Melody Knowles v. Jack Knowles

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2001-01282-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; April 19, 2002; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Wife, Melody Jo Knowles, filed for divorce from Husband, Jack Reed Knowles, on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. The Chancery Court granted an absolute divorce, awarded Wife alimony in futuro of $1,500 monthly until her death or remarriage, and required Husband to pay Wife's health insurance for two years. The court ordered Husband to pay $4,000 toward Wife's Visa debt and $1,700 for her attorney fees. It was noted that Husband's adultery contributed to the marriage's breakdown, which influenced the alimony decision. The court found that Wife could not be rehabilitated economically and must bear medical expenses not covered by insurance. A supplemental order reaffirmed these findings and the court's rationale for awarding alimony and attorney fees. The appellate court partially reversed and affirmed the trial court's decisions.

Husband appeals several rulings from the trial court, specifically challenging the award of alimony to Wife. The issues presented include: 1) the appropriateness of awarding Wife alimony in futuro instead of rehabilitative alimony, 2) the combination of both types of alimony awarded, 3) the equitable division of property, and 4) the award of alimony in solido for Wife's attorney's fees. The appellate review is de novo, with a presumption of correctness for the trial court’s factual findings, particularly in cases involving witness credibility.

The trial court has broad discretion in determining alimony, and its findings will only be reversed if an abuse of discretion is evident. Husband contends that the trial court should have favored rehabilitative alimony, as Tennessee law prefers it unless rehabilitation is not feasible. The trial court, however, found that Wife was economically disadvantaged and unable to rehabilitate due to her fibromyalgia, which impedes her ability to work as an interpreter. Given Husband's monthly income of approximately $6,250, the court deemed the $1,500 monthly alimony reasonable.

The trial court's decision to consider adultery as a factor in setting alimony was also highlighted by Husband in his appeal. Overall, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings regarding alimony and Wife's financial situation.

Under T.C.A. 36-5-101(b), relative fault is a key factor in alimony decisions, alongside the requesting spouse's need and the obligor's ability to provide support. The trial court based its alimony decision on Mrs. Knowles’ inability to rehabilitate, her economic disadvantage, and Mr. Knowles’ adultery, all of which align with statutory considerations and are supported by the record. Although Mr. Knowles referenced Mrs. Knowles’ plans to return to school, the court found insufficient evidence to deem rehabilitation feasible. The court's alimony award is subject to modification based on significant changes in circumstances.

Mr. Knowles contested the trial court's order for him to pay Mrs. Knowles’ health insurance premiums for 24 months and provide COBRA coverage for 36 months, arguing this constituted rehabilitative alimony, which he claimed is inconsistent with alimony in futuro. He asserted that the nature of the insurance payments did not fit into either category of alimony due to their temporal structure. However, the court reaffirmed that alimony can be classified as either in futuro (indefinite) or in solido (definite), with the latter being modifiable only under specific conditions. Alimony in futuro is designed to support a spouse who cannot be rehabilitated, and the trial court's decision was upheld, affirming the nature of the alimony awarded.

In Burlew v. Burlew, the court clarified the distinctions between alimony types, emphasizing that rehabilitative alimony requires a feasible rehabilitation finding, which the trial court determined was not possible for the Wife. Consequently, the provision for insurance premium payments was deemed alimony in futuro, not rehabilitative or alimony in solido, due to its indefinite nature. The Husband is obligated to pay $1,500 in alimony plus insurance premiums for two years, after which it reverts to $1,500. 

The division of marital property was also examined. While marital property is presumed to be equally owned, it does not necessitate an equal division. The court holds discretion in property division, which is weighted heavily on appeal. Relevant factors for equitable division include marriage duration, each party’s financial and health status, contributions to education and income, and other economic circumstances. The trial court awarded the Wife $24,950 in marital property while assigning her $9,500 in debt, resulting in a net award of $15,450.

Husband was awarded $16,100 in marital property and assigned $8,350 in marital debt, resulting in a net award of $7,750. The trial court approved Husband's proposed property division but required him to pay an additional $4,000 to Wife for her Visa account, which he disputes on appeal. This additional payment altered the net division to $19,450 for Wife and $3,750 for Husband, creating an inequitable distribution of 83.5% to 16.5% in favor of Wife. The appellate court found this division inequitable and reversed the $4,000 alimony award. Additionally, Husband contested the trial court’s award of $1,700 in attorney’s fees to Wife, but the appellate court upheld this award, citing the trial court's discretion and considering Husband's fault and Wife’s financial situation. The final decree was reversed regarding the $4,000 payment, affirmed in all other respects, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Costs of the appeal were assigned to Husband, Jack Reed Knowles.