Husband Dissipated Estate w/ Secret Purchases + Alimony $1.8K/Mo.

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 26 years married.

Carolyn Ann Talley v. Clinton Eugene Talley

The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1986 and separated in 2012.  They had two children, both of whom were over the age of majority at the time of the divorce.  The wife filed a complaint for divorce in 2012, and the case went to trial.

At the time of trial, the wife was 63 years old and the husband 59.  The wife had been employed by an insurance company for 38 years until her 2012 retirement.  At the time of retirement, she had been earning about $34,000 per year.

The husband was a mechanical engineer, and at the time of the divorce, he worked in Georgia and commuted each week.  His annual income was about $74,000.

The wife testified that she was unable to work due to various health concerns.  She was receiving social security of $1,475 per month and a retirement benefit of $804 per month.

After the separation, the wife remained in the marital residence, with monthly expenses of about $3,500.  Shortly before the divorce, the husband had purchased a house without the wife’s knowledge, which he described as an investment.

After trial, the court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct by the husband.  It valued the parties’ property and distributed it, about $480,000 to each spouse.

With regard to alimony, the court determined that the husband had a substantially greater ability to earn income because he was still employed.  It also found that both parties had contributed to the marital estate, but that the husband alone had contributed to the dissipation of assets.  The court found that the wife had a need and the husband had an ability to pay.  It awarded the wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $1,800 per month.  It also awarded the wife her attorney’s fees as alimony in solido.

The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He raised a number of issues, including whether the trial court had erred in finding that he had dissipated marital assets.  He also argued that the award of alimony was inappropriate.

With regard to the dissipation issue, the trial court had found that the husband had dissipated marital assets in the amount of $65,000 because of the purchase of property without the wife’s knowledge.  The property was sold at a loss, but the husband argued that this was merely a speculative investment, and not dissipation.

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s finding.  It first pointed out that the purchase had been made without the wife’s knowledge or consent.  It also noted that the husband was allegedly collecting rent for the property, but he presented no evidence that the rent was actually collected.  After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the finding of dissipation and its amount was properly made.

After addressing some property issues, the appeals court turned to the issue of alimony.  The husband argued that an award of alimony was improper, party because their adult daughter was residing in the marital residence with the wife.

The wife, however, testified that the daughter was earning income and paying all of her own expenses.  The court agreed with the wife, and held that her evidence rebutted any presumption that the daughter’s living there should reduce the alimony.

After addressing an insurance issue, the appeals court finally turned to the issue of attorney’s fees.  It upheld the award of fees, but modified the amount somewhat.

As modified, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. E2016-01457-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.