Crain v. Crain

• Decision Date: 14 February 1996
• Citation: 925 S.W.2d 232
• Parties: Albert Lee CRAIN, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Velma Christine CRAIN, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 232

925 S.W.2d 232

Albert Lee CRAIN, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Velma Christine CRAIN, Defendant/Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee,

Middle Section, at Nashville.

Feb. 14, 1996.

Permission to Appeal Denied by the

Supreme Court July 8, 1996.

Thomas L. Whiteside, Fowlkes & Whiteside, Nashville, for appellant.

Barbara J. Walker, Columbia, for appellee.

OPINION

KOCH, Judge.

This appeal involves the dissolution of a 27-month marriage. After declaring the parties divorced pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129(b) (1991), the Chancery Court for Maury County awarded the parties the property held in their separate names and declined to award the wife rehabilitative spousal support. The wife now takes issue with the trial court's denial of her request for rehabilitative spousal support. We have determined that the wife is not entitled to spousal support under the facts of this case and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

I.

Velma Christine Crain and Albert Lee Crain were first married in 1949. They divorced in 1973, and Mr. Crain remarried shortly thereafter. Mr. Crain was a radio engineer in the business of owning and constructing radio stations. He was quite successful with his business after his divorce in 1973. Mr. Crain began visiting the first Ms. Crain every weekend after separating from his second wife in April 1991. Mr. Crain eventually divorced his second wife in April 1992.

The Crains married for the second time in July 1992. Mr. Crain moved from Mississippi to Columbia where Ms. Crain owned a home. Ms. Crain had been working for the Veterans Administration Hospital in Nashville for approximately five years. She managed the eye clinic and earned approximately $16,000 per year. Shortly after the marriage, Ms. Crain retired from the Veterans Administration because she expected to become a homemaker and to travel with Mr. Crain on his business trips.

After the marriage, Mr. Crain bought Ms. Crain a new $18,000 automobile and helped her refinance her home mortgage to reduce the interest rate from 11% to 7.5% and to shorten the term of the loan from fifteen to ten years. He provided Ms. Crain with $1,500 per month for her personal and household needs, including her mortgage payments. Mr. Crain also opened a joint checking account, and both parties liberally withdrew funds from this account for personal and marital expenses. ¹ Ms. Crain, for example, used funds from the account to pay for eye-lid surgery that had been performed before the marriage.

The Crains' marriage was short-lived. Mr. Crain moved out of the house after only twenty months and filed for divorce in March 1994. Ms. Crain counterclaimed for divorce and requested alimony pendente lite. The trial court directed Mr. Crain to pay Ms. Crain $2,000 per month until the date of the hearing on their divorce. Shortly after a hearing in October 1994, the trial court entered an order declaring the parties to be divorced without regard to fault and directing that the parties should retain the property presently held in their own names. The trial court also terminated Ms. Crain's alimony pendente lite and determined that Mr. Crain would not be required to pay Ms. Crain further spousal support of any sort. Ms. Crain has appealed from this decision.

II.

Ms. Crain insists that the trial court misapplied the statutory factors when it denied her request for rehabilitative spousal support. She asserts that the trial court did not give appropriate weight to her age, her limited employment prospects, Mr. Crain's superior earning capacity, and her contributions as a homemaker during the marriage. Mr. Crain responds that Ms. Crain's post-divorce finances are better than her pre-divorce finances, that she obtained many new assets during the marriage, and that Ms. Crain is able to work but has not seriously pursued a job.

There are no hard and fast rules for determining whether a spouse should be required to support a former spouse. Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989). These decisions are heavily fact-dependent and require the careful balancing of many factors, including those identified in Tenn.Code Ann. § 35-5-101(d)(1) (Supp.1995). Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994); Loyd v. Loyd, 860 S.W.2d 409, 412 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993). Appellate courts give wide latitude to trial courts' spousal support and maintenance decisions. Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989). These decisions are, however, subject to appellate review. We will scrutinize them to determine whether they reflect a proper application of the relevant legal principles and whether they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d at 50.

The most common factors influencing spousal support decisions are the need of the spouse requesting support, the fault of the obligor spouse, and the ability of the obligor spouse to provide support. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d at 625; Bull v. Bull, 729 S.W.2d 673, 675 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987)....