Carolyn Ann Talley v. Clinton Eugene Talley
E2016-01457-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.May 1, 2017Background
- Wife (63) filed for divorce after separation in 2012; marriage began in 1986; adult children were independent. Wife had retired from Unum and received Social Security and a small pension; Husband (59) worked as an engineer and earned substantially more.
- Trial court conducted bench trial, found Husband guilty of inappropriate marital conduct, credited Wife’s testimony over Husband’s, and found Husband dissipated marital assets.
- Trial court valued and divided marital estate, initially allocating $542,763 to Wife and $484,900 to Husband, then reduced Wife’s award by $53,425 (legal fees and home repairs) to create near parity.
- Court awarded Wife alimony in futuro of $1,800/month, required Husband to maintain $500,000 life insurance to secure alimony, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees as alimony in solido.
- Parties stipulated concerning fees; trial court ordered Husband to pay $35,710 toward Wife’s fees. Husband appealed challenging valuations, dissipation finding/amount, alimony award and life insurance, expert valuations, fee award, and sought new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Talley (Wife) Argument | Talley (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reduction of Wife’s distribution by $53,425 | Reductions were improper but fees ultimately awarded by court so harmless | Reductions lacked evidentiary support and unexplained | Court found reductions unsupported; restored Wife’s share to $542,763 (no inequity) |
| Dissipation of marital assets ($65,000) | Dissipation proved by payments and benefits to third party (M.C.); amount supported by records | Amount not proven; some purchases were investments, not dissipation | Court’s finding of $65,000 dissipation upheld; evidence supports dissipation and allocation method |
| Valuation of Wife’s defined benefit plan | Expert Farr’s valuation reliable and within range | Husband’s expert more persuasive and better qualified | Trial court credited Farr; present value $78,809 adopted; appellate court defers to trial credibility |
| Alimony in futuro & life insurance security | Wife needs ongoing support; minimal household contribution from adult daughter | Husband argued daughter living with Wife raises presumption she contributes and alimony should be reduced | Award of $1,800/month affirmed; presumption rebutted; $500,000 life insurance requirement upheld |
| Attorney’s fees (alimony in solido) | Fees reasonable; trial court saw proceedings and could assess value | Affidavit insufficient; Wife already paid $23,300 (marital funds) so double recovery | Trial court’s award generally proper but modified: fee award reduced to $29,060 to credit marital funds already paid |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (appellate deference to trial court property division)
- Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2007) (standards for reviewing valuation and division of marital property)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (value of marital asset is a fact question; court may choose value within range of evidence)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (trial court discretion in spousal support and attorney’s fees as alimony in solido)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for discretionary decisions)
- Jolly v. Jolly, 130 S.W.3d 783 (Tenn. 2004) (trial court’s broad discretion in equitable division of marital property)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (appellate review of spousal support awards)