Catherine Lee Poindexter v. John M. Poindexter, Sr.

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2011-02282-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; August 7, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Catherine Lee Poindexter filed for divorce from John M. Poindexter, Sr., after being married since 1984 and separated since 2010. The wife alleged adultery and inappropriate marital conduct, while the husband denied these claims and countered with allegations against the wife. They reached an agreement allowing the wife exclusive possession of the marital residence, with the husband ordered to pay $1,200 monthly in temporary alimony.

At trial, the court found the husband more at fault for the marriage's dissolution and granted the divorce. The court divided the marital property, awarding the wife her separate property and the marital home, along with a vehicle and furnishings. The husband retained certain separate property, including tools and a vehicle, and was assessed for the value of assets he had disposed of. The wife was responsible for $15,192 in credit card debt and the mortgage, while the husband was ordered to pay various debts, including tax liens.

The court awarded the wife $1,000 per month in alimony, considering her financial needs and the husband's ability to pay, but denied attorney fees due to the wife's larger share of the marital estate. The husband appealed, challenging both the property division and the alimony award. The appellate court affirmed the alimony decision but modified the marital property division, emphasizing the trial court's discretion in equitable distribution, which is not necessarily equal. The court noted that it typically respects the trial court's decisions unless there is a lack of evidentiary support or legal misapplication.

Trial courts possess broad discretion in dividing marital estates, considering relevant factors specific to each case. Findings of fact by trial courts are reviewed de novo, with a presumption of correctness unless contrary evidence predominates. In this case, the couple was married for 26 years, both have similar ages and health issues, but the husband has a significantly higher earning capacity, evidenced by income disparity. The couple had minimal separate property and the marital estate primarily included their home, valued at approximately $129,000 by the wife and $150,000 by the husband, alongside a 2003 Impala valued at $4,500 and $5,400 respectively.

The trial court awarded the marital residence to the wife, along with the first mortgage, while assigning the husband responsibility for a line of credit and tax liens. The wife was also ordered to manage over $15,000 in marital debt. However, the division was deemed inequitable; the wife, nearing 60, has limited earning potential and significant health issues, making future asset acquisition unlikely. Conversely, the husband, despite health issues, has a much higher income and employment stability. The trial court's decision to grant the wife the marital residence is upheld, but modifications to the property division are suggested, ensuring the wife retains 100% of the marital estate valued at $35,727.72, with the obligation to pay the marital debts. The husband contests the trial court's decision to award the wife $1,000 per month in alimony.

The Court's consideration for alimony awards is guided by Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-121, emphasizing the factors of need and ability to pay, as established in Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002). The court exercises broad discretion in its awards, which are only overturned for manifest abuse of discretion. In this case, the marriage was of long duration, with both parties of similar age and health. However, the husband possessed significantly greater earning capacity and marketable skills. Both parties lacked substantial separate estates and contributed to the marriage, but the husband was found to bear greater fault for its dissolution due to multiple affairs.

Financially, the husband projected monthly expenses totaling approximately $1,000 but acknowledged having about $861 left over after expenses. In contrast, the wife’s monthly expenses exceeded her income by $1,700, with no evidence of overstating her financial needs. She indicated that her expenses did not account for contributions from her adult children living in her home and stated she could not cover the shortfall without the husband's support. The Trial Court determined that the wife had a genuine need for alimony and the husband had the capacity to pay, ultimately awarding her $1,000 per month, which was deemed appropriate despite considering other household members. The Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, with costs of the appeal divided equally between the parties.