Lawyers not voluntarily underemployed for the purpose of calculating alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 19 years married.

Lawyer was not voluntarily underemployed for purposes of alimony.

Heather Danielle Rader Blount v. James Edward Blount

The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case married in 1999. The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee case were married in 1999. The wife was a Memphis teacher and the husband held a law degree. He also worked in litigation with his father. The couple had three children. The wife filed for divorce. The husband worked for another firm the following year, but continued to run his former firm. He was also able to sell a building owned by his firm and received about $280,000. He was also able to sell a building owned by his firm and received proceeds of about $280,000.

The three-day trial took place in 2001, and a primary issue in the case was the husband’s income.

Shortly before trial, the husband ended his employment with the other firm, explaining that the environment was miserable. He was not used to working in a high-volume law firm. His workload was so heavy that he feared he would commit legal malpractice.

The husband explained that the two large cases from which he received fees were ones that he had worked on for many years.

The wife had employed an expert witness, Michael Pascal, a certified valuation analyst, to report on the husband’s income for support purposes. He averaged the amounts and attributed them to recent years. Cynthia MacAulay CPA, the husband’s expert, determined the income to be much lower because she spread out the two large cases across a longer time period. She set his average annual income at around $201,000. It settled on a five year average income of $255,000. This figure was used in the calculations for property division and support. After lengthy post-trial proceedings, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

After addressing fault and property division issues, the court turned to the husband’s income. The lower court had found that the husband was voluntarily underemployed. This finding was contested by the husband. The appeals court sided with the husband.

During the marriage he had worked at his father’s company for many years and only moved to the other firm when there was a financial crisis. The Court of Appeals found that these were objectively reasonable reasons for leaving the job. Overall, the Court of Appeals found these to be objectively reasonable reasons for leaving that job.

Since the lower court had imputed income to determine alimony and support, the Court of Appeals concluded that that portion of the lower court’s judgment would need to be vacated.

After addressing the other issues in the case, the Court of Appeals vacated and modified the lower court’s judgment, and affirmed in part.