Stratienko v. Stratienko
| Decision Date | 31 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. E2016-00542-COA-R3-CV.,E2016-00542-COA-R3-CV. |
| Citation | 529 S.W.3d 389 |
| Parties | Alexander STRATIENKO v. Lisa STRATIENKO |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
William H. Horton, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Alexander Stratienko.
Glenna M. Ramer, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lisa Stratienko.
OPINION
In this domestic relations action, the parties divorced following a twenty-six-year marriage. The trial court valued the parties' marital assets, including the husband's medical practice, and fashioned an equal distribution. In addition, the court awarded the wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $5,000 per month as well as alimony in solido in the amount of $4,500 per month for ten years. The court further ordered the husband to maintain his $1,000,000 life insurance policy in effect to secure the wife's spousal support awards. The husband has appealed. We modify the trial court's judgment to provide for a lien on a portion of the husband's assets sufficient to secure his alimony in solido obligation in the amount of $540,000, and accordingly reduce his court-ordered obligation with regard to maintenance of a life insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000 to the amount of $500,000. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects. We deny the wife's request for an award of attorney's fees on appeal.
Dr. Alex Stratienko ("Husband") filed a complaint for divorce against Lisa Stratienko ("Wife") following twenty-four years of marriage. Two daughters were born of the marriage, both of whom had attained the age of majority prior to trial. At the time of trial, Husband was a cardiologist in Chattanooga who had started his own practice, Cardiac and Vascular Associates, P.C. ("CVA"), in 1999. The parties also began a business during the marriage known as McNeal Properties, LLC ("McNeal"), which constructed and manages the office building housing CVA and other professional practices.
Before the parties' marriage in 1989, Husband had completed college and medical school and was in his third year of a cardiology fellowship at a hospital in Virginia. Wife had earned her Bachelor's degree and was in the process of obtaining a Master's degree while working as a ward secretary at the same hospital. Wife was employed outside the home during the initial years of the marriage until the birth of the parties' eldest daughter in 1992. By that time, the parties had moved to Pennsylvania to reside near Husband's aging parents, for whom Wife helped provide care. Wife explained that Husband's father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease
and could no longer drive and that Husband's mother had never driven. Therefore, Wife transported the couple to doctor's appointments and provided other care.
In 1993, the parties, along with Husband's parents, relocated to Chattanooga, where Husband began employment with the Chattanooga Heart Institute. The parties' younger daughter was born in 1996. Wife served as a stay-at-home mother for the children for several years while Husband worked in the medical practice. Husband left his employment with Chattanooga Heart Institute in 1998 and was later sued by the practice regarding a non-compete agreement.
In 1999, the parties began CVA. Husband acknowledged at trial that Wife assisted him with CVA's business operations during the early years while he worked an arduous schedule. Wife described this period as "busy" in that Husband's father was extremely ill, Husband was working more and thus less involved at home, and Wife was providing care for the children and Husband's parents while helping Husband with the practice. Wife testified that she performed duties such as supervising staff, making deposits, filing charts, designing and decorating the office, interacting with CVA's accountant, managing the health insurance and retirement plans, and marketing the practice. Husband worked sixty to eighty hours per week at CVA. He also taught continuing education classes for other physicians, for which Wife designed and printed materials and advertising, managed hotel and catering arrangements, and maintained an accounting. Wife was not compensated for her work.
According to Wife, when Husband began his employment through CVA, his income increased tremendously. In 2000 or 2001, the parties built an approximately 5,000-square-foot home on Lookout Mountain. Both were involved in the design and construction of the home. When Wife's father passed away in 2002, Wife inherited one-third of his 1.3-million-dollar estate. From this inheritance, Wife deposited cash into the parties' joint account and also made deposits into the children's educational funds.
During this approximate timeframe, the parties, with the assistance of a friend named Oscar Brock, located a lot near all three Chattanooga hospitals, upon which they endeavored to construct a commercial building to accommodate CVA and other medical tenants. Husband, Wife, and Mr. Brock formed McNeal and, through the company, purchased the parcel and built a commercial building thereon. Wife testified that she and Mr. Brock met with architects and designed the facility. Wife further related that she worked closely with the builder and selected décor and fixtures. After CVA moved to this new location, Wife continued to perform work for CVA without compensation. According to Wife, she assumed some duties of a practice manager, often working forty or more hours per week. She also performed various responsibilities for McNeal, including designing and marketing the office space, creating a brochure, and procuring tenants. Wife likewise received no compensation for her work for McNeal.
In 2003, Husband became enmeshed in litigation with Erlanger Hospital regarding his hospital privileges. Wife testified that she "stood in" for Husband during depositions and performed work relevant to the case so that Husband could continue to concentrate on his medical practice. According to Husband, Wife "spearheaded" his defense, spending tremendous amounts of time on the litigation. Husband also related that the proceedings cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars through the years, which proved difficult on their marriage, the children, and their quality of life. Wife opined that litigation expenses actually totaled approximately three million dollars.
The parties appear to agree that their marriage began to deteriorate during this time, although their opinions differ regarding the reasons. Their discord reached a zenith around Christmas 2011, when Wife claimed Husband became verbally abusive toward their eldest daughter and physically abusive toward Wife. The parties separated shortly thereafter, with Wife and the children remaining in the marital residence and Husband moving to a rental property. Husband admitted that following his departure, he removed $375,000 from the parties' joint checking account, leaving a balance of $5,000 for Wife's use. Husband did not dispute Wife's testimony that he informed Wife he would thereafter provide her an "allowance" in the amount of $5,000 per month. Husband asserted that this amount was commensurate with their pre-separation expenses so long as he continued to pay the taxes and insurance on the marital residence. Wife explained that Husband subsequently provided her with $5,000 per month for the first eight months of 2012 and then stopped sending her money altogether until the trial court ordered him to pay temporary alimony beginning in February 2014. According to Wife, because she had no other source of income, she was forced to liquidate her separate, inherited assets and to charge expenses on her credit cards in order to defray her living expenses and legal fees during that time.
In 2012, Mr. Brock instituted an action against Husband and Wife upon being "excluded" from McNeal by the parties due to his failure to meet a capital call. Husband filed the instant divorce action in November 2013. By the time of trial, the parties remained involved in litigation with Mr. Brock to determine their respective ownership interests in McNeal.
On December 26, 2013, Wife filed a motion in the case at bar seeking an award of alimony and child support pendente lite. The trial court entered a temporary order on January 17, 2014, directing the parties to participate in mediation and ordering Husband to pay temporary spousal support in the amount of $20,000 per month. The court conducted a hearing regarding temporary alimony in April 2014, subsequently ruling that Husband would pay Wife $18,000 per month pending trial. Wife was ordered to pay the taxes and insurance related to the marital residence.
Early in this litigation, the parties reached an agreement regarding certain issues, including that (1) Husband could expend monies to purchase a condominium for his own use, (2) Husband would continue to provide health and dental insurance coverage for Wife and the remaining minor child pending trial, (3) Husband would provide Wife with $45,000 to pay toward her attorney's fees, (4) Husband would continue paying temporary alimony of $18,000 per month, and (5) Wife would have unfettered access to the McNeal business records. An acrimonious environment intensified through the remainder of the proceedings, however, as each party filed numerous motions for relief, including several motions alleging contemptuous conduct by the opposing party and motions seeking sanctions. The trial court conducted a bench trial on June 2 and 3, 2014. At the conclusion of trial, Wife's counsel was afforded additional time to file the deposition of an asset valuation expert. On April 13, 2015, the court awarded Wife an additional $48,000 toward her legal expenses. In its order, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel Groesse v. Sumner
... ... See Stratienko v. Stratienko , 529 S.W.3d 389, 412-13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 16, 2017) (noting that the factors to be considered in ... ...
-
Griffith-Ball v. Ball
...295 S.W.3d 240, 246 (Tenn. 2009). The classification of property as marital or separate is a question of fact. Stratienko v. Stratienko, 529 S.W.3d 389, 398-99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). All property "acquired by either or both spouses during the course of the marriage" is marital property. Ten......
-
Disterdick v. Disterdick
... ... 2007). Questions relating to the classification of assets as marital or separate are questions of fact. Stratienko v ... Stratienko , 529 S.W.3d 389, 398-99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017), perm ... app ... denied (Aug. 16, 2017) (citing Bilyeu v ... Bilyeu , 196 S.W.3d 131, ... ...
-
Long v. Long
... ... 2007). Questions relating to the classification of assets as marital or separate are questions of fact. Stratienko v. Stratienko , 529 S.W.3d 389, 398-99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Bilyeu v. Bilyeu , 196 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) ). See Manis ... ...