Tennessee alimony divorce case abstract after 31 years married.

Sima Khayatt Kholghi v. Reza Aliabadi

The husband and spouse on this Davidson County, Tennessee, case each grew up in Iran.  The husband got here to the U.s. in 1978 on the age of 17.  He went into enterprise along with his father promoting rugs.  The spouse was 19 when she moved to the U.S. about 5 years later.  Her dad and mom owned a rug retailer in Denver the place she often labored.  They met in 1988 and had a spiritual bridal ceremony in Nashville.  They had been legally married on the courthouse the next 12 months.

The husband and his father expanded their enterprise and constructed a producing plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, the place they manufactured non-slip rug pads.  The spouse was by no means paid a wage, however often labored for the enterprise.  After she gave beginning to a daughter, she stopped working on the retailer and remained a stay-at-home mother or father.  They’d one other youngster, a son, in 1997.

The husband dealt with the entire couple’s monetary issues, they usually ultimately constructed a house valued at over $2 million.  The spouse ultimately suspected the husband of adultery, and filed for divorce in 2016.

The trial courtroom, Choose Phillip R. Robinson, heard a movement concerning short-term help, and directed the husband to supply the spouse a bank card with a restrict of $15,000, however with the spouse to cost not more than $7000 per 30 days besides in an emergency.

A 4 day trial was held in 2019, and plenty of points had been determined, filling a forty five web page order.  Among the many points determined was alimony.  The husband’s earnings was pegged at about $400,000 per 12 months.  The spouse had not been in search of a job, however the courtroom set her incomes capability at between $17,000 and $19,000 per 12 months.  The spouse had claimed many bills, however the decrease courtroom trimmed these down.  Finally, the decrease courtroom concluded that the spouse was entitled to $8,308 per 30 days alimony in futuro.    It additionally awarded the spouse $40,000 in lawyer charges and virtually $30,000 in professional witness charges.

After some post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.  Amongst different issues, he argued that the alimony and property division did not correctly take into consideration the events’ separate property.

After discussing different property points, the appeals courtroom turned to the problems affecting alimony calculation.

Particularly, the husband argued that the trial courtroom had did not take into consideration the spouse’s curiosity in her mom’s house in Iran.  The spouse had a one-third curiosity, and the husband’s lawyer said that there have been stories that the property might need been price $7 million.  The spouse’s opinion was that it was price about $850,000.  The husband famous that he despatched an appraiser to the house, however they refused to let the appraiser in.

The trial courtroom downplayed this asset, first as a result of there was no appraisal.  As well as, the trial courtroom famous that it will be unimaginable for the spouse to switch any property out of Iran, even when the property had been offered.

The trial courtroom had additionally based mostly its calculations upon the belief that the husband would inherit his dad and mom’ property upon their demise.  Whereas there was no will, there was testimony by the husband that tended to help this assumption.

After contemplating the proof on these factors, the appeals courtroom concluded that the trial courtroom had not dedicated reversible error.  Due to this fact, it let these holdings stand.

The appeals courtroom then appeared on the quantity of alimony.  Right here, the husband had argued that the quantity was extreme as a result of quantity of marital property that the spouse had obtained.  However it additionally famous that the spouse would want to make use of a lot of those property to buy a residence.

The trial courtroom had discovered an awesome disparity within the events’ incomes capacities, and the appellate courtroom agreed.  After extensively reviewing the proof, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the alimony calculation.

After addressing the lawyer’s charge award, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed and remanded the case.

No. M2019-01793-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 18,  2020).

See authentic opinion for precise language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here