Home Divorce Lawyer At Fault Husband To Pay Wife’s Attorney’s Fees + Health Insurance

At Fault Husband To Pay Wife’s Attorney’s Fees + Health Insurance


At Fault Husband To Pay Wife’s Attorney’s Fees + Health Insurance

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 have been married in 2003, and the husband served within the U.S. Army for the primary 9 years of the wedding.  They had 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 have been capable of agree on some points, however the case went to trial on others.  At trial, the husband admitted to numerous 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 based mostly upon revenue, and awarded her alimony.  Since the spouse was going to lose her medical insurance on account of the divorce, the trial courtroom 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 residence, the trial courtroom additionally ordered the husband to pay $650 per thirty 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 legal professional’s charges.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court 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 under the info of the case.

The appeals courtroom started its opinion by noting the usual of assessment and citing the applicable statutes.  It then turned to its evaluation of the award of $700 per thirty days for the insurance coverage prices.  It famous the applicable earnings of each events, and likewise 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 insurance was a necessity and never a need, and that the $700 was essential.

After reviewing the entire 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 of the husband’s fault.

The courtroom then turned to the award of alimony in solido to cowl the spouse’s legal professional charges.  Once once more, the courtroom pointed to the relative earnings of the events and the spouse’s want for these funds.  Based upon its assessment of the proof, the courtroom affirmed the decrease courtroom’s choice on this level as well.

For these causes, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the decrease courtroom.  It assessed the prices of the appeal in opposition to the husband.  The courtroom’s opinion was penned by Judge 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.  Legal citations omitted.

To study extra, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here