Retirement by Tennessee Lawyer Didn’t Warrant Alimony Reduction

Tennessee alimony termination based on retirement in family law.

Karen Abrams Malkin v. Reed Lynn Malkin

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case had been married for about 19 years prior to their 1998 divorce.  The husband was an attorney and the wife had income of about $21,000 at the time of their divorce.  They had two minor children.  The trial court awarded the wife alimony of $3500 per month until death or remarriage.  In 2004, this was reduced to $2870 per month.

In 2013, the husband filed another petition to reduce his alimony.  He argued that he had retired and that his income had a 2/3 decrease.  The trial court reduced the alimony obligation to $1,035 per month.  The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted the general rule that when an obligor’s retirement is reasonable, it does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.  In this case, the wife took the position that the retirement wasn’t bona fide, and the trial court made no findings as to the reasonableness of the retirement.  It noted that the husband kept his law license in an active status, and even advertised his services as a mediator.  The husband testified that he had formally closed his law office, and that even though he was interested in serving as a mediator, he had received no such work.

He also pointed out that his workers compensation practice had largely “dried up” because most of it involved Northwest and Delta airlines, which no longer maintained a workforce in Memphis.

The appeals court noted that the lower court had made few findings to support its ruling.  While it had made a determination of income, it had not looked at the parties’ expenses or the wife’s income.  The appeals court held that this amounted to a use of the wrong legal standard, and would need to be reversed as an abuse of discretion for that reason.

The appeals court went on to note that the husband hadn’t met his burden of proof.  For example, the husband hadn’t offered evidence as to his monthly expenses.

The court did also examine the wife’s income and expenses and held that these did not support a change in alimony.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling.

No. W2014-00127-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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