Wife Gets Alimony After 46 Year Marriage

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 46 years married.

Cathryn Helrigel Pierce v. Sherman Lane Pierce

The husband and wife in this Meigs County, Tennessee, case were married in 1972, and in 2017, the wife filed a complaint for divorce.  A few days later, the husband filed his own divorce action, and the two cases were consolidated.  Their adult son was also added as a party to the case, since he was a co-owner of some real property.

The trial court, Judge Casey Mark Stokes, divided the parties’ property, which included a military pension being received by the husband.  After computing the wife’s share, the trial court awarded her approximately $481 per month of the approximate $1,400 pension.

Judge Stokes denied the wife an award of alimony, and the wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that she was entitled to two forms of alimony.  First, she argued that the trial court should have awarded her alimony in futuro.  She also argued that she was entitled to an award of alimony in solido to cover her attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals first noted the standard of review, and pointed out that alimony decisions are very factually driven, and an alimony decision should be reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.

The wife argued that the trial court had failed to properly consider the relevant factors, including her need, the husband’s ability to pay, the length of the marriage, and the property division.  On these factors, the appeals court pointed out that the lower court had not made specific factual findings.  But in the interest of judicial economy, the appeals court concluded that it could review the lower court’s ruling by reviewing the whole record of the case.

The appeals court first pointed out that the husband’s net income was over $6,600 per month, including social security, a VA disability pension, and military retirement.  The wife, on the other hand, had income of less than $400 per month in social security, although that was to increase slightly after the divorce.

Next, the appeals court noted the long length of the marriage, 46 years.

After reviewing the evidence and the statutory factors, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was error not to award spousal support to the wife.  Therefore, it reversed that portion of the order.  Since it had the full record before it, it concluded that it could calculate the award, and decided that an award of $1,600 per month was appropriate.  It held that this amount would appropriately address the shortfall between her income and expenses.

The appeals court next turned to the issue of attorney’s fees.  Again, it pointed out that this is generally within the lower court’s discretion.  But since the wife had little income or ability to replace assets, it held that an award of attorney fees should have been made.  Therefore, it remanded the case for a determination of the correct amount.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.

No. E2018-01301-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 21,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.