Trina A. Henson v. Chris Robert Henson
M2016-01661-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Husband and Wife married in 2006; no children. Husband worked as a military and then civilian helicopter pilot with substantial monthly income; Wife had limited and sporadic employment, left workforce early in marriage, and was unemployed at trial.
- Wife filed for divorce in Jan 2015 after discovering Husband’s affair; parties separated.
- Trial court awarded equitable division of marital property (house to be sold, each party one vehicle, Husband to pay $6,000 to Wife for excess equity), assigned most marital debt to Husband, ordered Husband to pay mortgage until sale, and awarded Wife $18,162.04 in credit-card debt.
- Trial court awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony $2,500/month for 3 years and attorney’s fees of $20,000 as alimony in solido, finding Husband misrepresented income and had superior economic position.
- Husband appealed contesting debt division, alimony, and attorney’s fees; Wife sought appellate attorney’s fees. Appellate court affirmed and remanded to quantify appellate fees for Wife.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Division of marital debt | Trial court’s allocation is equitable given Wife’s lack of ability to pay and debts incurred maintaining home during separation | Trial court assigned disproportionate debt to Husband; Wife should pay mortgage, her credit-card debt, and Husband’s business card debt | Affirmed — trial court’s allocation supported by evidence (ability to pay, debts incurred during separation) |
| 2. Rehabilitative alimony (amount/duration) | Wife needs support to obtain education/rehabilitation; lacks income and has medical issues | Marriage duration short; Wife’s workforce absence not sufficient to warrant rehabilitative alimony; if any award, should be alimony in solido | Affirmed — court properly applied statutory factors and found need and Husband’s ability to pay; $2,500/month for 3 years appropriate |
| 3. Attorney’s fees (alimony in solido) | Wife lacks funds to pay counsel; Husband misrepresented income and can pay; fee award is not duplicative of credit-card allocation | Award is duplicative because Wife charged fees to credit cards; award excessive given Wife’s conduct | Affirmed — trial court found misrepresentation and disparity of means; $20,000 as alimony in solido appropriate |
| 4. Appellate attorney’s fees | Wife asks for fees on appeal given inability to pay and successful defense | (Husband opposes) | Remanded — appellate court directs trial court to determine reasonable appellate fees for Wife |
Key Cases Cited
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (standard of review for bench trial findings)
- Miller v. Miller, 81 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (classification and equitable division of marital property)
- Alford v. Alford, 120 S.W.3d 810 (Tenn. 2003) (definition and division factors for marital debts)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (attorney’s fees in divorce are alimony in solido and factors for awarding them)
- Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2001) (primary importance of recipient’s need and obligor’s ability to pay for alimony decisions)