TN Dentist Husband Has 26 Affairs and Divorce Result Was Unfortunate

Tennessee law case summary on divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Mark Edward Holifield v. Michele Lynn Billings Holifield – Tennessee divorce dental practice with fault.

The husband and wife were married in 1984, and at the time of their 2010 divorce had two adult children.  The husband filed for divorce in Madison, County, Tennessee, and alleged irreconcilable difference, inappropriate marital conduct, and adultery.  The wife admitted inappropriate marital conduct, but also alleged that the husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct.  The wife admitted that she inappropriately kissed another man, but the husband did not deny that he had sexual relationships with about 26 women during the course of the marriage.

The husband was a dentist with 40 employees in three locations.  The wife was the manager/administrator of the business, but at the time the divorce was filed, the husband removed her from all of their personal and business accounts and stopped paying any salary or support.  The trial court ordered the husband to put the wife back on the bank accounts.

The trial court subsequently granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.  It awarded the dental business to the husband and divided the parties’ property and ordered alimony.  The trial court noted that the husband had been the architect of the demise of the marriage and their financial circumstances, and that he was not a credible witness.  In the year prior to the commencement of the case, the husband’s income had approached a million dollars.  He no longer drew a salary, however, and he had been collecting disability benefits after being diagnosed with a tremor.  The husband was later held in contempt for failing to pay alimony, and ordered to either pay the alimony or report to jail.  The husband appealed on a number of grounds to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued on appeal that the trial court had not equitably divided the marital property.  The trial court had found that the parties’ equity in their property was over $4 million, and had awarded the wife about $2.5 million.  The Court of Appeals noted that the dental business had never been definitively valued.  Even though the husband was not drawing a salary, the Court of Appeals agreed that the business remained operational and had apparent value.  After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had acted within its discretion in dividing the marital property as it did.

The husband next argued that the trial court had awarded excessive alimony.  But once again, even though the husband had a disability, the dental practice was still successful, and the Court once again held that the award was within the trial court’s discretion.  The court also held that the award of attorney fees to the wife was appropriate.

Finally, the Court examined the evidence surrounding the husband’s being held in contempt.  Once again, it carefully examined the evidence and concluded that the trial court had acted properly. The Court also granted the wife’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

For these reasons, the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. W2012-00806-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb 10, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.