Alexander Stratienko v. Lisa Stratienko
529 S.W.3d 389
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Married 26 years; Husband (cardiologist, owner of Cardiac and Vascular Associates, CVA) and Wife (stay-at-home, assisted in practice and real-estate business McNeal) divorced after acrimonious separation and lengthy litigation. Two adult children.
- Wife performed substantial unpaid work for CVA and McNeal; Husband had much higher earning capacity (≈$600,000/yr). Wife had limited income pre-judgment and received an inheritance earlier in marriage.
- Trial court valued marital assets (CVA at $245,000), ordered sale/division of the marital home, awarded equal overall distribution, and required Husband to pay Wife $259,406 cash to equalize.
- Court awarded spousal support: alimony in futuro $5,000/month (ongoing) and alimony in solido $4,500/month for 10 years; ordered Husband to maintain $1,000,000 life insurance to secure support.
- Husband appealed valuation, alimony types/amounts, life-insurance requirement, allocation of McNeal membership/rights, and credits for alleged overpayments/dissipation; Wife sought appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporary alimony amount pendente lite | Excessive; exceeded pre-separation standard and included child expenses | Wife needed support; Husband controlled assets and income | Affirmed: record supports need and ability to pay; absence of hearing transcript presumes support for trial court's decision |
| Type and amount of permanent alimony (in futuro and in solido) | Should be rehabilitative/transitional or lower; in solido inappropriate given equal property split | Long-term support necessary; rehabilitation not feasible; in solido needed to prevent Husband reducing income or evading payments | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding $5,000/month in futuro and $4,500/month (10 yrs) in solido |
| Life insurance to secure alimony; amount required | $1,000,000 excessive given alimony in solido totals $540,000; burdensome premium cost | Insurance appropriate to secure future obligations including ongoing in futuro payments | Modified: impose $540,000 lien on Husband’s assets to secure in solido; reduce life-insurance requirement to $500,000 to secure in futuro |
| Valuation/allocation of marital assets & McNeal membership rights | CVA overvalued; trial court should credit Husband for alleged overpayments/dissipation; should give Wife financial interest only in McNeal (no governing rights) | Valuations within evidentiary range; equal membership necessary to effectuate equal division and protect Wife from exclusion | Affirmed: CVA valuation within range; no credit to Husband for temporary alimony; equal membership in McNeal appropriate given pending litigation and parties’ contributions |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. 1996) (trial court property-division findings are afforded great weight)
- Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of appellate review for property division and findings)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (trial courts have broad discretion in spousal support decisions; review for abuse of discretion)
- Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2001) (alimony in solido may be awarded in addition to or instead of other alimony awards)
- McKee v. McKee, 655 S.W.2d 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983) (alimony in solido is a definite sum and becomes vested at judgment)
- Ligon v. Ligon, 556 S.W.2d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977) (courts may impose liens on marital property to secure support)