Dinah Bostic Norman v. John Arthur Norman, IV
M2015-02364-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 28, 2017Background
- Wife filed for divorce after a 22-year marriage and obtained an ex parte restraining order alleging abuse and business misappropriation; the court later modified and dissolved parts of the order.
- The couple jointly owned A‑Z DME, LLC (50/50 initially, adjusted to 51% Wife for 8(a) certification), the sole income-producing marital asset that generated significant distributions pre‑divorce.
- During the divorce pendency A‑Z’s finances deteriorated; Wife was excluded from business operations after the court found misconduct, unauthorized withdrawals, and payments to friends/family.
- At trial the court awarded A‑Z to Husband, adjusted the marital estate for Wife’s dissipation, divided remaining assets (Husband ~51.8%, Wife ~48.2%), and ordered an alimony in solido to equalize the division.
- The court also awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony ($2,000/month for 48 months) and alimony in futuro ($3,000/month ongoing), finding Husband’s earning capacity substantially higher and Wife partially rehabilitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of unclean hands to bar Wife from business/share | N/A (Wife sought relief) | Wife obtained restraining order by false sworn statements and mismanaged/dissipated business funds; doctrine should bar her recovery | Court declined to apply unclean hands to bar relief; instead punished misconduct by awarding business to Husband and adjusting division (no abuse of discretion) |
| Equitable division of marital estate | Court’s division is equitable | Division should award Husband additional adjustments (e.g., $20,000, different student loan allocation, different alimony in solido amount) | Trial court’s division affirmed; not required to be mathematically exact and considered statutory factors (no abuse of discretion) |
| Award of alimony (rehabilitative and futuro) | Wife needs rehabilitation and long‑term support given loss of business and lower earning capacity | Husband argues Wife is not disadvantaged, can use business skills, and awards exceed his ability to pay | Court found Wife relatively economically disadvantaged and partially rehabilitable; awarded rehabilitative and futuro alimony (affirmed) |
| Interest on alimony in solido payable in installments | N/A (Wife sought full recovery/use of funds) | Price v. Price bars interest from judgment date for installment‑payable lump sums | Court required interest because award was designated payable immediately; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Boote, 265 S.W.3d 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (unclean hands doctrine overview in equity)
- Chastain v. Chastain, 559 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1977) (unclean hands applies in divorce only for fraud/deceit on the court)
- Wilder v. Wilder, 863 S.W.2d 707 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (perjury sanctions and impact on equitable relief)
- Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review for marital property division)
- Larsen-Ball v. Ball, 301 S.W.3d 228 (Tenn. 2010) (trial court’s factual findings reviewed de novo with presumption of correctness)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (standards and discretion for spousal support awards)
- Price v. Price, 472 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. 1971) (interest on alimony in solido installments limited to post‑default)
- Flannary v. Flannary, 121 S.W.3d 647 (Tenn. 2003) (marital property division is not mechanical)
- Alford v. Alford, 120 S.W.3d 810 (Tenn. 2003) (factors for allocating marital debt)