Court Properly Split Custody + $1K / Mo. Alimony In Futuro 23 Yrs Married
Tennessee child custody case summary on alimony after 23 years married & split custody in divorce.
Michael Jon Eckley v. Margit Eckley
The husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case had been married for almost 24 years before their 2015 divorce, and were the parents of three children. Both parties sought a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Most issues were resolved through mediation, but they were unable to settle the issues of alimony, child support, and parenting plan. A trial was held before Judge Ross H. Hicks, who named the father the primary residential parent of the middle child, and the mother the primary residential parent of the youngest child. In each case, the residential parent was awarded 280 days parenting time, with the other parent having 85 days. The trial court also awarded alimony in futuro to the wife in the amount of $1,000 per month.
The father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and made two arguments. First, he argued that the split custody was improper. He also argued that the award of alimony was inappropriate.
The appeals court first turned to the parenting plan. It noted that in non-jury cases such as this one, the review is de novo, with a presumption of correctness for fact findings. It also noted that the parenting plan must be based on the child’s best interest. With respect to the youngest child, the trial court had found that a number of statutory factors favored the mother. In particular, it looked at the relationship with the mother and the fact that she had been the primary caregiver.
The father argued a number of factors, such as that he did most of the cooking and cleaning, and that he bought the children’s clothes. But the appeals court looked at the evidence and found that the lower court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence. For that reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s parenting plan.
The appeals court next tackled the issue of alimony. Once again, the appeals court pointed out that trial courts have broad discretion in both the amount and duration. The father argued that rehabilitative alimony should have been considered, but the trial court had found that rehabilitation of the wife was not feasible. The Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and found that the trial court’s conclusions were supported by the evidence. It also looked at the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay, and concluded that these factors also supported the award.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. It also awarded the wife her attorney’s fees on appeal.
No. M2016-02236-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2019).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
