Ex-Wife Moved in w/ Boyfriend & Loses $1.3K Alimony /Mo.
Tennessee alimony modification case summary.
Diane Kikue-Yasutake Winne v. Scott Anderson Winne
The husband and wife were divorce in Hamilton County, Tennessee, in 2015. They had entered into a marital termination agreement which called for the husband to pay the wife $2,200 per month in alimony, in addition to child support.
After the divorce, the wife began dating a local businessman and eventually moved into his home with her two children. When the wife refused a voluntary termination of the alimony, the husband went back to court.
The wife’s new boyfriend offered to support her, but she refused. Instead, she paid half the expenses, including the down payment on the $490,000 home. They also divided their living expenses.
The husband argued that the wife’s standard of living improved after moving in with the boyfriend. The wife, however, argued that there was no real change, since she still paid her own expenses.
The trial court held that the wife had not rebutted the presumption that she no longer needed the full alimony because of support by a third party. Accordingly, the court suspended more than $1,300 of the alimony obligation. Both parties appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The husband argued that the alimony should have been eliminated completely. He also argued that the reduction should have been retroactive. The wife argued that the reduction was error. The appeals court addressed the wife’s arguments first.
The appeals court first held that the award could be modified. Even though the agreement did not specify grounds for modification, the appeals court took this to mean that the agreement was silent as to that issue, and that general principles of divorce law would apply. It went on to hold that cohabitation was a sufficient ground for modification.
As to the amount of the modification, the appeals court reviewed the evidence and found no error in the lower court’s decision. It noted in particular that the lower court had based its decision on a finding of credibility, an issue that is traditionally left to the trial court to decide. For these reasons, it affirmed the amount of the reduction.
Even though the husband did not prevail in his desire to eliminate the alimony completely, he did achieve a victory as to the timing of the alimony. The appeals court agreed that the reduction should have been retroactive. It noted that the husband had acted promptly to resolve the issue.
No. E2018-01050-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2019).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Modification in Tennessee Law | How to Modify Alimony.
