At Fault Husband To Pay Wife’s Attorney’s Fees + Health Insurance
At Fault Husband To Pay Wife’s Attorney’s Fees + Health Insurance
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 17 years married.
Antonio Maurice Wiggins v. Carol Ann Wiggins
The husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were married in 2003, and the husband served in the U.S. Army for the first nine years of the marriage. They had no children and eventually purchased a home in Clarksville. They divorced in 2019 when the husband was 50 and the wife 49.
After mediation, the parties were able to agree on some issues, but the case went to trial on others. At trial, the husband admitted to a number of extra-marital affairs, and the wife was granted the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.
The trial court ruled that the wife was the economically disadvantaged spouse based upon income, and awarded her alimony. Since the wife was going to lose her health insurance as a result of the divorce, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $700 per month alimony in futuro to assist her in paying the cost of insurance. And after considering the amount of money the wife would receive from the sale of the house, and her need to purchase a new home, the trial court also ordered the husband to pay $650 per month in transitional alimony for 36 months to cover her housing transition.
The trial court also awarded the wife $7500 as alimony in solido to cover her attorney’s fees.
The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. He did not contest the award of transitional alimony, but he did argue that the award of alimony in futuro and alimony in solido was not proper under the facts of the case.
The appeals court began its opinion by noting the standard of review and citing the relevant statutes. It then turned to its analysis of the award of $700 per month for the insurance costs. It noted the relevant earnings of both parties, and also the fact that both spouses had made equal contributions during the marriage.
The husband argued that the trial court had placed too much emphasis on his fault in the demise of the marriage, but the appeals court pointed out that this is a permissible consideration. It also noted that the health insurance was a need and not a want, and that the $700 was necessary.
After reviewing all of the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the trial court’s motivation was not to punish the husband, but that the trial court had properly considered the husband’s fault.
The court then turned to the award of alimony in solido to cover the wife’s attorney fees. Once again, the court pointed to the relative earnings of the parties and the wife’s need for these funds. Based upon its review of the evidence, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision on this point as well.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the lower court. It assessed the costs of the appeal against the husband. The court’s opinion was penned by Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr., and joined in by Judges Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer.
No. M2019-02006-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
