No Alimony Increase Despite More Income by Former Husband

Tennessee alimony modification case summary after divorce.

Renee Pembroke (Cooley) v. Christopher Eugene Cooley

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1981 and had two children.  At the time of their 2005 divorce, they agreed to a marital termination agreement which provided for transitional alimony of $8,000 per month for five years, followed by alimony in futuro in the amount of $7,500 per month for five years.  The agreement stated that the alimony could be changed in the future upon a showing of material unanticipated change of circumstances.

In 2014, the wife filed a petition asking to increase the amount and duration of the alimony payments.  She based this on the grounds that her expenses had increased but her job opportunities had been restricted by the 2008 recession.  In particular, she noted that the real estate she had received had been adversely affected and was now an economic burden.  She also alleged that the husband’s income as a dentist had increased dramatically.  A footnote reads: “Tax returns admitted into evidence showed that Husband had a total income $583,270 in 2005, $503,575 in 2006, $599,428 in 2007, $650,067 in 2008, $599,646 in 2009, $630,045 in 2010, $543,129 in 2011, $658,948 in 2012, and $673,268 in 2013.”

After hearing the evidence, the Shelby County Circuit Court ordered the husband to continue paying alimony in the amount of $6,200 per month for six years, or until he retired, whichever came later.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  On appeal, he argued that the evidence did not amount to a substantial and material change of circumstances.

The appeals court first looked at whether the husband’s increased income was a sufficient change of circumstances.  It held that it was not because such an increase could have been anticipated at the time of the original divorce.

It also found that the wife’s need was not an adequate change of circumstances.  The appeals court focused on the fact that the economic downturn might have affected the value of the wife’s property, but there was no evidence that it affected her earning ability.

Since neither of these changes warranted a modification of the alimony, the Court of Appeals reversed the modification.  The trial court had also awarded the wife her attorney’s fees, and since the case was reversed, this award was also reversed.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back.

No. W2015-00583-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Modification in Tennessee Law | How to Modify Alimony.