Physician and Nurse Prenup Held Valid + $8K/Mo. Alimony in Futuro

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 16 years married.

Phillip Jay Seifert v. Maria Coveny Seifert

The husband and wife in this Knox County, Tennessee case were married in 1997.  A few days before the marriage, they entered into an antenuptial agreement.  The husband was a physician, and the wife was a registered nurse.  During the marriage, the husband’s annual income ranged from $350,000 to $550,000.  The wife continued to work as a nurse until about 2000, when she became a homemaker and the primary caretaker of the two children.

After sixteen years, the husband filed for a divorce, asking to be named the primary residential parent.  In her answer, the wife challenged the validity of the antenuptial agreement.  The trial court held that the agreement was valid and enforceable.

The remaining issues went to trial about a year later.  At that time, the wife was in her early sixties and the husband was in his early fifties.  The youngest child was seventeen, and the trial court adopted the wife’s proposed parenting plan.

The trial court divided the marital property according to the antenuptial agreement.  It found that the agreement made each party’s income to be separate property, unless acquired jointly.  It found the husband’s separate estate to be valued at almost $4 million, including the marital residence and investment accounts.  The wife’s property was valued at about $54,000.

The trial court found that alimony was not restricted by the antenuptial agreement, and awarded the wife $8,000 per month alimony in futuro as well as a lump sum of $500,000 as alimony in solido.  In making this award, the trial court found that the wife was not capable of rehabilitation, since she did not have the opportunity to acquire the types of assets the husband had.

After some post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first addressed the antenuptial agreement.  Neither party appealed the enforceability of the agreement, so the court turned to the interpretation.  The wife argued that the lower court had interpreted it incorrectly, and that not all income should be treated as separate property.

The agreement did not define the word “property,” and did not specifically state whether income would be treated as property.  But since the term was not defined, and the plain meaning of the word property includes income received for services, the appeals court agreed that it was property within the meaning of the agreement.  For that reason, it affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

After addressing some other property issues, the appeals court turned to the issue of alimony.  The husband argued that the lower court should not have considered his substantial personal property in making the award.

The appeals court reviewed the statutory factors, and then addressed the issue.  The husband argued that since the antenuptial agreement made his property his alone, the trial court should not have considered it when deciding alimony.

But the appeals court noted that the agreement did have a specific provision regarding alimony, and called for “such amounts as shall be reasonable.”

Under Tennessee law, the amount of alimony takes into consideration the parties’ separate assets.  Therefore, this was a proper factor for the court to consider in making an award of reasonable alimony.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that it was not error to consider the separate property.

As to the amount of alimony, the appeals court reviewed the evidence and determined that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings.

It also reviewed the evidence and found that the award of $500,000 as a lump sum was reasonable under the circumstances.

After reviewing a number of other issues, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for any further proceedings.

No. E2016-01340-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.