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 youngsters 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 capable of agree on some points, however the case went to trial on others. At trial, the husband admitted to plenty of extra-marital affairs, and the spouse was granted the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.
The trial courtroom dominated that the spouse was the economically deprived partner primarily based upon revenue, and awarded her alimony. Because the spouse was going to lose her medical health insurance because of the divorce, the trial courtroom ordered the husband to pay $700 per 30 days alimony in futuro to help her in paying the price of insurance coverage. And after contemplating the sum of money the spouse would obtain from the sale of the home, and her have to buy a brand new dwelling, the trial courtroom additionally ordered the husband to pay $650 per 30 days in transitional alimony for 36 months to cowl her housing transition.
The trial courtroom 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 info of the case.
The appeals courtroom started its opinion by noting the usual of evaluate and citing the related statutes. It then turned to its evaluation of the award of $700 per 30 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 throughout the marriage.
The husband argued that the trial courtroom had positioned an excessive amount of emphasis on his fault within the demise of the wedding, however the appeals courtroom identified that it is a permissible consideration. It additionally famous that the medical health insurance was a necessity and never a need, and that the $700 was mandatory.
After reviewing all the proof, the appeals courtroom concluded that the trial courtroom’s motivation was to not punish the husband, however that the trial courtroom had correctly thought-about the husband’s fault.
The courtroom then turned to the award of alimony in solido to cowl the spouse’s lawyer charges. As soon as once more, the courtroom pointed to the relative earnings of the events and the spouse’s want for these funds. Primarily based upon its evaluate of the proof, the courtroom affirmed the decrease courtroom’s determination on this level as effectively.
For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the decrease courtroom. It assessed the prices of the attraction towards the husband. The courtroom’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 authentic opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
