Lawyer’s Wife Gets $5,500 / Mo. Alimony In Futuro after 27 Yrs
Alimony Tennessee law case summary following 27 years of marriage. Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Charles Edward Carpenter, Sr v. Mary Alice Bobo Carpenter – Tennessee Alimony Law – 27 year marriage.
The long-term marriage of Charles Carpenter and Mary Alice Carpenter ended in divorce. The trial court adopted the wife’s proposal for distribution of the marital property and required the husband to pay alimony in futuro along with attorney’s fees. The husband appealed the decision on how much alimony the court gave to the wife because he believed the court under valued the wife’s counseling business and overvalued his law practice.
The 27-year marriage of the two ended in divorce in June of 2005 after the husband’s extramarital affair. Married in August of 1979, the couple, while married, maintained a high standard of living. The husband, 54-years old at the time of the divorce and the wife, 53-years old at the time of the divorce, presented evidence of their property valuation and division of assets. At the time of the divorce, the husband was a sole proprietor of his legal practice. The wife owned and operated her own business called “Healthy Connections Consulting.”
The trial court awarded the divorce in April of 2007. As the wife was the innocent party involved, due to the extra marital affair, the court adopted the wife’s filing of property valuation and distribution. The trial court awarded the wife alimony in futuro of $5,500 per month for 10 years and $4,000 per month thereafter until the wife remarries, cohabits with another man or dies. The court based this on the husband’s substantial income, duration of the marriage and the husband’s fault.
In the matter of alimony, the husband stated he did not believe the wife was eligible for alimony in futuro because she was not economically disadvantaged and did not need rehabilitation. In 2005, he stated, the wife’s business had gross receipts of $130,000. The wife’s claimed income of $2,625.74 per month was “either inaccurate or out of date.” He also stated the business had grown to include numerous contracts with the State and other sources. Additionally, he says the trial court awarded a large amount of the marital property to the wife, which further reduced the disadvantaged conditions the wife had.
On appeal, the wife argued that the trial court had documented proof of income and that, due to her significantly lower income she would be unable to live the same quality of life. This was due to the expenses of living in a nearly $1 million home and spending $50,000 a year for four years on one child’s education as well as needed to pay for other expenses. She projected that, to meet the $12,209 per month personal expenses, she needed alimony.
The appeals court ruled that the husband had the resources and that the wife needed alimony in futuro to maintain a close standard of living. The appeals court found the husband’s earnings were $23,421 per month, not including distributions from profit from the law firm. It found the wife’s earnings were $5,320 per month and therefore was far below that of the husband. Thus, the appeals court rejected the husband’s contention that the wife did not need alimony.
Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson, Appeal from Circuit Court for Shelby County, No. W2007-00992-COA-R3-CV, Filed December 31, 2008.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including divorce, child support, alimony, and alimony modification.
