TN Wife of 20 Yrs Awarded Alimony In Futuro $2,200 /mo then $2,500 /mo

Alimony Tennessee law case summary following 20 years of marriage.  Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Laura Hammond Willmore v Harold E Willmore, III – Tennessee Alimony Laws – 20 years of marriage.

In the divorce of Laura Willmore and Harold Willmore, the parties divorced after 20 years. The trial court required the husband to pay alimony in futuro. The husband appealed this decision. He believed the trial court abused its discretion in awarding this type of alimony and said that the wife did not request alimony in futuro but rather rehabilitative alimony. He also claimed the amount was excessive.

The parties married in October of 1986 and had two children, only one of whom was a minor at the time of the divorce. The wife filed a Complaint for Separate Maintenance in October of 2006. She alleged the husband fled the marital home a month previous and was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. She requested separation as well as child and spousal support. The parties entered into an agreement that required the husband to pay the mortgage and utilities on the martial home as well as auto insurance, health insurance and groceries. In December of 2006, the husband asked for absolute divorce. The wife counter-claimed the husband was guilty of adultery and asked that the court require him to pay alimony and child support both pendente lite and permanent.

The hearing was held in August of 2007. The husband worked for Willmore Tool & Tie, a company his father owned. Tax records indicated he earned $94,171 in 2004 and $85,727 in 2005. He also has medical insurance, a vehicle and expenses. The wife testified she did “odds and end jobs” during the marriage. During the previous five years, she worked three days a week as nurse-sitter for an elderly woman earning $2,000 a month. The wife also started a business cleaning up work sites after construction, which generated $8,873 between January and August of 2007.

Additionally, proof showed the wife suffered from various medical problems. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, though the husband’s attorney objected to that. Though the family had a decent income, it did not have large amounts of assets and had a large mortgage on their home. During the trial, the wife’s attorney asked her about alimony. She said she was asking for $1,750 in rehabilitative alimony for 84 months and payment of health insurance for three years.

The court awarded the divorce to the wife on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. It ordered the husband to pay $870 per month in child support. The court awarded the marital home to the wife. The length of the marriage being 20 years, the limited size of the marital estate and the wife’s continuing financial obligations, necessitated the awarding of alimony, the lower court ruled. It found the husband had the ability to pay. The court awarded $2,200 per month in alimony in futuro until June of 2008, at which time the son would reach 18 years of age. At that point, the alimony would increase to $2,500 per month to terminate at her death.

The husband appealed the award of alimony in futuro because he did not receive notification of her intention to seek alimony and that the wife requested rehabilitative alimony. During the appeal, the husband said he did receive notice that the wife was requesting the court to require him to pay alimony. The appeals court understands that the court is authorized to award alimony according to the nature of the case, which would include alimony in futuro.

In this case, the court noted that the long duration of the marriage, the wife’s medical conditions and the division of property left her without financial assets to fall back upon, and the fault of the marriage being that of the husband’s, it noted the need for alimony. No information was given about the wife’s ability to obtain future training or education but it was noted that the 43-year-old woman was working and thus the prospects of rehabilitation were good. However, the court noted her medical conditions as a limiting factor. The evidence before the appeals court did not indicate the lower court abused its discretion. It affirmed the lower court’s ruling as such.

NO. M2007-02146-COA-R3-CV, May 6, 2009.

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.