Jeanette Brooks v. Charles Brooks

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2002-02458-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; July 18, 2003; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeanette Sue Brooks was granted a divorce from Charles Virgil Brooks by the trial court, which also divided their marital property and debts, awarding Wife $150 per month in alimony. Husband appealed the alimony award and the debt division. The court affirmed the trial court's decision.

The couple originally married in 1971 and divorced in 1993, but they continued living together and remarried in 1998. At that time, Wife was working part-time while Husband held two jobs, one with the local school system. Following Wife's disability about a year into their second marriage, she filed for divorce on October 23, 2001, citing inappropriate marital conduct. Husband admitted grounds for divorce and filed a counterclaim on similar grounds.

The trial court dismissed Husband's counterclaim and granted Wife the divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct, with a final judgment entered on June 4, 2002. The court determined the couple's only marital property consisted of a quarter-acre of land and a 1990 Pontiac, awarding these to Wife along with a 1979 Ford truck. Husband was awarded all remaining personal property and directed to pay the couple's debts. The court's factual findings are reviewed with a presumption of correctness, while its legal conclusions are not given the same deference.

Alimony considerations in this case are governed by Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-101(d)(1)(E)(i-xii), which outlines 12 factors for determining alimony, including each party's financial resources, education, duration of marriage, age, health, custodial responsibilities, separate assets, marital property provisions, established standard of living, contributions to the marriage, fault, and other relevant factors such as tax consequences. The trial court's award of alimony to Wife was based on her poor health, disability, and the duration of the relationship, which totaled over 31 years, including five years of cohabitation during a divorce. The Husband contends the trial court erred by considering the entire length of the relationship, citing a precedent in Flanagan v. Flanagan. The determination of alimony requires consideration of need and ability to pay, with need being the most critical factor, and is at the trial court's discretion unless there is an abuse of that discretion.

An award of alimony is determined solely by the current marriage's circumstances, without regard to previous marriages, as established in Flanagan. However, Flanagan differs from the current case because the parties in Flanagan did not live together after their initial divorce, while the current Husband and Wife cohabited for 31 years, both married and unmarried. The trial court considered the overall duration of their relationship, consistent with Tennessee law, which allows this long-term relationship to influence the alimony decision. 

The court found no error in considering their 31-year cohabitation when assessing alimony. Key factors for the alimony award included the Wife's need and the Husband’s ability to pay. The Wife receives $309 monthly from Social Security, while the Husband earns $1,598. After accounting for the Husband’s $430 mortgage payment for the Wife's residence and $150 in alimony, the Wife effectively has $889 per month, with $459 available for personal expenses. Given these financial considerations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its alimony award.

Regarding debt responsibility, the Husband contended that the trial court incorrectly assigned him full responsibility for debts that he claims were partially separate. The court clarified that marital debt, which is incurred during the marriage for the mutual benefit of both parties, is subject to equitable division. The trial court mandated that the Husband pay all debts, totaling $594 monthly, including payments to Washington Mutual and a bankruptcy plan. The Husband's argument lacked evidence to differentiate marital from separate debts, as the record did not specify the nature, balance, or purpose of the Washington Mutual debt, nor did it clarify the bankruptcy obligations other than the monthly payment amount.

The mortgage debt was classified as marital debt by the trial court, which was deemed appropriate given that the parties refinanced in 1994 to pay off existing bills and to make improvements to their residence. The appellate court found no evidence to suggest that this classification was erroneous. The Husband, as the appellant, failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate that any part of the debt was separate, as required under Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c). 

The court applied the Mondelli factors, establishing that the mortgage debt and Chapter 13 obligation were incurred to settle other debts, benefiting both parties. The Husband's income was significantly higher than the Wife’s, who had no means to pay any debts, leading to the conclusion that it was equitable for the Husband to bear the responsibility for the debts. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for the collection of costs, with appellate costs assigned to the Husband.