Wife Entitled to Attorneys Fees After Contentious Divorce

Tennessee case summary on attorney’s fees in divorce.

Audra Snapp Olinger v. Travis Jackson Olinger

The wife in this Tennessee case filed for divorce in Bradley County in 2015 on the grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct.  After a contentious pretrial phase, the husband ultimately agreed to a stipulation acknowledging that the wife was entitled to divorce for the reasons stated in the wife’s complaint.  The wife was named the primary residential parent of the daughter, and the husband’s parenting time was greatly restricted.  In particular, the trial court had found that the husband had not been truthful as to his use of alcohol.  The court divided the property and awarded the mother child support.

The trial court awarded the wife her attorney’s fees.  It found that she lacked the money to pay her legal expenses.  It also noted that the award did not include sufficient liquid assets to pay these fees. 

Therefore, it awarded the wife a judgment of over $53,000 to cover the fees.  The husband’s share in the marital residence was credited to this amount, for a balance of about $30,000.  The husband was ordered to pay this, with interest, at the rate of $370 per month.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals delivered its judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr., which first cited the relevant Tennessee statutes.  It noted that the need of the requesting spouse and the other spouse’s ability to pay are the key factors.  In this case, the trial court found that the wife did not have the resources to pay, and the appeals court found that this was supported by the evidence.  It also noted that the husband’s own testimony established that he had the ability to pay.

The appeals court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the divorce was the wife’s fault.  The husband stipulated to his fault, and other evidence supported this conclusion.  For these reasons, the majority of the court affirmed.

Judge D. Michael Swiney agreed with some of the majority opinion, but also issued a dissenting opinion.  He took the position that the spouses were “economic equals” after the divorce.  He also believed that the majority placed too much emphasis on the husband’s fault.  For that reason, he would have reversed the lower court’s award.

No. M2017-00861-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.