alimony payments, the husband argued that the award was not supported by the evidence. In particular, the lower court’s order had been based upon his having an earning capacity of $240,000 per year. He argued that the damage done to the company had made this figure unrealistic. But the appeals court pointed out that even during the contentious divorce, the parties had been drawing $20,000 per month, and that the husband would be able to continue this practice in the future.
Based upon its review of the record, the appeals court held that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings, and for that reason affirmed the finding of earning capacity.
The Court of Appeals also reviewed the wife’s earning capacity, and the lower court’s finding that she was the economically disadvantaged spouse. It pointed out that the wife’s most likely future employment would be as a teacher, and noted the considerably lower salary she would receive as opposed to the husband.
Finally, the Court of Appeals looked at the husband’s ability to pay and concluded that he had the ability to pay the amounts assessed by the lower court.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. It did, however, deny the wife’s request for attorney fees on appeal.
No. M2015-02364-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2017).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
