Wife On Disability Gets Alimony Despite Also Receiving Equity in House

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 24 years married.

The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1991. In 2003, the husband filed for divorce, but the case remained dormant until 2014. Many issues were resolved at a mediation in 2014, but the parties were unable to agree to the wife’s alimony claim and some of the property division issues. Trial was held in Montgomery County in 2014, and the court, Chancellor Laurence M. McMillan, Jr., issued the final order in 2015. In particular, the court awarded the marital residence to the husband and gave the wife half the home’s equity. The wife was also awarded $1000 per month alimony in futuro for the next 60 months. The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, arguing that the award of alimony was improper, since the wife had already been awarded substantial marital property.

The husband argued that since the wife had received over $75,000 equity in the house, the award of alimony should be reversed. He also argued that the obligation should be modified since he had recently undergone brain surgery after trial.

The appeals court first noted that trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to spousal support, and appellate courts are disinclined to reverse unless the award is not supported by the evidence or contrary to public policy.

The lower court had found that the wife had the need for alimony. In this case, the evidence showed that the wife was 60 years old, and English was her second language. She had not worked in over 20 years, and a disability payment was her only source of income. The appeals court noted that even though she received the equity in the home, she still needed a source of income.

The appeals court also agreed that the husband had an ability to pay. While there was some dispute as to the husband’s income, the appeals court noted that his drywall business had gross receipts of over $60,000, and that he had been able to pay for a new truck and the marital home.

After reviewing all of the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the evidence did not preponderate against the alimony award. Therefore, it affirmed the award.

The court also noted that the evidence regarding his current medical condition needed to be brought up to the trial court on a motion to modify, and the appeal was not the proper place to address it.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order in all respects.

No. M2015-00481-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.