Wife Could Collect $114K Alimony Despite Passage of 10 Years

Tennessee post-divorce alimony collection case summary.

James Russell Vaughn, Jr., v. Sandra Pierce Vaughn

The husband and wife in this Sullivan County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2004 after they entered into a marital dissolution agreement.  The agreement called for the husband to pay alimony of $950 per month, but the husband failed to make payments for over ten years.  Finally, in 2015, the wife went to court and asked for the husband to be held in contempt.

The case was heard before Judge William K. Rogers.  The husband first asked for a continuance due to colon cancer and other conditions.  He included a letter from his doctor stating that his condition prevented him for travel and also affected his clarity as a witness.  After another continuance, the husband filed an answer alleging that he had been unemployed since the 1990’s.  As his defense, he alleged laches, waiver, voluntary relinquishment, and unclean hands.

The trial court concluded that neither party had a credible recollection of any alimony payments being made, and that there was no proof of any payments.  The court also concluded that the husband had received income from his business.  It also rejected the husband’s equitable defenses and entered a judgment for $114,000, which represented ten years’ alimony.  Dissatisfied, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He argued that the trial court should have applied the equitable defenses.

The appeals court began by noting that the case was governed by a ten year statute of limitations.  In such a case, the period can be shortened only if the wife was guilty of “gross laches,” meaning that the husband was prejudiced by the delay.  One type of delay that may be considered is the loss of evidence and witnesses.

The husband pointed to lost evidence, such as insurance and bank records.  But the appeals court noted that this evidence was of minimal, if any, relevance.  In fact, the trial court was able to review many tax records to assess the husband’s finances.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeals agreed that the husband had not presented sufficient evidence to support his claim of prejudice from the delay.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling and assessed the costs of appeal on the husband.

No. E2018-00794-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug.  6,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.