Wife Gets Rental Income as Transitional Alimony After 41 Yrs

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 41 years married.

Patricia Sue Kuhlo v. Ernest Charles Kuhlo

The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1974, and their children were adults at the time of their 2015 divorce.  The husband was an orthodontist, and had earlier suffered a service-related disability in the navy.  The wife had degrees in psychology and social work, but her employment during the marriage consisted mostly of providing accounting services for the orthodontic practice.  Because of his disabilities, the husband retired from his orthodontic practice in 2000, and had focused in real estate investments.  At the time of the divorce, the husband was 68 and the wife was 64.

The trial court divided the parties’ property, which consisted mostly of rental properties.  They were split in such a way that the wife received about 60% of the rent, with the husband receiving about 40%.  The court also noted that this difference constituted an award of transitional alimony, and made no further alimony award, other than allowing her to recover her attorney’s fees.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He raised a number of issues, including the propriety of the award of transitional alimony.  After addressing those issues, the appeals court turned to the alimony award.

The husband argued that the award was unfair, partly because the trial court had treated the marital residence, which he received, as if it were an income-producing property.  However, the appeals court called this argument disingenuous, since the husband admitted receiving “cost sharing” payments from people residing at that address when he was in Florida or Hawaii.  The appeals court noted that it was solely up to the husband whether he wanted to rent the property.  The court also noted that the wife was to provide accounting services regarding the properties until they were sold, further making her higher portion of the rent fair.

After carefully analyzing the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the trial court had acted within its discretion in making the award.  For these reasons, it affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. M2015-02155-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.