No Discount of Alimony for Paying Grownup Son’s Automobile Fee

Tennessee alimony divorce case abstract.

Laurel Martin Griffin v. Kevin Michael Griffin

Tennessee alimony modification case abstract

The husband on this Williamson County, Tennessee, case introduced an attraction to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals after his divorce.  The decrease court docket’s choice was affirmed in most respects, however the alimony and youngster help awards have been vacated, for the reason that decrease court docket had not made enough findings of reality relating to his means to pay.

After remand, the events have been capable of comply with the kid help quantity, however the alimony remained disputed.  The events agreed that the husband’s gross month-to-month revenue was $20,725 monthly, with a web pay of $16,786.25.

The trial court docket then made determinations as to the reasonableness of his bills, and it held that bills associated to the grownup son have been to not be thought of.  It additionally famous that it had no confidence in his estimates as to meals and different bills, and these quantities have been decreased.

It additionally discovered that the husband’s choice to stay within the marital residence was not affordable, and the expense related to that call was not considered.

After the decrease court docket recalculated the bills, it ordered the husband to pay $6000 monthly in alimony in futuro.  The husband then introduced a second attraction.

The appeals court docket first famous that trial courts have broad discretion on the subject of alimony.  It then famous that it reviewed the decrease court docket’s reality findings de novo, however with a presumption of correctness.  It first regarded on the bills associated to the grownup son, which included insurance coverage and a automotive fee.  The husband argued that the automotive mortgage was a marital debt for which he was accountable, however the trial court docket had famous that the husband may repay this mortgage from his property.  The appeals court docket agreed.  It famous that regardless that the husband was legally accountable, it was affordable to anticipate that the son would make these funds if he anticipated to maintain the automotive.  If the son didn’t make the funds, there was nothing stopping the husband from promoting the automotive and paying off the mortgage.

The appeals court docket did agree {that a} portion of the medical insurance funds must be considered, for the reason that son was included on the husband’s plan.

As to the opposite bills, the trial court docket analyzed the decrease court docket’s rationale and agreed with it.

The husband additionally argued that he had an incapacity to pay.  However since lots of the bills have been held to be discretionary, the appeals court docket rejected this argument.

Each events requested legal professional’s charges for the attraction, however these requests have been denied.  For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling.  The appellate choice was authored by Decide W. Neal McBrayer.

No. M2021-00173-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022).

See unique opinion for actual language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see Alimony Regulation in Tennessee, and our video, How is alimony determined in Tennessee?