Stephen Todd Mays v. Melissa Gail Mays

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2010-02479-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; April 23, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Husband, Stephen Todd Mays, appeals various rulings from the trial court in a divorce case involving Wife, Melissa Gail Mays. Key appellate issues include the determination of Husband's monthly income, the award of alimony in futuro to Wife, the child support amount, and the trial court's refusal to admit certain tax records. The appellate court affirms the trial court's income determination and the finding that Wife is entitled to alimony. However, it vacates the alimony in futuro award, citing that the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that Wife cannot be rehabilitated. The case is remanded for reconsideration of both the nature and amount of alimony, as well as the child support amount, ensuring adherence to child support guidelines.

The court also affirms the contempt ruling against Husband but vacates his 180-day imprisonment sentence. The initial divorce proceedings began in February 2008, culminating in a November 2009 decree that granted Wife a divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct, established her as the primary residential parent, and ordered Husband to pay child support and alimony. Following the divorce, Wife filed multiple petitions for contempt due to Husband's noncompliance with support payments and other obligations. The trial court recognized Husband's failure to maintain marital debts but found he was not in willful contempt of court orders. Throughout the proceedings, Husband filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Husband claims that the trial court made four errors: 1) it incorrectly determined he could pay alimony and awarded alimony in futuro instead of rehabilitative or transitional alimony; 2) it misassessed his income, affecting child support calculations; 3) it found him in contempt for unpaid support; and 4) it denied him the chance to submit his 2008 and 2009 tax returns. The court's factual findings are presumed correct unless evidence strongly contradicts them. The trial court found that Husband's income had not declined, and he was untruthful about his earnings, failing to comply with discovery requests. He had control over at least $8,000 monthly and maintained a good standard of living post-separation while supporting his child's expensive hobbies. Evidence included his self-reported hourly wage and tax returns showing discrepancies between claimed income and actual bank deposits. His 2007 tax return reported gross receipts of $110,241, but he acknowledged higher deposits. Documentation showed his monthly income listed as $8,000 on a loan application and invoices totaling about $198,000. Although his 2008 return was incomplete, he provided a summary indicating a gross income of approximately $10,803 per month. The court ultimately upheld the $8,000 monthly income determination, using it to set support obligations, which was supported by the evidence presented.

Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly assessed his income, which should affect his child support obligation. The court found his income to be $8,000 per month, a determination supported by evidence. However, the court improperly calculated the child support amount, which should be based on monthly assessments as outlined in Tenn. Comp. R. Regs. 1240-02-04-.09. The attached child support worksheet indicates a presumptive obligation of $935 per month, yet the court ordered a payment of $225 per week, lacking clarity on how this figure was derived. If the court intended to deviate from the presumptive amount, it was required to follow specific guidelines for justification. The case is remanded for reevaluation of the child support amount and necessary findings.

Regarding spousal support, Husband claims the court abused its discretion in awarding Wife alimony in futuro, arguing that he could pay less and that Wife could be rehabilitated. Courts have broad discretion in determining spousal support based on factors in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-121(i), particularly focusing on the obligor’s ability to pay and the disadvantaged spouse’s needs. The appellate court's role is to ensure the trial court applied the correct legal standard and did not act unreasonably. An abuse of discretion occurs if the court uses incorrect standards or makes illogical decisions. The appellate court presumes the trial court's decision is correct and reviews evidence favorably towards that decision. The trial court's finding of Husband’s income at $8,000 per month was affirmed.

Husband does not contest the court's finding regarding his ability to pay alimony, affirming that he is capable of doing so. The focus shifts to the appropriateness of awarding alimony in futuro, which is justified under Tennessee law when there is relative economic disadvantage and rehabilitation is not feasible. The court determined that Wife could not be rehabilitated, as she would not be able to maintain a standard of living comparable to Husband's post-divorce standard. The court noted that Wife had agreed to be a stay-at-home parent when their child was born and contributed significantly to the household and Husband's business as a homemaker and bookkeeper. Despite her efforts to find employment, including working early hours and juggling multiple responsibilities, she faced challenges due to Husband's actions, which impacted her ability to maintain stable employment. Although Wife is currently employed full-time, her income is insufficient. She expressed interest in pursuing education for rehabilitation but found the associated costs and requirements overwhelming. Wife indicated a desire for support from the court to facilitate her education for the benefit of herself and her children.

The witness, a 41-year-old employed at Mallory Security earning $10 per hour, expressed a desire to pursue additional education to enhance her employability but indicated she could not afford the $10,000 required for a two-year rehabilitative program. Her employment history includes roles as an office manager and part-time positions at WalMart and Aldi, which she left due to family responsibilities. There was no evidence presented of any physical or mental disabilities hindering her rehabilitation efforts. The court emphasized a statutory preference for transitional or rehabilitative alimony over long-term support, noting that alimony in futuro should only be awarded if economic rehabilitation is deemed unfeasible. The evidence indicated that rehabilitation was possible and that the husband had the financial capacity to provide support. Consequently, the court affirmed the wife's need for alimony but vacated the award of alimony in futuro, remanding the case to reassess the type, amount, and duration of rehabilitative alimony. The court also noted that a concurrent award of alimony in futuro could be considered if partial rehabilitation was determined. 

In a separate matter of contempt, the trial court found the husband guilty of 18 counts of willful civil contempt related to child support and spousal obligations, sentencing him to 180 days in jail, which could be purged by paying $49,678.30. The husband paid the amount and avoided jail time, contending that his failure to meet these obligations was not willful due to lack of funds, seeking to reverse the contempt conviction.

Husband argues he was unaware of his support obligation amount. The court's authority to hold him in contempt was examined, distinguishing civil from criminal contempt. Civil contempt involves willful acts that obstruct justice, while criminal contempt serves to punish and vindicate court authority. Criminal sanctions cannot be purged by compliance, unlike civil sanctions, which aim to compel adherence to court orders. To establish civil contempt, the court must determine that a party has failed to make payments despite having the ability to do so. 

In this case, the trial court cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-104, which relates to a criminal offense for failure to provide support, rather than a contempt statute. However, since Husband could purge his contempt by paying arrears, he was effectively held in civil contempt. The court affirmed findings regarding Husband's monthly income of $8,000, and his ability to pay support obligations, rejecting his argument that he lacked the ability to comply. Additionally, the court noted that Husband was ordered to pay $225 weekly in pendente lite support, but this amount was not specified as either child or spousal support.

The July 7, 2008 order modified the Husband's payment obligations to $450 biweekly, with the final decree specifying $225 weekly for both child and spousal support. The court confirmed that these obligations were clear, and the Husband failed to provide evidence of confusion regarding them. The ruling of contempt against the Husband is upheld, but the 180-day prison sentence is vacated, as he was in civil contempt and had purged his contempt by fulfilling his payment obligations before December 3, 2010. 

Additionally, the Husband argued that the trial court wrongly denied the admissibility of his 2008 and 2009 tax returns, claiming the court could modify its prior finding of his ability to pay since a final judgment was not yet entered at the time of the December 2, 2010 hearing. He referenced parts of the hearing transcript, asserting that the court ruled no new evidence could be introduced from before the October 2009 trial date. The Husband had previously filed a motion on January 8, 2010, seeking to reopen proof regarding his income and to revise the court’s orders. The court subsequently denied his requests, citing the need for evidence concerning his bankruptcy status before further hearings. During a December 10 hearing, discussions revealed that the court felt it had sufficient evidence regarding the Husband's financial situation, dismissing the need for additional tax returns from 2008 and 2009.

The court acknowledged that all available evidence was presented during the trial, specifically referencing the 2007 tax returns and the lack of filed 2008 returns. Counsel for the Wife pointed out that the Husband's CPA had already testified, and the court had considered that evidence. The Husband's counsel expressed a desire to potentially submit additional evidence in the form of an offer of proof, which the court permitted. However, the transcript indicates that no tax returns were formally submitted or denied admissibility. The Husband did not provide further record support for his claim that the trial court rejected his tax returns. It was determined that the trial judge had discretion over whether to reopen the case for additional evidence and that such discretion would not be overturned unless it resulted in injustice or abuse. The determination of the Husband's income was based on competent evidence that was not challenged. Therefore, the claim that the court erred in excluding the 2008 and 2009 tax returns was found to be without merit. The Circuit Court's judgment was affirmed in part and vacated in part, with the case remanded for further proceedings.