Paul Thomas Jackson v. Susan Denise Jackson
W2016-00007-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- Husband (76) and Wife (57) married ~21 years; no children together. Each had health issues affecting work; Wife receives disability and cannot access her retirement until age 67.5.
- Husband ran a food photography business and received military disability, retirement, and Social Security income; Wife had a history of employment but later claimed inability to work due to fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue.
- Marital breakdown involved Husband's close relationships and gifts to several women; Wife moved out in Oct 2012 after discovering communications and gifts. Both attended limited counseling.
- Trial court divided marital assets (Wife received ~$192,407; Husband ~$199,773), granted Wife a fault-based divorce, awarded alimony in solido (attorney fees and mortgage payment) but denied alimony in futuro.
- Wife appealed arguing need for long-term support; Husband argued asset division, his health, and Wife's fault justified denial. Appellate court reversed the fault-based award, declared divorce without regard to fault, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro of $2,000/month until she can access retirement or changed circumstances. Wife awarded appellate attorney fees; other parts of trial court judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson (Wife) Argument | Jackson (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether divorce should be granted without regard to fault | Court should declare divorce without regard to fault because both parties contributed to breakdown | Trial court properly awarded divorce to Wife based on Husband's conduct | Reversed: court granted divorce without regard to fault (both parties at fault) |
| Whether trial court erred denying alimony in futuro | Wife is economically disadvantaged, unable to rehabilitate, needs long-term support; Husband can pay | Husband: asset division and his ailments justify denial; Wife partly at fault and mismanages money | Reversed: awarded alimony in futuro $2,000/month until Wife accesses retirement or circumstances change |
| Whether trial court properly awarded alimony in solido | Alimony in solido appropriate but not exclusive; need for futuro remains | Alimony in solido plus asset split sufficient | Trial court's alimony in solido affirmed; court modified to add alimony in futuro |
| Entitlement to appellate attorney fees | Wife seeks fees due to successful appeal on key issues | Husband opposes | Wife awarded appellate attorney fees; remanded to set amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2008) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004) (trial court discretion in spousal support)
- Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (initial finding of economic disadvantage prerequisite for alimony)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (primary considerations: need and ability to pay)
- Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408 (Tenn. 1995) (appellate review of mixed questions and trial-court factfinding)