Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
Assigned On Briefs November 30, 2012 LEO HOLT v. ALMA JEAN HOLT
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000498-10 Robert S. Weiss, Judge

No. W2012-00265-COA-R3-CV - Filed April 15, 2013

This is an appeal from a divorce action in which the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife alimony in futuro and alimony in solido. The trial court refused, however, to order Husband to pay for the costs of providing COBRA benefits for Wife. Husband and Wife appeal. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed in part, Reversed in part & Remanded D AVID R. F ARMER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which H OLLY M. K IRBY, J., and J. S TEVEN S TAFFORD, J., joined. Eugene G. Douglass, Bartlett, Tennessee, for the appellant, Leo Holt. Felicia Corbin Johnson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Alma Jean Holt. OPINION 1 I. Background and Procedural History On December 11, 1987, Leo Holt ("Husband") and Alma Jean Holt ("Wife") were married. Husband has a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration and a Bachelor of
1

Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION", shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.

Science in Religion and his Masters in Theology. Wife has a Masters in Biblical Studies and her doctorate in Ministry. In 1989, Husband and Wife started a nondenominational church in Memphis, Tennessee. Since its inception, the church has grown substantially both in terms of membership and the physical size of the church which is now housed in a multi-million dollar building. On March 25, 2009, Husband initially filed for divorce against Wife in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. After conducting a trial on the matter, however, the case was dismissed based on Husband's failure to establish grounds for divorce. Shortly thereafter, on February 3, 2010, Husband re-filed for divorce alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. On March 16, 2010, Wife filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce against Husband alleging inappropriate marital conduct, abandonment, and cruel and inhuman treatment. After Husband filed an answer to the counter-complaint, Wife filed a motion for temporary spousal support on June 21, 2010. Thereafter, on July 14, 2010, the Divorce Referee awarded temporary support to Wife in the amount of $3,300 per month and further ordered Husband to continue to pay the parties' bills. The trial court agreed, and on March 15, 2011, ordered the same by entry of its order on the Divorce Referee's ruling. After extensive litigation, on July 28, 2011, the parties stipulated that grounds for divorce existed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-129. Thereafter, the trial court conducted several bifurcated hearings on the parties' complaints for divorce which took place on August 1, September 23 and 28, October 12, and November 3, 2011. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, the trial court entered its final decree of divorce. The trial court ordered, in relevant part, as follows: awarded Wife her marital portion of Husband's pension in the amount of $274.82 per month; awarded Wife alimony in solido in the amount of $29,700 based on Husband's failure to make mortgage payments on the parties' marital residence; awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $2,500 per month; declined Wife's request that Husband be required to pay for the costs of providing her COBRA benefits; and awarded Wife $10,000 in attorney's fees as alimony in solido. Subsequently, Husband and Wife each timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court. II. Issues Presented Husband presents the following issues, as restated and consolidated, for our review: (1) Whether there the trial court erred by awarding Wife alimony in solido in the amount of $29,700, and Whether the trial court erred by awarding Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $2,500 per month. -2-

(2)

In addition, Wife presents the following issues, as restated, for our review: (1) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to order Husband to pay for the costs of providing COBRA benefits for Wife, Whether the trial court erred in its alimony in solido award by only ordering Husband to pay one-half of her attorney's fees, and Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider income generated through the church when making its determination of alimony and its distribution of the marital estate based on the theory that the church was an alter ego of Husband. III. Standard of Review It is well settled that a trial court's decision regarding an award of spousal support is factually driven and involves the careful balancing of many factors. Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 340-41 (Tenn. 2002); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001). "[T]he role of an appellate court in reviewing an award of spousal support is to determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and reached a decision that is not clearly unreasonable." Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tenn. 2006)). We decline to second-guess a trial court's decision to award spousal support absent an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 343). A trial court abuses its discretion when it "causes an injustice by applying an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical result, resolves the case on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or relies on reasoning that causes an injustice." Id. (citing Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011); Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010)). This standard does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998). Rather, "[u]nder the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court's ruling `will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.'" Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)). We review the trial court's findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000). No presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's conclusions of law, however, and our review is de novo. Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000).

(2)

(3)

-3-

IV. Analysis We begin our analysis by addressing Wife's argument that the trial court erred by refusing to consider income generated through the church when making its determination of alimony and its distribution of the marital estate based on the theory that the church was an alter ego of Husband. However, Wife failed to cite any applicable law or form any legal argument in her brief to support this contention. As we recently stated in Forbess v. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011): This court has repeatedly held that a party's failure to cite authority for its arguments or to argue the issues in the body of its brief constitute a waiver on appeal. Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (failure "to cite to any authority or to construct an argument regarding [a] position on appeal" constitutes a waiver of the issue); Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55

Download holtleoopn.pdf

Tennessee Law