Background
Jason and Melissa McCarroll married in 1999 in Florida and relocated to Tennessee in 2009. During the marriage, Melissa left full-time work in 2011 to care for Jason’s grandmother while he served with the Naval Reserves. Upon his return, she pursued multiple vocational certifications—unexploded ordnance technician, dental assistant, aesthetician, and cosmetic laser training—but never sustained employment in any of these fields due to health issues and other challenges. In July 2020, Jason filed for divorce and took control of joint bank accounts, canceled Melissa’s insurance coverage, and ceased credit card payments.
Melissa moved to Ohio and worked various jobs earning between $12 and $17.50 per hour. At trial in December 2023, her affidavit showed current monthly expenses of $2,766.20 in Ohio but “anticipated expenses” of $5,552.00 in Tennessee to maintain the marital standard of living. Her income at trial was $1,900 monthly (later $2,946.66 after obtaining a corrections officer position). Jason’s affidavit reported $12,179.23 monthly income and $10,002.81 in expenses, though testimony revealed these figures included his girlfriend’s costs and fabricated expenses.
The trial court awarded Jason approximately $129,000 in combined assets and assigned him roughly $80,000 in marital debt, while awarding Melissa approximately $72,500 and assigning her only $6,300 in debt. Based on Melissa’s anticipated expenses, the trial court awarded $2,000 monthly alimony in futuro, later reduced to $1,600 per month following a motion to alter or amend.
The Court’s Holding
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the alimony award, rejecting Jason’s argument that the trial court erred by relying on Melissa’s “speculative” anticipated expenses rather than her actual current need of approximately $866 monthly. The court found that while a spouse’s need is determined by reasonable expenses, evidence is not limited to actual expenses at divorce; anticipated income and expenses constitute proper evidence. The trial court’s reliance on Melissa’s affidavit regarding anticipated expenses was therefore proper, as was its finding that Melissa needed $1,600 monthly to achieve a standard of living comparable to the marital lifestyle.
The court also affirmed the award of periodic (ongoing) alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony, rejecting Jason’s argument that Melissa could achieve greater income through her various certifications. Melissa had testified credibly that her health conditions precluded work in those fields and that she was already earning $17 per hour at the correctional institution—more than she would earn in any alternative career. Jason presented no evidence that positions using her certifications were reasonably available or would pay more than her current employment.
However, the court modified the trial court’s order regarding a $12,000 CareCredit account balance. Because the real estate proceeds had already been distributed by the time the trial court ordered payment from those funds, the court remanded with instructions that Melissa tender one-half of the debt balance to Jason, with Jason remaining solely responsible for the account balance.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts may consider a divorcing spouse’s anticipated future expenses—not merely actual expenses at trial—when determining alimony need under the marital standard-of-living doctrine.
- Credibility findings regarding oral testimony do not automatically extend to factual assertions in affidavits, particularly when no cross-examination of affidavit contents occurred at trial.
- Periodic alimony is appropriate when rehabilitative alimony is unavailable, even if a spouse holds multiple professional certifications, if evidence demonstrates the spouse cannot obtain higher-paying employment using those credentials.
- Parties may waive appellate issues by failing to develop complete legal arguments and cite controlling authority, including failure to address multi-factor tests like those for equitable debt division.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Tennessee courts need not restrict alimony determinations to a spouse’s immediate financial needs at divorce. By permitting consideration of anticipated expenses tied to the marital standard of living, the ruling acknowledges that employment transitions and health constraints may temporarily reduce a spouse’s income below long-term need. This approach particularly benefits spouses who left the workforce during marriage or who face health limitations upon re-entry—a common pattern in cases involving one spouse’s caregiving role.
The decision also reinforces that multiple professional certifications do not automatically trigger rehabilitative alimony when evidence shows those credentials are not marketable, were obtained during the marriage through experimentation rather than sustained training, or would not generate income exceeding current earnings. For trial courts managing divorce cases with parties pursuing varied vocational paths, the decision provides discretion to award ongoing support when retraining is unlikely to improve the dependent spouse’s financial position.