Tennessee Wife Held Capable of Rehabilitation After 23 Year Marriage
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 23 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Rebecca Lynn Willenberg v. Mark Edward Willenberg – Tennessee divorce alimony – 23 years
Rebecca and Mark Willenberg were married in 1990. In 2012, the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. In 2013, the trial court entered its final decree and made a property distribution.
The trial court made a finding that the wife could not be rehabilitated, and awarded her alimony. Alimony consisted of a lump sum of $35,000, and $2,000 per month for 12.5 years. Both parties appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The wife alleged that the amount awarded was insufficient, and the husband argued that the finding that the wife could not be rehabilitated was in error.
The appeals court noted that the various types of alimony in Tennessee are governed by statute, and that the appropriate type of alimony hinged on the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted that appellate courts should not alter such awards without a showing that the lower court abused its discretion.
The appeals court then carefully examined the lower court’s findings. The lower court had found that both parties had equal education, but that the husband had remained in the workforce in the same industry during the marriage, and the wife had not. Based largely upon these factors, the lower court had found that the wife was not capable of rehabilitation.
The appeals court noted, however, that the statute favors short-term spousal support, with an aim toward rehabilitating the disadvantaged spouse.
In this case, the wife had a degree in public management, and she was qualified for several government jobs. She also had skill in Excel and Word and had no physical limitations. She had even investigated the possibility of obtaining a two-year accounting degree which would increase her earning capacity. Based upon these factors, the appeals court held that the wife was capable of rehabilitation and that long-term support was not necessary.
The court sent the case back to the trial court for a determination of the correct amount of rehabilitative alimony.
The appeals court also addressed the attorney fees, and held that the lower court had acted properly in not awarding fees to either party. The court also affirmed the lower court’s ruling naming the husband as the custodian of the son’s college fund.
No. M2013-02627-COA-R3-cV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2014).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Law.
