In TN Divorce Physician To Pay Ex-Wife 8 Yrs $8,000 /Mo Rehab Alimony
Tennessee law case summary on child support and alimony in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Kathryn A. Duke v Harold W. Duke III – Tennessee Child Support and Alimony Law – 16 Years + Married
In this appeal, the Father, Harold Duke appeals various provisions of the parenting plan as well as the award of rehabilitative alimony and that he was in contempt. The Mother, Kathryn Duke, and appeals the valuation and division of assets and the failure of the court to require payments to the mother be secured.
In this case, the parties were married in October of 1991 and had three children, all minors at the time of the trial. The Father is a physician and owner of Emergency Services Network. The Mother trained and worked as a registered nurse previously. She had not had employment out of the home since the birth of the first child in November of 1995. The Mother filed for separation in May of 2007 on grounds of irreconcilable differences an inappropriate marital conduct. She amended the complaint to divorce on the grounds the Father’s substance abuse. The Father counterclaimed stating inappropriate marital conduct.
A six-day trial occurred and the court granted the Mother the divorce, rehabilitative alimony of $8,000 per month for eight years and found the Father guilty of two counts of contempt. Both parties appealed various elements of this ruling.
One of the issues appealed was the contributions made to Educational Trusts. The court ordered the Father to establish such a trust for each child and to contribute $15,000 annually for each of two children and $20,000 annually for the third child. The Father claims the amounts of yearly contributions were far in excess of even an expensive education and that they were beyond the amounts contemplated by the Child Support guidelines. He also noted that the previously established account for each of the children is greater than the cost of education at the University of Tennessee. The appeals court ruled that while the court acted in its discretion to require the accounts established, it does not provide evidence to support the annual contributions ordered. It affirmed the decision that the Father establish the accounts and required the trial court to determine the amount of annual contributions.
In terms of alimony, the appeals court noted that the legislature prefers temporary, rehabilitative spousal support to long-term support to provide the disadvantaged spouse with the ability to acquire or enhance job skills and education to get to the point of being self-sufficient. The lower court noted that the Wife aged 41 with a bachelor’s degree in nursing worked for seven years as a nurse before having her first child. She was in good physical and mental health and has over 20 able working years ahead of her. The children are enrolled full-time in school and it is therefore not undesirable for the Wife to see employment.
The Father stated that since the Wife received more than $4,600,000 in assets in the division of marital property that she did not demonstrate a need for alimony. The Mother states that the current law on alimony does not indicate that she can be rehabilitated especially since the Father will make more than $1 million annually while, as a nurse, she will not earn even 10 percent of that.
The appeals court ruled that, once rehabilitated, the Mother’s standard of living will be about the same and therefore the award is not contrary to public policy. It was within the discretion given to the trial court. It affirmed the award of alimony as a result.
Kathryn A. Duke v Harold W. Duke III – Dissenting Opinion
In the divorce case of Kathryn Duke and Harold Duke, the serving judge, Patricia J. Cottrell, dissented in part. The judge stated that she disagreed with the majority analysis of the requirements for rehabilitative alimony in this case. She stated that all types of alimony are statutory. Therefore, she stated that the legislature’s definitions of that alimony must apply in the case.
According to the legislature, it intends that an economically disadvantaged spouse be rehabilitated. This is done through the awarding of rehabilitative alimony. This is to be done whenever rehabilitation is possible in the case.
The judge was asked to define how to determine if a spouse can be rehabilitated, therefore, based on the legislature’s definition of it. According to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121 provides in parts (d)(2) and (e)(1) that “to be rehabilitated” means ” to achieve, with reasonable effort, an earning capacity that will permit the economically disadvantaged spouse’s standard of living after the divorce to be reasonably comparable to the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, or to the post-divorce standard of living expected to be available to the other spouse, considering the relevant statutory factors and the equities between the parties.”
In this case then, the trial court did not explain the consultation that the Wife could be rehabilitated in light of the definition of what rehabilitation requires. In a review of the facts of the case, then, the judge ruled that she could not conclude that there is evidence that the wife’s post-divorce earning capacity would allow her to maintain the same standard of living comparable to that of her Husband’s. These facts then, provide a preponderate amount of evidence against the trial court’s findings that the Wife in this case can in fact be rehabilitated.
No. M2009-02401-COA-R3-CV – Filed June 1, 2012.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including divorce, child support, alimony, prenuptial agreements, child custody, parental relocation, child support modification, alimony modification, and divorces including business valuation and forensic accounting issues.
