Facts: Husband and Wife, the parents of six children, divorced after 15 years of marriage.

After the parties’ oldest child was born a year after they married, Wife was a homemaker and stay-at-home parent. By the time of trial, Wife was working for her family’s business, earning a little over $50,000 yearly.

Husband served as the primary breadwinner during the marriage, earning about $190,000.

The trial court divided the marital property and declined to award Wife any alimony.

The Court of Appeals reversed the property division, criticizing the trial court for speculative findings regarding Wife’s future earning capacity working for her family’s business, which Wife’s mother and father wholly owned.

Wife appealed. On remand, the trial court equally divided the marital estate and again denied any alimony for Wife, stating that Wife did not need it.

Wife appealed again. She argued trial court erred in failing to award her alimony because the parties agreed that Wife would leave the workforce to become a homemaker and stay-at-home parent, and Husband earned four times Wife’s income.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

If a spouse is economically disadvantaged relative to the other spouse, i.e., the disadvantaged spouse sacrificed their earning capacity to benefit the marriage, the disadvantaged spouse is a candidate for alimony. The inquiry then turns to consideration of the statutory factors in TCA § 36-5-121(i), the most important of which are the disadvantaged spouse’s need for support to enable that spouse to enjoy a reasonably comparable standard of living as compared to the advantaged spouse, and the advantaged spouse’s ability to pay that support.

The Court held the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that Wife does not need alimony:

Without question, based on this record, Wife’s reported monthly deficit of approximately $6000 is overstated for the purpose of assessing her need for alimony…. Caselaw indicates, however, that receipt of child support is relevant to a consideration of a disadvantaged spouse’s needs. However, here, Husband’s child support obligation of $1620 per month does not in any way eliminate Wife’s claimed deficit, nor do, as discussed below, various challenges to Wife’s expenses that are specifically mentioned by Husband on appeal.

*     *     *     *     *

Even if these expenses are all discounted or rejected in the specific manner apparently suggested by Husband in relation to Wife’s claim for alimony, Wife is still has a reported deficit.

*     *     *     *     *

Based on our review of the record, it is respectfully unclear how the trial court could reach the conclusion that Wife has no need for support. The trial court’s finding of no need was itself merely conclusory, and as evidenced from our above overview, even when the various complaints Husband has lodged with respect to Wife’s income and expense statement are taken into account alongside consideration that Wife receives child support, the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that Wife still has a meaningful deficit. Again, despite the conclusory recitation by the trial court that Wife “did not show a need,” the evidence supports another finding with greater convincing effect.

Because the trial court’s denial of alimony was in part based on its erroneous finding regarding the threshold consideration of need, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of alimony should, once again, be vacated and the issue remanded for reconsideration.

*     *     *     *     *

The trial court’s conclusory finding pertaining to that threshold question [of Wife’s need] simply does not withstand scrutiny.

The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court to consider this issue for the third time.

Source: Erdman v. Erdman (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, August 26, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.