Veterinarian’s Alimony Slightly Reduced After Retirement

The husband and wife in this McMinn County, Tennessee, case had been married for thirty-five years and were divorced in 2009.  The wife was awarded alimony in futuro  in the amount of $1750, which was to cease upon the husband’s death, or the wife’s death or remarriage.

In 2022, the husband went back to court to request an end or modification of his alimony obligation.  He argued that there had been a substantial change of circumstances, since the wife was cohabitating with her ex-husband from a previous marriage.  In addition, the husband had retired from his veterinary practice in 2021 and was in his seventies.

The wife denied the allegations of cohabitation.  She also argued that her need for alimony had actually increased, due to what she called a plethora of medical issues.

Trial was held in late 2023 before Judge J. Michael Sharp, who first held that the retirement was reasonable and constituted a material change.

The alleged paramour testified, and Judge Sharp credited his testimony as credible.  He testified that he visited on a regular basis and stayed with her about 100-110 days per year.  But his primary residence was in Indiana, where he worked for a family business and had living quarters on premises.  The trial court found that there was no evidence that he was adding to the wife’s income or supporting her.

Based upon the changed circumstances, the trial court reduced the husband’s obligation from $1750 to $1500 per month.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II, first addressed the standard of review, and noted that a trial court’s witness credibility determinations are entitled to great weight on appeal.

It then turned to the husband’s argument that the amount of alimony should have been reduced considerably or eliminated entirely.    He argued that documentary evidence at trial had been misinterpreted.  In particular, he pointed out that one of the tax returns reviewed by the court was during a time when he was married, but before that wife had passed away.  But the appeals court held that the trial court had properly taken this into consideration when arriving at a figure for the husband’s typical income.

The husband also argued that his self-employment income had been improperly considered.  But the appeals court concluded that the trial court had properly considered both income and expenses.

The husband also argued that the lower court had given too much weight to the wife’s need, without adequately considering his ability to pay.  But after reviewing all of the evidence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had acted properly.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and assessed the costs of the appeal against the husband.

No. E2024-00251-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2024).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee, and our video, How is alimony decided in Tennessee?

To learn more, see Alimony Modification in Tennessee Law | How to Modify Alimony and our video, How is alimony decided in Tennessee?