Facts: Husband and Wife divorced after approximately 17 years of marriage. During the marriage, Wife was employed as a pharmacist while Husband stayed home to care for their two children and work on their farm. After a trial, the trial court awarded Wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, finding “overwhelming evidence that [Wife] was subjected to domestic abuse that was on occasion severe physical abuse.” The trial court divided the marital property and denied Husband’s request for alimony, citing Husband’s willful underemployment and ability to find employment outside the farm. Husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on alimony, finding that Husband suffered economic detriment for the benefit of the marriage. The Court of Appeals awarded transitional alimony of $2,000/mo. for three years to Husband. Click here to read my summary of the Court of Appeals opinion. Wife appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

On Appeal: The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court opinion includes some new facts relevant to their analysis. First, the Court notes that the marital standard of living was a “modest” one, despite Wife’s significant income. Second, the Court devotes several pages to detailing the horrific physical abuse Wife suffered at the hands of Husband over the course of the marriage. While the Court of Appeals acknowledged the trial court’s finding of “severe abuse,” the Supreme Court gives specific examples, e.g., two broken noses, an earlobe torn from Wife’s head, and so forth.

The Supreme Court rejected Husband’s argument after making four key findings:

1. “[T]he evidence showed that Husband is capable of working full time and earning a living that will allow him to maintain the parties’ [marital] standard of living.”

2. “Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Husband suffered an economic detriment of any kind by virtue of caring for the children while Wife worked outside the home.”

3. “We also note that there is a complete lack of evidence that Husband needed financial assistance to adjust to life as a single person, which, as already explained, is the purpose of transitional alimony. Although the Court of Appeals found that transitional alimony was appropriate to assist Husband in adjusting to the economic consequences of the divorce, the record contains no proof as to these economic consequences, a point Husband acknowledged at oral argument.”

4. “[I]t would be patently unjust to force Wife to continue supporting the person who repeatedly beat her to the point that she feared for her life and fled her home with her children and only the clothes they were wearing.”

After noting favorable factual similarities with Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, the Court concluded:

The same can be said of the present case, as there was no demonstrated need for support of any kind. Indeed, the record contains no evidence at all regarding Husband’s expenses, and we are not inclined to speculate about such matters. The record does establish that Husband was unsupportive of Wife’s career, abusive, and underemployed. The trial court found that Husband can maintain the same standard of living after the divorce that the parties enjoyed during the marriage. Under these circumstances, we conclude that spousal support was unwarranted.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying Husband alimony. The property division component of the Court of Appeals opinion was not contested on appeal and, therefore, was affirmed.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) I am glad to see the Court mention the necessity of demonstrating the causal relationship between a party’s economic detriment and the decision to benefit the marriage by, for example, being a stay-at-home parent. This was not emphasized in Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, so it is nice to see it recognized here. This is consistent with the alimony statutes and lots of Tennessee case law.

(2) The outcome is not surprising in light of the fact that, according to the Supreme Court, Husband “completely failed” to offer any proof establishing the nature and extent of his need for alimony.

(3) This case does not represent a change in the law. Like Gonsewski, it is merely a highly fact-dependent analysis of the unique facts presented in this particular case. Aside from the fact that the Court reaffirms the points of law discussed in Gonsewski — citing it 24 times — I do not think it is of much substantive significance to Tennessee lawyers.

Mayfield v. Mayfield (Tennessee Supreme Court, December 3, 2012).

Information provided by K.O. Herston: Knoxville, Tennessee Matrimonial, Divorce and Family Law Attorney.