Alimony Award Sent Back to Lower Court Due to Insufficient Fact Findings

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 37 years married.

Elizabeth Madeline Shelton Bewick v. Robert Kent Bewick

The husband and wife in this Warren County, Tennessee, case were married in 1978.  They had two children, both of whom were over the age of majority at the time of their divorce.  The husband was a dentist.  The wife had worked in the dental office during much of the marriage, but was employed as a receptionist at a law firm at the time of the divorce.

The parties were married while the husband was in dental school in Nashville.  The wife worked full time while he was in school.  After he graduated, he had the opportunity to return to Indiana to practice dentistry with his father, but instead started a practice near the wife’s family in Tennessee.  During the start of his practice, the wife stayed home with the children.  Later, she assisted the practice in various ways.

In the 1990’s, the husband had to take a sabbatical from his practice due to health concerns.  During this time, the wife attended to the practice and arranged for other dentists to fill in.  Then, the husband had an opportunity to practice with his father in Indiana and took this opportunity.  He also acquired a two thirds interest in the company that owned the building where the practice was located.  From 1999-2010, he split his time between Tennessee and Indiana, working in both practices.  During this time, he engaged in an affair with one of the employees of the Indiana practice.  In 2013, the wife filed for divorce.

Trial was held in 2015, and the trial court made its ruling, granting the wife the divoce on the ground of adultery.  It divided the parties’ property, and also ordered the husband to pay the wife $6000 per month for ten years as alimony in solido.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, raising several issues.  Among his arguments was that the award of alimony in solido was not appropriate.  After addressing the property issues, the appeals court turned to the question of alimony.  It noted that while rehabilitative or transitional alimony is generally preferred, other types of alimony may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of the case.

In awarding alimony in solido, the lower court had considered that the husband had a greater earning capacity with a thriving dental practice.  It also noted that it had been a long marriage, with both spouses being close to 60, and that both parties had contributed equally to the acquisition of the marital estate.  It also pointed out that fault for the divorce was solely the husband’s.

The appeals court noted that while ability to pay is an important factor, it is not the most important consideration.  In particular, the trial court had not made any findings as to the wife’s need for alimony.  Also, it had not made any findings as to why other forms of alimony, such as rehabilitative or transitional, would not be appropriate.  Because this information was missing from the record, the appeals court remanded the case to the trial court to make full findings.  In the meantime, the appeals court awarded temporary support of $3500 per month.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the property division, but remanded the case for a full factual finding on the alimony issues.  It assessed the costs of the appeal on both parties equally.

No. M2015-02009-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.