Wife Gets Home Equity as Alimony in Solido after 56 Yrs Married
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 56 years of marriage. Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Clarann Slocum v Kenneth D Slocum v Karen S Hazelrigg – Tennessee Alimony Law – 56 years married.
The trial court awarded a divorce to the wife and divided marital property. It also ordered the return of a down payment on the marital residence to the parties’ daughter. It awarded the husband’s interest in the marital residence to the wife as alimony in solido. The husband challenges the division of property, the return of the down payment and the award of alimony in solido.
In this case, the wife, Clarann Slocum and Kenneth Slocum, the husband married in 1952. The husband worked with the Air Force. In 1968, the husband retired from that position and he and the wife moved to Miami where the husband worked with AT&T. He retired from that position in 1995 and the wife decided to move to Tennessee to be closer to their daughter, Karen Hazelrigg. All three were on a deed purchased for a home that the couple lived in the basement of and the daughter lived in the upstairs portion of.
In March of 1996, the husband stated he was leaving with a car and motor home. The wife later learned the husband was staying with a woman and started working for Six R Company. The daughter moved out of the residents. She listed the home for sale in January of 2008 and received an offer of $199,000 for the property. The sale did not close because the daughter wanted to be reimbursed for the down payment and to receive 1/3 of the balance of the equity. The husband wanted to receive 1/3 of the entire equity.
The wife received between $600 and $750 per month from the husband from the time he left in 1996 through January of 2008. In March of 2008, the wife filed for divorce alleging desertion and adultery. Ms. Hazelrigg, the daugther, was added to the proceedings. The trial court determined that the daughter was entitled to the return of her down payment and once sold, subtracting the amount of the down payment, the remaining equity was divided in thirds. The trial court awarded the wife the divorce. The wife also received the husband’s share of the residence as alimony in solido. The husband appealed this decision.
The husband contended the daughter did not pay the down payment. The daughter said she was “100 percent sure” she paid for the down payment and her former boyfriend testified this was the case. The husband claims the down payment was derived from the sale of the he and the wife owned in Miami. The appeals court did not wish to determine the credibility of the individuals on its own, and references the trial court’s decision since it was able to see the witnesses.
In terms of alimony in solido, the appeals court ruled that these funds, is a type of long-term support and is not transitional alimony. It is to provide financial support to the spouse. The amount is within the trial court’s discretion. In this case, the husband says the wife failed to show a need for alimony. In her statement, though, her income was reported as $1,753 per month comprised of $1,097 from social security and $666 in rental income. Her expenses were $2,712.96 per month. This shows the wife’s expenses exceed her income by $959.96. The husband says the rental income is understated saying the daughter says the income is $800 per month. Even if it was, the wife’s expenses are still more than her income.
As a result of its findings, the appeals court stated that the marriage of 56 years, of which the husband spent 44 years with the wife and 12 years with his paramour, and the age of the wife of 77 and the husband of 78, that the awarding of alimony in solido was not an error of the lower court. It stated the wife held various jobs over her lifetime including working as a general administrator for a restaurant but her highest salary was $35,000. Her physical condition has deteriorated. It noted that the trial court’s decision to provide alimony was appropriate.
However, in the matter of awarding the husband’s interest in the residence, the appeals court noted that the value of the home was questioned. At the time of a proposed sale, they received an offer of $199,000. The wife believed the value of the home to be $180,000. The trial court noted that equity in the property was only $22,651. The appeals court found that the trial court provided all of the husband’s interest in the property to be awarded to the wife. As such, regardless of value, the appeals court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
No. M2009-00040-COA-R3-CV, December 15, 2009.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more about alimony, read Tennessee Alimony Law in Divorce | Answers to FAQs. Also, see the MemphisDivorce.com Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Alimony category.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr. practices family law exclusively and is the founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including divorce, alimony, alimony modification, child support, and child support modification. Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce. Contact an attorney today at (901) 683-1850.
