Christina Lee Cain-Swope v. Robert David Swope
2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 986
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Christina Cain-Swope (Wife), a board‑certified OB/GYN employed by Vanderbilt ($154,000/yr at trial), and Robert Swope (Husband), with a BFA, divorced after ~24 years; two minor children. Trial court named Wife primary residential parent.
- Husband was a stay‑at‑home parent for much of the marriage; returned to work in 2011 at Trader Joe’s (~$13.85/hr, ~$26,647/yr). Wife left higher‑paying private practice (previously ~$250k/yr) to work at Vanderbilt by agreement.
- Trial court ordered Wife to pay Husband $2,400/month alimony in futuro, $793/month child support, and $10,000 toward Husband’s attorney’s fees; Wife appealed.
- Wife argued the judge showed bias at opening, the court should have imputed income to Husband and deviated child support for private school expenses, the alimony award (type and amount) was erroneous, and the attorney‑fee award was improper.
- Appellate court affirmed most rulings but vacated the $2,400/month alimony award for inadequate Rule 52.01 findings regarding Wife’s ability to pay and remanded for specific factual findings and conclusions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias | Trial judge’s opening comments showed prejudgment of alimony; jury‑trial‑level review warranted | Wife waived recusal by not moving to disqualify; comments not disqualifying | Waived and without merit; no impartiality violation found |
| Impute income (willful underemployment) for child support | Husband capable of higher earnings (degree, past work); court should impute ~$42k | Husband agreed to be stay‑at‑home parent; limited work history; current wage is highest he earned | Trial court’s factual finding that Husband was not willfully underemployed not preponderantly wrong; no imputation |
| Deviation for private school (extraordinary educational expenses) | Wife pays private tuition and sought downward deviation from support | Parties’ parenting plan explicitly made private school optional; Wife did not request deviation at trial | Issue waived — Wife did not request deviation and parenting plan disclaimed obligation; court not required to consider deviation |
| Type of alimony (in futuro vs. rehabilitative) | Husband is capable of rehabilitation; award should be rehabilitative or transitional | Husband economically disadvantaged from homemaking; rehabilitation not feasible given age, work history | Trial court properly found alimony in futuro appropriate based on statutory factors |
| Amount of alimony ($2,400/mo) | Amount is excessive; Wife cannot afford without deficit | Trial court has discretion; Husband needs support and wife has greater earning capacity | Vacated and remanded: court failed to make Rule 52.01 findings tying Wife’s ability to pay and Husband’s need to the $2,400 figure; new findings and (if needed) amended award required |
| Attorney fees at trial ($10,000 to Husband) | Wife objects because Husband will have proceeds from home sale; Wife sought her own fees | Husband argued need; court found Husband economically disadvantaged and Wife better able to pay | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding $10,000 as alimony in solido |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (appellate review of trial court fact findings under Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d))
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01 findings requirement and purposes)
- Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (insufficient findings permit de novo review or remand)
- Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1997) (remand for findings when trial court fails to comply with Rule 52.01)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (standards and deference for alimony awards)
- Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000) (trial court must make findings of fact regarding alimony factors)