David Allan Fogle, Sr. v. Mardonna Shawn Fogle

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2013-00997-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; May 22, 2014; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the divorce case of David Allan Fogle, Sr. v. Mardonna Shawn Fogle, the Chancery Court for Sullivan County granted Wife a divorce, divided marital assets, and initially awarded her alimony of $700 per month for 48 months. Wife appealed, leading to a modification of the alimony award to $1,000 per month. The couple married on August 2, 1980, and had two children who are now adults. Husband worked as a glass technician and reported a monthly income of $3,059.52 against expenses of $2,537.50. In contrast, Wife reported an income of $464.10 and expenses of $1,705.38. During the proceedings, the court awarded Wife temporary spousal support of $950 per month. 

Husband, aged 52 at trial, claimed his income had increased to $3,672.87 monthly but stated that his expenses had risen due to a new car payment exceeding $400. He argued that he could not sustain the $950 support payment and cited familial assistance for his financial survival. Husband filed for divorce citing constant arguments and acknowledged Wife's role as a homemaker during their marriage. Although she once worked as a cosmetologist, she had returned to homemaking and, following their separation, secured minimum wage employment at a shoe store. The court's decision was affirmed as modified, with the case remanded for further proceedings.

Wife obtained a graduate equivalency diploma and a cosmetology license but found her work in cosmetology unprofitable and did not maintain her license. During her marriage, she focused on her family; post-separation, she worked at Houser Shoes earning about $464 monthly but was fired for tardiness, claiming it was due to her boss's dishonesty. She struggled to find new employment and did not file for unemployment benefits due to lack of internet access. The separation occurred after a fight about phone numbers on Husband’s phone. Husband continued to pay bills while she lived in the house owned by his mother, Helen Lane. After leaving the house, Wife sought spousal support, claiming financial hardship despite Husband asserting she received $6,000 from his mother. She only confirmed receiving around $650 for leaving appliances. Wife expressed a desire for reconciliation, underwent treatment for depression, and stated she could not support herself, manage expenses, or afford basic needs and vehicle repairs.

Helen Lane testified about the foreclosure proceedings due to non-payment by the Parties and confirmed an agreement to pay Wife $5,000 to vacate the premises, along with $1,000 for leaving appliances. The trial court granted Wife a divorce, divided marital assets, and awarded her $700 monthly in alimony for 48 months based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121(i). Following the denial of post-trial motions, Wife appealed, questioning whether the spousal support amount constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate standard of review indicates that trial courts have broad discretion in such awards, and appellate courts are reluctant to overturn decisions unless unsupported by evidence or contrary to public policy, focusing on whether the correct legal standard was applied.

An appellate court reviews trial court decisions on alimony using the deferential abuse of discretion standard, meaning it will not override the trial court’s judgment if the decision falls within an acceptable range of alternatives. Alimony, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, is a court-ordered payment from one ex-spouse to another for post-divorce support, distinct from property settlements. Tennessee recognizes four types of alimony: rehabilitative, transitional, alimony in futuro, and alimony in solido, each serving specific needs.

Rehabilitative alimony provides temporary support for the economically disadvantaged spouse to gain necessary education or training. Transitional alimony assists adjustment to the economic impacts of divorce when rehabilitation isn't needed. Alimony in futuro is long-term support granted when rehabilitation is not feasible, typically lasting until the recipient's death or remarriage. Alimony in solido is a lump-sum payment that may be paid in installments, often used to adjust marital property division or assist with attorney fees.

The statutory framework favors short-term spousal support to promote self-sufficiency, reserving long-term support for cases where economic rehabilitation is unfeasible. Courts must first determine if the requesting spouse is economically disadvantaged and then assess the type, amount, duration, and payment method for alimony, guided by factors including earning capacity, financial resources, education and training needs, duration of marriage, and the parties' ages and mental conditions.

Key factors considered in determining alimony include the physical condition of each party, the custodial responsibilities regarding minor children, the separate assets of each party, marital property provisions, the standard of living during the marriage, contributions made by each party, relative fault, and other relevant equity factors, including tax consequences. The primary considerations for alimony are the economically disadvantaged spouse's need and the obligor spouse's ability to pay, with particular emphasis on the disadvantaged spouse's circumstances. 

In this case, the wife argued that the trial court improperly set the husband's support obligation by not adequately considering these factors, particularly her inability to achieve economic rehabilitation. The court recognized that while the wife could maintain minimum-wage employment, her earning capacity was significantly lower than the husband's, who had stable, long-term employment. The couple had a lengthy marriage of 32 years, and the wife made substantial contributions as a homemaker. Despite the lack of extravagant lifestyle or significant assets, the wife was economically disadvantaged, struggling to meet basic living expenses.

Given these considerations, the appellate court found the trial court's decision to limit the wife's support to $700 for 48 months was an abuse of discretion. The court modified the alimony award to $1,000 per month until the wife's death or remarriage, emphasizing the ongoing control of the court over alimony awards, which may be modified upon substantial changes in circumstances. The judgment was remanded for enforcement and cost assessment.