The Tennessee Court of Appeals today released a new opinion that looks at the division of marital property and alimony for couples who are divorcing after a long term (20+ years) marriage.

My review of this case is for normal, everyday people  who are looking at going through a divorce and not lawyers. This is a very non-legal review and looks at the division of assets and alimony, not upon the procedural and legal aspects of the appeal. If you’re a lawyer looking for detailed insight, this isn’t the place to find it. But if you’re someone who may be going through a divorce and wants to understand more about what happens in divorce cases then keep reading.

For those of  you want to read the Court’s opinion in it’s entirety you can view the Pettijohn vs. Pettijohn case here.

But for the rest of you, here are the nuts and bolts of the 15 page decision.

Facts:

The couple had been married for 24 years when the wife filed for divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. The inappropriate marital conduct claimed by the Wife was the fact that her husband consumed too much alcohol and mentally tormented her. She offered proof of this torment and it’s negative affects on her through testimony of her physician.

The divorcing couple had two children. One was a minor (15) and one was an adult (over 18).

The wife had spent much of her prime employment years as a homemaker and caretaker for the children.

Wife had recently started back working making approximately $20,000 per year. She had no education and was approximately 52 years old.

Husband was the primary bread-winner and earned almost $100,000 per year.

The couple had no outstanding debts. The total net worth to be divided between them was valued at roughly $480,000. This included his $210,000 401(k) and the couples fully paid for home valued at $175,000.

Decision of the Divorce Trial Court:

The trial court divided the marital property almost 50/50, with the wife getting only $4,000 more in marital property.

The trial court also found that the husband was to pay $750 per month as alimony in futuro as spousal support to the wife. However, this alimony was to increase to $1,750 in three years when the minor child became an adult.

Here the big kicker in this case. The court also ordered that the husband pay the wife his one half interest in the marital home as alimony in solido (a one time alimony payment). This effectively meant that the wife now received 69% of the assets and the husband only 31%.

The Appeal:

Obviously, the husband wasn’t thrilled with this decision. He appealed and wanted the Tennessee Court of Appeals to make a few changes.

The Husband felt like the 50/50 division was more appropriate. He had no problems giving his (ex)wife the house but wanted the court to allow him to keep $87,500 worth of his 401(k) to offset the value of his half of the house. He did not want her to have half of his retirement plus his half of the house as alimony.

He also wanted the court to only allow the wife monthly alimony payments for 72 months. His argument was that he would then be retiring and she shouldn’t get any monthly payments from him then.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed (didn’t make any change to) the trial court’s decision.

The Reason

They found that the trial court was correct in ruling that the wife was economically disadvantaged, and at her age she could not be “rehabilitated” by going back to school and learning a skill that would allow her to get a job and reach the income level that was accustomed to during the marriage.

The wife had spent the majority of her marriage looking for and taking care of the house and children to the detriment of seeking an education or a job.

The court felt that it was appropriate for the wife to be given the alimony in solido that came in the form of her (ex)husband’s half of the house. They felt that she would never be able to earn enough income to afford a similar house on her own and it was within the reach of the trial court to give the property to the wife. In the court’s opinion the husband made five times more than the wife and would be able to continue the lifestyle he was used to, even after the divorce. And additionally he would be able to afford to purchase a home or live in a similar home.

The court also determined that the ongoing monthly alimony was appropriate because she would also need it to be able to continue her lifestyle.  And the court found when looking into her projected monthly income needs that this payment would be needed  every month indefinitely and should not be stopped in 72 months.

My Take

I believe that both courts were correct in the decision they made.

Undoubtedly the wife could have pursued her career and further educated herself if it was not for the fact that she took care of the children and the home. It seems that this arrangement was agreed to by both her and her husband.

She was entitled to an equal share of the marital assets. And between her monthly income from her job and the $1,750 of alimony in futuro her monthly income would still only be roughly $3,400 per month. This is still much less than the $10,000 per month she was accustomed to having each month with both her and her husband’s income.

Allowing the wife to have her husband’s interest in the home as alimony in solido was the best way to compensate for the continued disparity between her and her husband.

Jami Ferrell is a Memphis divorce attorney who represents women going through divorce. If you have questions you may contact him at 901-754-1340 or by email at James@MemphisDivorceFirm.com.