TN Lawyer’s Alimony Obligation to MBA Wife Reduced
Tennessee alimony law case summary following 26 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Elizabeth Breckenridge Wheeler v. Joseph Robert Wheeler – Tennessee divorce alimony 26 years married
Elizabeth and Joseph Wheeler were married in 1986. Both had graduated from Vanderbilt University and went on to earn graduate degrees. The wife obtained an MBA from Vanderbilt, and the husband earned his law degree from the University of Tennessee.
At the time of their divorce, they had three sons, who were then 16, 13, and 10 years old. The wife had been very successful as a research and financial analyst, and had earned over $200,000 per year for most of her career. In 1999 and 2001, she earned over $300,000. After graduating from law school, the husband went to work for the law firm Cornelius & Collins, and he continued to work for that firm. His income had been less than his wife’s while she was working. However, in 2001, she quit working to care for the children. After her father died in 1998, she inherited substantial assets, including an IRA valued at over two million dollars. From the IRA, she receives mandatory distributions of over $70,000 per year. She also inherited other assets valued at approximately $780,000.
In 2009, the husband admitted to having an extramarital relationship, and the wife filed for legal separation. The husband filed a counter complaint for divorce. In 2010, after some attempt at reconciliation, the wife filed for divorce as well. Pending the trial, the trial court in Davidson County ordered the husband to pay $7,000 per month in support obligations. In 2012, the court granted the wife a divorce, named her primary residential parent, and gave her sole decision-making authority. The husband was ordered to pay child support of $917 per month and divided the parties’ assets.
The trial court ordered that the $7000 per month alimony continue until the marital residence was sold. It also ordered transitional alimony in the amount of $3600 per month for 48 months, to begin after the sale of the residence. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife’s attorney fees in the amount of $25,000. The husband appealed the case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court first held that there was no error in giving the wife sole decision-making authority for the children. The appeals court also examined the child support award and concluded that it was proper. It also affirmed the property division. The appeals court then turned to the alimony issue.
The husband first argued that the $7000 he was ordered to pay pending trial was excessive, and argued that his income had decreased. But the Court of Appeals examined the evidence and noted that his billable hours had decreased at the same time when he had been spending extensive time with his girlfriend, and had made a number of expensive purchases of a vehicle, boat, and jewelry.
On the question of post-judgment alimony, the husband got a somewhat more sympathetic ear from the Court of Appeals. He argued that the award was excessive because the wife was not economically disadvantaged, and that the award exceeded both his ability to pay and his wife’s needs. The Court of Appeals noted that the ability to pay and the wife’s need were the most important factors.
The Court first noted that since the husband had been ordered to make payments on the home equity line of credit in addition to the alimony, this amounted to an indefinite obligation to pay $9500 per month until the house was sold. The appeals court also noted that the trial court had made no specific findings to support this obligation. It assumed, therefore, that the trial court had regarded the wife as the economically disadvantaged spouse, and examined whether the award could be supported on this ground.
The Court noted that the wife had IRA income of about $70,000 per year, and valued the IRA at $1.8 million, based on the testimony of CPA Vic Alexander. In fact, the wife left the marriage with assets valued at $2.6 million, while the husband’s assets were $860,000, most of which was not liquid. On these facts, the court concluded that the wife should be limited to $3,600 per month alimony, for a period of 24 months.
The appeals court went on to affirm the $25,000 award of attorneys’ fees, but denied her attorney’s fees on appeal.
No. M2012-02154-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2014).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Law in Divorce | Answers to FAQs. Also, for legal updates, news, analysis, and commentary, see our Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Alimony category.
