Patrick Masserano v. Alyse Masserano, W2018-01592-COA-R3-CV

Patrick and Alyse Masserano divorced after a long marriage; their Partial Marital Dissolution Agreement (PMDA) resolved property division but reserved alimony for final hearing.
Alyse (Wife) has not worked since 2004 and introduced testimony and a psychiatrist’s opinion that long-term mental-health issues prevent her from working; she sought alimony in futuro and in solido.
Patrick (Husband) works in international financial consulting; his reported income varied widely in evidence (from ~$188,000 to historic figures near $500,000+), and he claimed discretionary business deductions and reduced current income.
Wife’s affidavit of income and expenses was produced late and excluded by the trial court as a discovery sanction, though Wife testified about her expenses at trial.
Trial court awarded Wife $30,000 alimony in solido and $3,500/month alimony in futuro; Husband moved to alter or amend and partially succeeded (reducing the in solido award to conform with PMDA provisions).
On appeal, Husband’s issues were largely waived for failing to cite legal authority; the Court affirmed entitlement to alimony but vacated the amounts and remanded because the trial court failed to make specific Rule 52.01 findings on Wife’s need and Husband’s ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Masserano)	Defendant's Argument (Alyse)	Held
Admissibility of Wife’s late affidavit of income/expenses	Affidavit should be admitted; delay excused by access issues and reliance on Husband’s discovery	Late production justified? Not necessary because Wife testified; affidavit unnecessary	Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding affidavit as discovery sanction; testimony remained admissible and considered
Sufficiency of alimony awards amount	Amount ($3,500/month and $30,000 in solido) is unsupported given Husband’s true income and inability to pay	Award insufficient given Wife’s demonstrated need and Husband’s higher earning capacity	Court affirmed entitlement but vacated the award amounts and remanded for specific findings on Wife’s need and Husband’s ability to pay (Rule 52.01)
Whether PMDA bars in solido award for attorney’s fees	PMDA precludes additional lump-sum attorney-fee award beyond agreed payment	Wife sought in solido to cover fees	Trial court modified award to avoid awarding fees beyond PMDA; appellate court affirmed modification
Appellate attorney’s fees to Wife	N/A on merits	Seeks appellate fees because trial court erred	Denied: appellate fees not awarded where trial court’s factual findings were insufficient and award was vacated; may seek in future proceedings

Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2004) (exclusion of evidence may be appropriate sanction for discovery abuse)
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (standard of review and framework for spousal support determinations)
Lyle v. Exxon Corp., 746 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1988) (trial courts have wide discretion to craft discovery sanctions)
Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2001) (alimony statutes and trial court discretion)
Cain-Swope v. Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (Rule 52.01 requires sufficient findings to support alimony amount)
Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (findings must disclose subsidiary facts so appellate review can trace court’s reasoning)