Kip Harold Roby v. Teresa Coakley Roby
M2015-01987-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Husband (Kip Roby) and Wife (Teresa Roby) married ~30 years; divorce filed Dec 2014; tried on limited issues (grounds and alimony) Aug 17, 2015.
- Husband retired from USAF (20 years), later worked at TVA (~$84,080 salary; ~ $100K+ with overtime); also received military retirement and disability. Wife worked as school board secretary (~$32,400/year) after years as homemaker and frequent relocations during marriage.
- Parties mediated and agreed to divide most property and debts (house to Husband with equity split after refinance; vehicles; 401(k) split; military retirement divided). Post-divorce gross monthly estimates: Husband ~$9,494; Wife ~$3,607.
- Trial court granted divorce to Wife on ground of Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct and found Wife economically disadvantaged.
- Trial court awarded transitional alimony of $500/month for 144 months (12 years); each party to bear own attorney’s fees. Husband appealed only the alimony award.
Issues
| Issue | Roby (Husband) Argument | Roby (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife proved need and whether amount/duration were appropriate | Wife did not need $500/mo for 12 years; Husband’s ability to pay and Wife’s expenses do not justify award | Wife is economically disadvantaged due to long homemaking role, lower earning capacity, limited ability to increase earnings | Court affirmed need, amount, and duration (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether the alimony type (transitional) was appropriate | Implicitly, classification not contested by Husband as primary issue; focus on need/amount | Transitional alimony sought/awarded to assist adjustment until retirement age | Court modified classification: award changed from transitional alimony to alimony in futuro (long-term support), keeping amount and duration intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (framework for alimony types and importance of need/ability to pay)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standards of appellate review in divorce/alimony cases)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (deference to trial court on spousal support decisions)
- Jekot v. Jekot, 232 S.W.3d 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (age and realistic prospects for post-divorce employment when assessing rehabilitation)