Norris Bettis v. Rebecca Bettis
E2016-00156-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Oct 24, 2016Background
- Parties married 33 years; Husband (65) is a Tencarva salesman with $44,400 salary plus substantial quarterly bonuses and ownership of 450 shares of closely held Tencarva stock; Wife (62) is a former nurse anesthetist who receives Social Security disability and alleges chronic pain and related medication issues.
- Husband’s 2014 wage/ K-1 income and bonus history reflected significant fluctuation; Husband testified anticipated income decline due to client plant closures.
- Dispute over valuation of Husband’s Tencarva stock: Husband calculated $922,500 (450 shares × prior per-share value); Wife’s expert valued it at $1.3M less a 15% resale restriction, yielding $1.1M; trial court adopted $1.1M.
- Trial court awarded equitable division (Wife ~ $833,543 mostly retirement; Husband ~ $1,407,786), $300,000 alimony in solido (in installments), transitional alimony of $1,000/month plus one-half of Husband’s quarterly bonuses for four years, COBRA purchase and deductible payment, and half of Wife’s attorney’s fees.
- Procedural posture: Husband appealed challenging (1) alimony calculation (including use of a percentage of bonuses) and stock valuation; Wife cross-appealed challenging denial of alimony in futuro and sought appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in calculating spousal support (amount and method) | Court improperly ignored fault, used a percentage of bonuses (instead of a definite amount), and relied on vague expense items | Transitional award and inclusion of bonuses were appropriate to meet Wife's immediate need | Court: trial court considered fault; but awarding a percentage of bonuses was improper — vacated the alimony award in part and remanded to set a specific amount and find Wife’s need precisely |
| Valuation of Husband’s Tencarva stock | Husband argued trial court erred (he put on no expert proof; his lower valuation was correct) | Wife’s expert valuation ($1.3M less 15% restriction = $1.1M) was reasonable | Affirmed trial court’s valuation at $1.1M (trial court’s factfinding within range of evidence) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing alimony in futuro | N/A (Wife sought future alimony) | Wife argued she needed long-term support given disability and lower earning capacity | Affirmed trial court’s denial of alimony in futuro (court’s choice of rehabilitative/short-term support was not an abuse) |
| Whether Wife should be awarded attorney’s fees for the appeal | N/A (Husband appealed) | Wife sought appellate fees | Denied — parties were partially successful; appeal prosecuted in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (standard and statutory framework for spousal support; focus on disadvantaged spouse’s need and obligor’s ability to pay)
- Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004) (trial courts have broad discretion in spousal support determinations)
- Franklin v. Franklin, 746 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (percentage-of-bonus alimony awards problematic; court modified such awards)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (valuation methods for closely held corporations; market method rarely appropriate for closely held stock)
- Blasingame v. Am. Materials, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 659 (Tenn. 1983) (recognizing market, asset, and earnings/capitalization methods for corporate valuation)