Marriage Ends After Airplane Passenger Sees Dad’s Text to Paramour and Alerts Daughter

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 28 years married.

Raymond D. Barnes, Jr., v. Marion L. Barnes

The husband and wife in this Davidson County, Tennessee, case were married in 1991 with little wealth, but by the time of their divorce in 2019, their assets were worth over $12 million.  The wife had worked as a paralegal, and the husband was an attorney.  In 2001, he left his law practice and started an importing and wholesale company.

The husband stipulated that the wife was entitled to divorce on the grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct.  A trial was held on the subject of marital property and alimony.  The business was valued based upon the expert testimony of the husband’s expert, Tom Price, and the wife’s expert, Vic Alexander.

Part of the drama leading up to the divorce was an airplane flight in 2018.  A passenger seated behind the husband oversaw text message that the husband was sending to his paramour.  After exiting the plane, this passenger informed the parties’ daughter of what he had seen.  The husband later went with this paramour on a vacation to Florida, while telling his wife that he was at the Indianapolis 500 with a friend.  He sent text messages to his wife showing a photo of the track.

The wife also introduced the testimony of a financial expert, Kellie McDowell, who testified as to the wife’s financial need, which she pegged at $17,500 per month.

The trial court divided the marital property, after finding that the husband’s testimony lacked credibility in many respects.

On the alimony question, the trial court found the wife to be the economically disadvantaged spouse.  The husband had an income of about $1.3 million per year, although it would be less going forward.  It found that the wife’s need was about $12,000 per month, although it found that she would receive investment income of $10,000 per month and rental income of $7500 per month.  To permit the wife to maintain her standard of living, the court set alimony at $6000 per month.

The husband appealed, raising several issues, including the award of alimony.  After affirming most of the property issues, the appeals court turned to the question of alimony.  The husband first argued that the trial court had erred in calculating his income, but after reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed that the trial court had calculated it properly.

The husband next argued that the trial court should have imputed income to the wife.  Here, the husband met with some success.  The appeals court agreed that the trial court should have made detailed findings as to the wife’s earning capacity, and it’s failure to do so was error.

The husband also argued that the trial court erred in granting more alimony than the wife needed to meet her expenses.  Once again, the appeals court agreed that the lower court should have made more detailed findings with respect to the wife’s standard of living.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s order with respect to alimony, and remanded the case for more detailed findings.

No. M2022-00328-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee, and our video, How is alimony decided in Tennessee?