Transitional Alimony in Divorce Awarded to Tennessee Wife $2K/mo 4 Yrs
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 23 years married. Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Laurie Jo Edwards v Gary Wayne Edwards – Tennessee alimony law – 23 years marriage – Note that this is the second brief on our blog of this particular case.
Preference of the court to award short-term alimony
Following over 23 years of marriage, transitional alimony was awarded to the wife for a period of four years. Upon appeal, the wife argued she should have received alimony in futuro. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision and denied the appeal.
Laurie Jo Edwards, the wife, and Gary Wayne Edwards, the husband, were married in 1986. The husband was an executive working for Nissan earning $203,000, and the wife was not employed at the time of the divorce proceedings in 2009. The wife worked from the time the parties married until 1998 when the parties mutually agreed that the wife should devote her time to their children and her grandparents. The wife also had a university degree. The husband and wife were 56 and 53 years old respectively at the time of trial. Both agreed that they lived a luxurious lifestyle, owned two homes, three cars and a motorcycle and had substantial savings.
The wife filed for divorce in June 2009, alleging that the husband had committed adultery. She sought an absolute divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and also asked for temporary and permanent spousal support as well as medical insurance. The husband admitted to engaging in inappropriate marital conduct but also alleged that the wife had engaged in adulterous acts.
Decision of the Trial Court
The trial court awarded the wife $2,000 for transitory alimony to be paid for a period of four years. This type of alimony is awarded when the court believes rehabilitation (ie job training, education) is not needed but the spouse needs time to adjust to the new economic circumstances created by the divorce. The wife argued that alimony in futuro, that is, alimony to be paid over a long period of time, should have been granted, in the amount of $6,825, to enable her to maintain the standard of living to which she was accustomed.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121(i) (Supp. 2011) sets forth the factors a court should consider when making awards of alimony. These factors, used by the trial court in this case, include the earning capacity and financial needs of each party, the education and training of each party, duration of the marriage, age and physical and mental condition, whether or not one party is the primary child caregiver, assets of each party, division of marital property, standard of living, contributions to the marriage and the fault of each party. However, Tennessee courts have ruled that the two most important factors are the obligor spouse’s ability to pay and the need of the receiving spouse.
In this case, the court recognized the wife’s contribution to the family and the marriage when she chose to stay home and care for the children, thus leaving herself at an economic disadvantage. At the same time, the marital property was divided equitably and the husband was burdened with almost all of the marital debt. The wife was also educated and employable and had savings to draw on, including her husband’s pension. Based on these factors, the trial court held that rehabilitation was not necessary because she could find employment, but transitional alimony was needed to help the wife adjust to her new financial circumstances.
The Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals quoted from the landmark Gonsewski decision from 2011. There the court said that a trial court rules on alimony based on a balancing of the various factors. The role of the appellate court is to ensure that the lower court applied the correct legal standard and reached a decision that is not unreasonable. In cases involving alimony, a good deal of discretion is left to the lower courts and the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or discretion for that of the lower court.
The Court of Appeals recognized that alimony in futuro, according to the code, is aimed at helping the financially dependent spouse reach an earning capacity that will enable a lifestyle comparable to the one achieved during marriage. However, Gonsewski recognized that the recipient spouse may not be able to achieve this lifestyle, and that in some cases neither spouse will enjoy the same pre-divorce lifestyle since supporting two households is more expensive than supporting just one. Other Tennessee courts ruled that the aim of legislation is to break the dependence between the spouses, and therefore favors short-term (ie transitional) alimony over long-term (i.e. in futuro) alimony.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and ruled that it did not abuse its discretion. The court found that the wife could find work with benefits and would have a substantial income from her portion of the marital home, a portion of her husband’s pension and her own pension. The court also held that while she may not be able to return to her pre-divorce lifestyle, neither will the husband, since he was given all of the marital debt, and was required to pay her back her share of the marital home and part of his pension.
No. M2010-02223-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 19, 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.
