Husband Awarded $1,450 / Mo. Alimony After 26 Yrs Remanded
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 26 years married.
Earl G. Donaldson v. Terri Allison Donaldson
The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1988. They had two children, both of whom were adults at the time of trial. The husband was 52 years old and worked as a dispatcher for a concrete company. The wife was a professor in the Doctor of Nursing Practice program at Vanderbilt University.
The husband filed for divorce in 2014 on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. After trial, the husband was awarded $1,450 per month alimony in futuro (until death or his remarriage). The wife was also required to take out a $250,000 life insurance policy until the husband was 65.
The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. She argued that the trial court erred in granting the husband alimony. She noted that he was in good health and earned $67,000 per year in an industry in which he had worked for 25 years. She also pointed out that his net income exceeded his expenses, leaving him with more disposable income than the wife.
The appeals court first noted that all alimony awards are fact driven, and appellate courts are disinclined to second guess the trial judge’s decision. In this case, the appeals court noted that the alimony should be categorized as alimony in futuro, which is designed to assist an economically disadvantaged spouse in cases in which temporary or rehabilitative alimony would not restore them. While there are a number of factors to consider, the most important are the disadvantaged spouse’s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.
Upon its review of the record, the appeals court determined that they lower court hadn’t made adequate factual findings as to the husband’s need and the wife’s ability to pay. In particular, there were no findings that short-term rehabilitative alimony would not rehabilitate the husband. The court also noted that the lower court had made no explanation of why the husband was to receive alimony, when his disposable income was greater than the wife’s.
For these reasons, the appeals court concluded that the case would need to be sent back to the lower court for specific findings as to the type, duration, and amount of alimony. Therefore, it vacated the lower court’s order for alimony. Since the life insurance policy was based upon the alimony award, the appeals court vacated that portion of the order as well.
It then remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
No. M2015-01035-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2016).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
