At Fault Husband To Pay Spouse’s Lawyer’s Charges + Well being Insurance coverage

Tennessee alimony divorce case abstract after 17 years married.

Antonio Maurice Wiggins v. Carol Ann Wiggins

The husband and spouse on this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case had been married in 2003, and the husband served within the U.S. Military for the primary 9 years of the wedding.  They’d no kids and finally bought a house in Clarksville.  They divorced in 2019 when the husband was 50 and the spouse 49.

After mediation, the events had been in a position to agree on some points, however the case went to trial on others.  At trial, the husband admitted to a lot of extra-marital affairs, and the spouse was granted the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.

The trial court docket dominated that the spouse was the economically deprived partner primarily based upon earnings, and awarded her alimony.  Because the spouse was going to lose her medical insurance on account of the divorce, the trial court docket ordered the husband to pay $700 per thirty days alimony in futuro to help her in paying the price of insurance coverage.   And after contemplating the amount of cash the spouse would obtain from the sale of the home, and her must buy a brand new dwelling, the trial court docket additionally ordered the husband to pay $650 per thirty days in transitional alimony for 36 months to cowl her housing transition.

The trial court docket additionally awarded the spouse $7500 as alimony in solido to cowl her lawyer’s charges.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.  He didn’t contest the award of transitional alimony, however he did argue that the award of alimony in futuro and alimony in solido was not correct beneath the information of the case.

The appeals court docket started its opinion by noting the usual of evaluation and citing the related statutes.  It then turned to its evaluation of the award of $700 per thirty days for the insurance coverage prices.  It famous the related earnings of each events, and in addition the truth that each spouses had made equal contributions through the marriage.

The husband argued that the trial court docket had positioned an excessive amount of emphasis on his fault within the demise of the wedding, however the appeals court docket identified that this can be a permissible consideration.  It additionally famous that the medical insurance was a necessity and never a need, and that the $700 was mandatory.

After reviewing all the proof, the appeals court docket concluded that the trial court docket’s motivation was to not punish the husband, however that the trial court docket had correctly thought-about the husband’s fault.

The court docket then turned to the award of alimony in solido to cowl the spouse’s lawyer charges.  As soon as once more, the court docket pointed to the relative earnings of the events and the spouse’s want for these funds.  Primarily based upon its evaluation of the proof, the court docket affirmed the decrease court docket’s determination on this level as nicely.

For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the decrease court docket.  It assessed the prices of the attraction in opposition to the husband.  The court docket’s opinion was penned by Choose Frank G. Clement, Jr., and joined in by Judges Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer.

No. M2019-02006-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22,  2021).

See unique opinion for precise language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.