Facts: Husband and Wife, the parents of two children, divorced after 10 years of marriage. Both were employed and worked remotely. After they separated, Husband lived in Texas with his girlfriend and her son.

The trial court found that Husband incurred a lot of debt for his benefit after the separation, including debt related to his infidelity. The trial court found that Husband’s claims that this debt was incurred for marital purposes were not credible.

The trial court divided the marital estate—assets and debt—such that Wife received $352,177 and Husband received $-31,746, i.e., a division of 110% to Wife and -10% to Husband. The trial court also awarded transitional alimony to Wife of $100 per month with no termination date, along with alimony in solido to compensate Wife for Husband’s dissipation (marital funds spent on his girlfriend and her son) and Wife’s attorney’s fees and expenses of almost $65,000.

Husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Husband appealed, arguing the division of the marital estate was inequitable and the award of transitional alimony did not have an end date.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part and modified it in part.

Equitable division. While the opinion says Husband’s brief did not explain why he believes the division of the marital estate to be inequitable, the Court acknowledged that “a straightforward review of the distribution raises a question as to whether the negative award to Husband was equitable.”

On appeal, the Court took judicial notice of the post-judgment fact that many debts assessed to Husband in the divorce were discharged in Husband’s bankruptcy.

The Court found the 110/-10 division to be equitable under the circumstances:

We determined that the negative total distribution to Husband, inclusive of the debts assessed to him, many of which were discharged in bankruptcy during the pendency of this appeal, resulted in an equitable division of the marital estate. Moreover, considering the trial court’s thorough consideration of the statutory factors at the time of the divorce judgment and its credibility determinations, we find that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s division of the marital property at the time of the divorce judgment’s entry.

Transitional alimony. TCA § 36-5-121(g)(1) provides that transitional alimony may be ordered “for a determinate period of time.” That means it must have an end date.

Wife acknowledged that the trial court erred in not setting an end date. She urged the Court to change the award to end after eight years.

The Court modified the duration of the transitional alimony award to five years:

Here, the trial court found Wife to be well educated, employed, and capable of continuing to earn a good income. Wife had also demonstrated her ability to continue earning her salary while working remotely and acting as the Children’s primary residential parent. Considering these facts, we determined five years to be a reasonable time. For Wife to continue receiving transitional alimony. The trial court’s award is therefore modified to $100 in monthly transitional alimony for a period of five years from the date of the final divorce decree’s entry. As the trial court ordered in its final decree, the amount of transitional alimony shall be modifiable up to the end of the five-year determinate period.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) Based on Wife’s receipt of $352,177 and Husband’s receipt of $-31,746, the net value of this marital estate is $320,431. That means Wife received 110% and Husband received -10%. I’ve seen a lot of 50/50 divisions, 60/40 divisions, 70/30 divisions, and even an 80/20 division. I’ve never seen a 110/-10 division until now.

(2) Despite the interminable length of this never-ending 52-page opinion, I found it difficult to understand how Wife was ever found to be “economically disadvantaged” relative to Husband such that she would be a candidate for alimony in the first place. Both parties seem to be well-educated professionals who work remotely from home and earn comparable salaries, with Wife even outearning Husband at times. I’m left wondering: how was she a candidate for alimony? In other words, how was she the economically disadvantaged spouse?

“Economically disadvantaged” is a legal term of art. Its meaning is reflected in Tennessee’s alimony statute, TCA § 36-5-121(c)(1), which says:

Spouses have traditionally strengthened the family unit through private arrangements whereby one (1) spouse focuses on nurturing the personal side of the marriage, including the care and nurturing of the children, while the other spouse focuses primarily on building the economic strength of the family unit. This arrangement often results in economic detriment to the spouse who subordinated such spouse’s own personal career for the benefit of the marriage.

TCA § 36-5-121(c)(2) further describes the “economically disadvantaged spouse” as one who “suffers economic detriment for the benefit of the marriage.”

Maybe that happened in this trial, but the omission of anything suggesting it happened in this otherwise extraordinarily verbose opinion makes me wonder whether Husband ever raised this issue at trial.

Family-law attorneys must understand who is—and who is not—a candidate for alimony.

Source: Jensen v. Jensen (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, September 4, 2024).

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