Wife of 22 Yrs Denied More $ and Alimony In Futuro After Affair
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 22 years of marriage. Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Roland David Sheppard v. Wanda Elizabeth Sheppard – Tennessee Alimony Law – 22 years married.
In the 22-year divorce of Roland Sheppard and Wanda Sheppard, the trial court granted the husband a divorce based on the wife’s inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court divided the marital property and awarded the wife transitional alimony of $150 per month for 24 months. The wife appealed this decision stating that the trial court should have awarded her alimony in futuro of $2,240 per month. The husband stated on appeal that the trial court should not have awarded any alimony.
The parties married in May of 1987 and had one son. In December of 2006, the husband left the marital home because of the improper conduct of his wife, who he stated was physically threatening at times. The child moved from the marital home to live with the husband two months later. The husband continued to pay the first and second mortgages, the wife’s health insurance, auto insurance and the credit card payments.
In July of 2007, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. In December of 2007, the wife filed a motion to amend his complaint and alleged adultery. The husband’s attorney took the deposition of the man the wife was having an affair with and the wife admitted to the affair.
In January of 2008, the husband filed that his income was $5,450 per month as a technician working at Bosch Corporation. His taken home pay was $3,867.42 and monthly expenses were $4,041.66 including $350 rent for his current residence and $1,305 for the mortgage payment on the marital residence. The wife’s income was listed as $1,941 per month from her part-time position managing distributions of the Army Times newspaper with a net income of $1,099.84.
It was later determined that the income and expenses listed for the husband were from 2006 which included overtime. He testified his income was $2,556.70 per month. The wife testified about her medical conditions. She also noted her monthly income dropped to $1,300. The wife began a 2-year program in the computer field in 2006 knowing she needed to obtain additional work. Due to her medical limitations, though, she said her employment prospects were limited. She asked for $2,000 per month in alimony.
The trial court awarded the husband absolute divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. It ordered the marital home sold. The lower court ruled that though there is a need for some level of support from the husband to the wife, that the husband has not demonstrated his ability to pay it.
In August of 2008, the wife, with new council requested a new trial on the issue of alimony, indicating that the husband has perpetuated fraud. She provided statements indicating the husband’s income was $62,745 per year, or $5,228.75 per month, more than what he claimed it was. The court found that the husband had earned a substantial amount more due to overtime worked. As such, the court granted the motion and modified the alimony to be transitional alimony for $150 per month for 24 months.
In the appeal, the wife alleges she should have a larger amount of alimony. The trial court believed that in awarding the wife an equal value of the marital estate, she was no longer economically disadvantaged relative to the husband. The appeals court disagreed with this noting the wife’s only income was a monthly disability check of $584 while the husband was earning $65,000. The short length of the marriage, seven years, and contributing nothing to the marriage, the appeals court ruled the wife was not entitled to any form of alimony in futuro, but rather awarded the wife $24,000 as alimony in solido in 60 monthly installments.
In determining how much of an award the wife should get in alimony, the appeals court considered the fact that the wife is disadvantaged and not in need of rehabilitative income. The husband has a greater earning capacity but is dependent on overtime for it. In its final award, the appeals court ruled that an increase for $350 per month for 24 months.
No. M2009-00254-COA-R3-CV, Filed September 27, 2010.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more about alimony, read Tennessee Alimony Law in Divorce | Answers to FAQs. Also, see the MemphisDivorce.com Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Alimony category.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr. practices family law exclusively and is the founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including divorce, alimony, alimony modification, child support, and child support modification. Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce. Contact an attorney today at (901) 683-1850.
