TN Mom Not Penalized for Helping Adult Son Transitional Alimony Kept

Tennessee alimony termination law case summary. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.

Rita Grace Tidwell Hickman v. Bobby Spencer Hickman – Tennessee transitional alimony modification case

Rita and Bobby Hickman had been married for 21 years when the wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.  They had two children.  The son was sixteen at the time, and the Hamilton County, Tennessee, court awarded the wife $507 per month in child support.  They also had a daughter who was over 18 and attending college.  The trial court also awarded transitional alimony in the amount of $1250 per month until 2013, $1000 per month until 2015, and $850 per month until 2017.

In 2012, on the day after the son’s 18th birthday, the husband filed a petition asking the court to reduce or eliminate the transitional alimony.  He based this request on a Tennessee statute relating to an alimony recipient living with a third person.  Under that statute, there is a presumption that the alimony recipient no longer needs the alimony, either because they are receiving support from the third party, or that the spouse has enough resources to pay the support of that third person.

The husband argued that this statute applied because three people were living with the wife.  Those persons were the son, the daughter, and a high school friend of the son.

The trial court concluded that only the son was living with the wife at the time of trial, and noted that the son benefited from the utilities and food purchased by his mother.  It also found that she paid his car insurance and some gas money.  The court concluded that this support amounted to $625 per month, and reduced the award of transitional alimony by that amount.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  The appeals court first noted that trial courts are given a great deal of discretion in deciding alimony.

The court then noted that even though the other two people might have been living with mother when the motion was filed, the relevant time was the time of trial.  Since those people were gone at the time of trial, the court first concluded that only the son’s presence was relevant to the appeal.

The court then held that the phrase “lives with a third person” in the cohabitation statute did indeed include adult children.  Even though the exact issue had never been presented, the court noted that similar statutes had been construed in this way.  Even though the wife argued that this construction was not what the legislature intended, the court held that this was the plain meaning of the statute.

However, the court went on to hold that even though the wife did provide financial assistance to the son, it did not believe it was fair to penalize her for doing so.  There had been a downward spiral in her finances unrelated to her helping the children.  Therefore, even though the statute creates a presumption favoring reduction of alimony, the wife had overcome this presumption.  For these reasons, the court reversed the lower court’s judgment and sent the case back.

No. E2013-00940-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb 26, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Modification Law | How to Modify Alimony in TN.  Also, for legal updates, news, analysis, and commentary, see our Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Alimony category.  A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.