Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; March 5, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the divorce case between Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster and Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision to award the wife permanent alimony and required the husband to pay her monthly health insurance premiums and maintain a life insurance policy with her as the beneficiary. The couple was married for 26 years before the wife filed for divorce in July 2005. The primary issue during the trial was the wife's entitlement to alimony, which the court deemed justified regardless of fault. 

The wife, a high school graduate with some college, had various job experiences and earned between $7 to $9 per hour until becoming a real estate agent in 2004. Despite having eleven active listings at trial, she had not made any sales for the year and claimed to be pursuing her career actively while also cleaning for another realtor to supplement her income. Her health issues included severe allergies, asthma, and other conditions, although none prevented her from working as a realtor.

The husband, also a high school graduate, was earning approximately $65,000 annually from his job at Johnson Controls and an additional $100 monthly from a side job. The couple's combined income had fluctuated over the years, with the husband's income generally higher than the wife's, which significantly dropped after she left a previous real estate position. The husband estimated his monthly living expenses post-divorce to be around $2,000. The court's judgment was filed on March 6, 2009, with the opinion delivered by Judge John W. McClarty.

The wife claimed her estimated monthly living expenses post-divorce would be $3,456. The trial court ordered that most marital debt be settled from the sale proceeds of the marital residence, which sold for $209,000. After settling the mortgage and associated sale costs, each party was expected to receive approximately $34,327.46. The court noted the wife's minimal income as a realtor and her significant health issues, determining that permanent alimony of $1,500 per month was warranted. The husband, earning about $70,000 annually, was also ordered to pay the wife's health insurance premiums and maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy with her as the beneficiary, providing proof of maintenance biannually.

In the Final Decree of Divorce, the court found both parties guilty of inappropriate marital conduct and declared them divorced under T.C.A. 26-4-129. The husband appealed the decision, raising two primary issues: the appropriateness of the permanent alimony and the requirement to maintain the wife as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy. The appellate review is de novo with a presumption of correctness regarding the trial court's factual findings, and legal conclusions are also reviewed de novo without such presumption. The appellate court typically respects the trial court's discretion in spousal support decisions unless the award lacks evidentiary support or contradicts public policy, applying an abuse of discretion standard.

In Tennessee, courts first determine if a spouse seeking alimony is economically disadvantaged compared to their partner. If so, the trial court assesses the nature, amount, duration, and payment method of the alimony. The key factors for determining the alimony amount include the disadvantaged spouse's needs and the other spouse's ability to pay, with a primary focus on the disadvantaged spouse's needs. Relevant considerations outlined in T.C.A. 36-5-121(i) include the parties' financial resources, education, training, duration of marriage, age, mental and physical conditions, marital property provisions, standard of living during the marriage, contributions to the marriage, relative fault, and tax consequences. 

T.C.A. 36-5-121 prioritizes rehabilitative and transitional alimony over periodic alimony, reflecting a legislative intent to aid economically disadvantaged spouses in achieving self-sufficiency through rehabilitation. However, if a spouse cannot attain a reasonable standard of living through rehabilitation, long-term support may be awarded. The four types of alimony available are rehabilitative, transitional, alimony in futuro, and alimony in solido, each tailored to specific needs. Rehabilitative alimony specifically provides temporary support for education or training to achieve a comparable standard of living.

Transitional alimony may be awarded to assist a disadvantaged spouse in adjusting to the economic impacts of divorce when rehabilitation is not necessary. Alimony in futuro and alimony in solido are long-term spousal support forms; alimony in futuro is granted when rehabilitation isn't feasible, ensuring the economically disadvantaged spouse can maintain an appropriate standard of living, lasting until the recipient's death or remarriage. Alimony in solido is a lump sum, potentially paid in installments, often used to adjust property division or assist with legal fees. Courts exercise discretion in determining spousal support, requiring a careful balancing of relevant factors, including spousal roles and contributions, both economic and non-economic, during the marriage. The law mandates that the disadvantaged spouse's post-divorce standard of living should be reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage or to the expected standard of the other spouse. 

In the case at hand, the husband argues that the trial court did not establish the wife's incapability of rehabilitation and failed to apply the statutory criteria adequately. He claims there was insufficient medical evidence to support the wife's health issues and her need for alimony, suggesting transitional alimony would have been more appropriate given her educational advancements and real estate license. However, an analysis of the circumstances and statutory factors indicates the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding permanent alimony, considering the wife's health issues and financial needs relative to the husband's ability to provide support. At the time of trial, the wife was 53, with significant health problems that could affect her work productivity, while the husband was younger by six years.

The parties were married for 26 years, with the Wife primarily serving as a homemaker and caregiver. Due to her disadvantaged position, she is unable to achieve an earning capacity that would provide her with a standard of living comparable to the Husband's post-divorce. Consequently, the trial court awarded her long-term spousal support, aligning with T.C.A. 36-5-121(d)(3), (f)(1). Although rehabilitative support is typically preferred, the court determined that the circumstances warranted permanent alimony. This alimony can be modified for substantial changes in circumstances as stated in T.C.A. 36-5-121(f)(2). Additionally, the Husband is required to pay the Wife's health insurance premiums, which reduces her financial need. This requirement is supported by T.C.A. 36-5-121(j). The court also mandated that the Husband maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy with the Wife as the beneficiary to secure his alimony obligation, as authorized by T.C.A. 36-5-121(k). The trial court’s decisions—including the permanent alimony of $1,500 per month, health insurance payments, and life insurance—were affirmed. Costs on appeal are assigned to the Appellant, and the case is remanded for enforcement and cost collection. The life insurance order is also subject to modification.