IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

March 10, 2015 Session

KERRIE JANEL WADE v. VERNON FRANKLIN WADE, JR.

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Benton County

No. 2613 Paul G. Summers, Judge

No. W2014-01098-COA-R3-CV – Filed April 28, 2015

BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority‟s decision regarding the Father‟s designation as primary 

residential parent.

However, I must respectfully dissent in the majority‟s determination regarding 

rehabilitative and/or transitional alimony, given the wide discretion trial courts have in 

determining matters of spousal support. Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 

(Tenn. 2011). A trial court‟s decision regarding spousal support is also factually driven 

and necessarily involves the careful balancing of many factors. Id. As the Gonsewski

court stated:

“[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.” Broadbent v. 

Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tenn.2006). Appellate courts decline to 

second-guess a trial court‟s decision absent an abuse of discretion. 

Robertson [v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 343 (Tenn. 2002)]. An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the trial court 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. 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, but “„reflects an awareness that the decision 

being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives,‟ 

and thus „envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court's decision and 

a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal.‟” 
2

Henderson, 318 S.W.3d at 335 (quoting Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 

S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn.2010)). Consequently, when reviewing a 

discretionary decision by the trial court, such as an alimony determination, 

the appellate court should presume that the decision is correct and should 

review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision. Wright, 

337 S.W.3d at 176; Henderson, 318 S.W.3d at 335.

Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 105-106.

I recognize that there is a significant income disparity between Father and Mother 

and that Mother committed many years to full-time child rearing and home schooling. 

These are both important factors for the trial court to examine. Tennessee Code 

Annotated Section 36-5-121(i) enumerates twelve factors a trial court must consider, and 

the record reflects that the trial court in this case did consider those factors. While each 

factor should be considered, “the two that are considered the most important are the 

disadvantaged spouse‟s need and the obligor spouse‟s ability to pay.” Gonsewski, 350 

S.W.3d at 110 (quoting Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)). The 

record in this case indicates that the Father‟s expenses exceed his income, and Mother did 

very little to challenge those expenses at trial. The trial court was well within its 

discretion to determine that “Father‟s inability to pay alimony is obvious.”

If I were permitted to substitute my judgment for that of the trial court, I may have 

reached a different conclusion than the judge in this case. However, the directives to this 

Court are clear, and since the trial court‟s decision reflects a “choice among several 

acceptable alternatives,” I do not believe the trial court abused its discretion and would 

therefore affirm the trial court‟s ruling on spousal support.

 

_________________________________ 

BRANDON O. GIBSON, JUDGE