Retired Dentist Gets Alimony Reduced to Preserve Remaining Assets

Tennessee alimony modification case summary after 42 years married.

Deborah Evans Wilhoit v. Gary Dennis Wilhoit

The husband and wife in this Sumner County, Tennessee, case were married for 42 years before their 2011 divorce.  Under the divorce decree, the husband was to pay $4,500 per month in future alimony, plus an additional amount in transitional alimony.

In 2012, the husband had a heart attack and underwent quintuple bypass surgery.  He sold his dental practice, and filed a petition to terminate his alimony obligation.  The trial court held that he nonetheless had the ability to pay.  The husband brought a first appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded, ordering the lower court to determine, among other things, the husband’s ability to pay.

After remand, the case lay dormant for almost two years.  A hearing was eventually scheduled.  Since the original judge had retired, the case was assigned to Judge Joe H. Thompson.

After a hearing, Judge Thompson ruled that the husband’s monthly expenses were over $3,600, and his only income was social security of about $2,000 per month.  He also found that the wife had need, and that both parties had assets.  After weighing all of the evidence, the alimony obligation was reduced by $550, to $2,990 per month.  The husband once again appealed, arguing that the alimony obligation should have been eliminated entirely.

After stating the standard of review, the appeals court noted that alimony may be modified based upon a substantial and material change in circumstances.  The party seeking the change bears the burden of proof.

After reviewing the evidence of the parties’ remaining assets, the appeals court concluded that the trial court had erred in awarding almost $3,000 per month, an amount which would have depleted his assets after a relatively short time.

After considering all of the evidence, the appeals court concluded that an appropriate amount would be $500 per month.  It found that this amount would be equitable, and would allow both parties to retain enough assets to support themselves in coming years.

After addressing some other issues in the case, the appeals court concluded by reversing the lower court’s judgment and remanded to award the lower amount.

No. M2017-00740-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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