Tenn. Wife of Soldier Proved Abuse & Wins Legal Separation Not Divorce
Tennessee law case summary on legal separation in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.
Torrie Schneider Longanacre v. Matthew Robert Longanacre — decision of legal separation within discretion of trial court even over objection of TN husband seeking divorce who failed to prove grounds for inappropriate marital conduct on part of wife
Matthew Longanacre (“husband”) and Torrie Longanacre (“wife”) married in 2002 and did not have any children. In 2009, wife fell down the stairs at the couple’s home and sustained a traumatic brain injury. As a result, she had difficulty reading, writing, and completing tasks. She also suffered migraine headaches and seizures.
Husband was a soldier with the U.S. Military deployed overseas in March 2010. In October 2010, while still deployed, husband emailed wife suggesting that they separate. In December of that year wife petitioned for legal separation on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, cruel and inhuman treatment, and adultery. In January 2011, husband answered and counter-sued for an absolute divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Wife answered denying that husband had grounds for divorce.
The trial court dismissed husband’s counterclaim, granted wife’s complaint for legal separation, distributed the marital estate, awarded wife alimony, and—after finding that wife was “not capable of rehabilitation” due to her brain injury—awarded her $1,250.00 in monthly alimony. The trial court said that wife did not commit acts during the marriage that rose to the level of inappropriate marital conduct. As a result, husband failed to carry his burden of proof. The trial court held that wife proved grounds for legal separation as provided by the state statutes and proceeded to divide the marital property and to make the awards of alimony.
On appeal, husband claimed that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint and in granting wife a legal separation. He asserted that the court should have awarded him an absolute divorce because wife committed inappropriate marital conduct through her “reckless money management,” physical assaults of husband, “extreme jealousy,” and alienation of husband from his other family members.
The record supported the trial court’s determination that wife did not engage in a course of conduct that caused pain and anguish to husband or which made continued cohabitation unacceptable. Although the trial court did not make specific findings of fact, the evidence cited by husband did not outweigh the determination that wife was not guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of husband’s counterclaim for absolute divorce.
Husband next said that the court should have declared the parties divorced rather than legally separated because she wanted to maintain her benefits under husband’s insurance. The trial court determined that wife proved that husband engaged in inappropriate marital conduct, a finding which husband did not appeal. The court of appeals held that, pursuant to the state statutes, the trial court had the discretion to grant wife a legal separation. Precedent did not require the court, under the circumstances presented in this case, to declare the parties divorced, it said. On the record before the appellate court, it could not conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting a legal separation and not a divorce.
In addition, wife submitted the deposition of Dr. Richard Hughes, a physician who treated her from 2003 to the time of trial, medical records, and her own testimony. This evidence supported the trial court’s finding that wife sustained a traumatic brain injury. Husband did not provide any evidence in the record sufficient to preponderate against that finding. Hence, the appellate court decided that based upon the appropriate standard of review in alimony determinations, it would not hold that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard or reached a clearly unreasonable conclusion in holding that wife was incapable of rehabilitation or in the type and amount of alimony awarded.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all respects.
No. M2012-00161-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 183715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation. Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce. A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
