Social Worker Not Entitled to Alimony Until Death or Remarriage
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 19 years married.
Steven A. Holdworth v. Wendy Alford Holdsworth – Tennessee attorney’s fee and alimony
The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1994 and had one child together. The husband filed for divorce in 2011, and in 2013, the trial court entered its final decree. The trial court found that the husband had dissipated marital assets by writing checks to his girlfriend for over $15,000, and ordered him to reimburse the wife for that amount.
The trial court’s permanent parenting plan named the mother as the primary residential parent and set child support. The husband was ordered to pay over $34,000 in retroactive child support. The wife also received $4,000 per month in alimony in futuro, as well as $461,000 alimony in solido to cover her attorney’s fees and expenses.
The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, but while the appeal was pending, the husband and his girlfriend were arrested after a marijuana plant was found in their garage. The wife filed a petition to modify the parenting plan. The trial court made a modification, and the husband appealed that order as well.
The husband was a financial planner, and the wife worked as a school social worker until resigning in 2005 to care for their child, who had serious health issues. In 2008, the husband met a married woman with whom he had an affair. He also served on the hiring committee that hired her to work for his firm, without disclosing the romantic relationship.
The divorce was very contentious, with over 300 papers being filed and over 30 court appearances.
The court granted the divorce on the grounds of the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, and divided the parties’ property. This included a dispute over the value of the stock the husband held in his employer.
Because of the disproportionate nature of their income, the court found that the wife was the economically disadvantaged spouse, finding that she had need of long-term support in the amount of $4,000 per month. After determining that the husband’s income was adequate, the court ordered him to pay that amount as alimony in futuro until the wife’s death or remarriage. The husband was also ordered to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $1.5 million with the wife as beneficiary.
The trial court found that the litigation expenses were “entirely of the Husband’s making” and ordered him to pay attorney fees of over $400,000.
After the husband’s appeals, it was left to the Tennessee Court of Appeals to review the issues in the case. It first looked at the husband’s dissipation of assets and concluded that the trial court had correctly found that over $15,000 had been dissipated. However, it modified the judgment, and required the husband to pay only half this amount—the wife’s share—to the wife.
After reviewing the parenting plan and child support, it turned to the issue of alimony. The husband argued that the award of $4,000 per month alimony in futuro was inappropriate. He cited an earlier case which seemed to say that this type of alimony should be awarded only in cases where the wife cannot be rehabilitated.
The appeals court disagreed, and held that the earlier case’s holding was not that broad. But it reviewed the evidence and agreed with the husband that the wife’s financial situation was improving to the point that such an award was inappropriate. She had established a private practice in social work, and business was steadily getting better. The appeals court concluded that because the wife was capable of rehabilitation, an award of alimony until death or remarriage was inappropriate. Therefore, it reversed the award. It did, however, conclude that transitional alimony would be appropriate, and sent the case back for the lower court to determine the appropriate amount.
The appeals court next turned to the issue of attorney’s fees. In this case, the court first noted that the wife had access to an attorney, and was able to turn to her parents for help with the fees. While the court pointed out its displeasure at the amount of fees that were necessary, it concluded that the wife was not entitled to such an award, given her resources to retain an attorney.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration of the issues.
No. W2013-01948-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2015).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
