Reduced Alimony means a smaller share of house equity
Tennessee case summary on property division and alimony in divorce.
Husband gets less equity in house in exchange for reduced alimony.
Lanora Henry v. Jeffery W. Henry
The husband and wife were married in 1983, and in 2017, they moved to Clarksville, Tennessee, and purchased a house. The couple were married in 1983 and in 2017, they moved to Clarksville, Tennessee, and purchased a house. The grandchildren eventually moved to Tennessee. The house was valued at $440,000 in 2023, with about $217,000 of equity. The husband claimed that the remarks were biased against him. The trial court said, among other things, “I won’t be stingy with you like you want me to be with her.”
The court awarded $50,000 from the house equity to husband, and the rest to wife. The trial court explained this was done to compensate the fact that the spouse was receiving less alimony. The wife received $1500 per week for five years and then $900 per week. The husband appealed the case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
His main complaint was that the court lacked impartiality. The appeals court disagreed and found that there was no evidence of bias.
While it conceded that the lower court had a strong negative reaction to the husband’s arguments, and more temperate language was cautioned, there was no evidence of bias, since the comments were reactions to positions taken by the husband during the case.The husband also challenged the allocation of equity, since the wife wound up with three-fourths.
The appeals court first noted that property division is a fact-intensive inquiry, and the lower court has broad discretion.The husband argued that the lower court erred in considering that the grandchildren would be living with the wife. But the Court of Appeals held that this was not error, since a court can consider all relevant factors.
The husband also argued that the property division award was simply too disproportionate.
But the appeals court again disagreed, noting that the lower court had taken into consideration the lower alimony.The husband also pointed out that the written order contained no provision requiring the wife to refinance after five years, since this provision was included in the oral ruling. The appeals court determined that the omission of this provision was an error and sent the case back to the lower court for correction. The husband was taxed for the costs of the appeal.
