Stay-at-Home Dad Gets Alimony but Amount to be Adjusted
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 22 years married.
Christina Lee Cain-Swope v. Robert David Swope
The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1991 and had two children. The wife was a medical doctor at Vanderbilt University. The husband had a bachelor’s degree in fine arts and worked outside the home for the first four years of the marriage. After their first child was born in 1995, he became a stay-at-home parent until 2011, at which time he was employed at Trader Joe’s grocery store.
In 2013, the wife filed for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. The husband filed a counter-complaint alleging the same grounds. Trial was held in 2014 and 2015, and the trial court entered an order declaring the parties divorced. The wife was named the primary residential parent, but was also ordered to pay $793 per month in child support. She was also ordered to pay $2,400 per month in alimony in futuro, as well as $10,000 of the husband’s attorney fees. The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Her appeal included issues of both child support and alimony. As to the alimony, she argued that the amount, duration, and type were erroneous. She also argued that some statements made by the trial court during opening arguments indicated bias, and that for that reason, there should be no presumption of correctness.
The Court of Appeals first addressed the subject of the trial court’s bias. Normally, factual findings of a lower court have a presumption of correctness. The wife argued that this presumption should not apply because of the trial court’s alleged bias.
The appeals court first noted that all litigants are entitled to an impartial tribunal, and that this is a fundamental constitutional right. In this case, the wife pointed to a question by the trial judge to her attorney. The trial judge questioned whether the husband had the ability to generate as much income as the wife. After the attorney had replied, the judge stated, “let’s agree to disagree on that.”
The appeals court held that these comments did not rise to the level of bias on the part of the judge. It was merely a case of a judge properly learning material during the ordinary course of the judicial proceedings.
The appeals court concluded that the remarks did not show any appearance of impropriety. It also noted that the wife made no motion to recuse the trial judge. Therefore, it held that there was no improper bias, and applied the normal presumption of correctness.
After addressing some child support issues, the appeals court turned to the question of alimony. On this issue, the appeals court first noted that alimony decisions are within the discretion of the lower court. Normally, a judgment will be affirmed if there is factual support and the trial court applied the correct legal standard.
In this case, the wife’s income as a physician had been as high as $260,000 per year. At the time of trial, her salary at Vanderbilt was $154,000 per year. The husband, on the other hand, earned $13.85 per hour at the time of trial.
In this case, the appeals court agreed that the husband was the economically disadvantaged spouse, and that alimony in futuro was appropriate. It noted that he suffered economic detriment by the parties’ decision that he would be a stay-at-home parent. His income at trial was the highest he had ever earned, about $26,000 per year. Given his age and education, the appeals court agreed that he would never be able to achieve earning capacity comparable to his pre-divorce standard of living. For that reason, the court concluded that the type of alimony was appropriate.
It then turned to the amount of the alimony. The wife argued that $2,400 per month was excessive, and that it would require her to deplete her savings or tap into her social security. The appeals court agreed that there was a need for alimony. However, it did note that the amount here would cause a deficit in the wife’s budget. It also noted that the calculation had not been properly explained by the trial court.
For this reason, the Court of Appeals set aside the award of alimony and remanded the case back to the trial court for detailed findings. In particular, it asked the trial court to look at the reasonableness of each party’s expenses, and make a specific finding as to the husband’s needs.
After discussing the issue of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in part, vacated it in part, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
No. M2015-00872-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2016).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
