Alimony Case Sent Back After Wife’s Expenses Determined Were Padded
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 27 years married.
William Stuart Davis v. Cathy Denise Davis
The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee case were married in 1988 and had two children, both of whom were over the age of majority at the time of the parties’ 2015 divorce. During the marriage, the wife worked as a teacher but retired in 2012 due to health issues. The husband was retired from the Air Force and worked as a pilot for FedEx at the time of the divorce. Trial was held in 2015 before Judge Michael Binkley, who granted a divorce to the wife on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. After making the property division, the court granted the wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $4,500 per month until the husband’s 60th birthday, at which point it would decrease to $2,500 per month. On his 65th birthday, the amount would decrease to $2,000 per month. With these adjustments, alimony would continue until the wife’s death or remarriage. The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. One of the issues raised was the propriety of the award of alimony.
After addressing property division issues, the appeals court turned to the question of alimony. It noted that in cases where rehabilitation of an economically disadvantaged spouse is not possible, then alimony in futuro is appropriate. It also summarized the relevant factors to be applied.
In this case, the trial court had made findings to the effect that the wife had a need for alimony. The husband argued that some of the relevant factors had been misapplied. In particular, he took issue with the relative earning capacity of the spouses and their needs. The husband pointed to some of the wife’s claimed expenses and alleged that she had “padded” the amounts. The appeals court looked closely and agreed that the lower court had not applied enough scrutiny. The lower court had found that the wife had a need of $7,500 per month, but the appeals court, upon closer inspection, found that her monthly need was actually $5,800 per month.
The lower court had also found that the wife’s physical condition was relevant. Even though there had been no medical testimony, the lower court had noted that she was on disability and had chronic medical issues. On this issue, despite the lack of medical testimony, the appeals court agreed with the trial judge that there was sufficient evidence to show the wife’s medical conditions affected her ability to be employed.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the award of $4,500 per month alimony. It remanded the case to the lower court to re-compute the alimony amount, taking into consideration the relevant factors and the modified expenses of the wife.
No. M2015-02106-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
