IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 14, 2017 Session

ROBERT HARVEY SANTEE v. STACY LYNN SANTEE

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County

No. 13-9-285 Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor

No. E2016-02535-COA-R3-CV

This appeal concerns divorce and child support matters. Robert Harvey Santee 

(“Husband”) sued wife Stacy Lynn Santee (“Wife”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for 

Sevier County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court awarded Husband a 

divorce based upon Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct. The Trial Court divided the 

marital estate, awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony, and imputed income to her for child 

support purposes. Wife appealed to this Court, arguing that, among other things, as a 

stay-at-home mother in a long-term marriage, rehabilitative alimony is insufficient. 

Husband argues in response that he has longstanding plans to retire. We find that the 

Trial Court erred in imputing income to Wife for two years of child support purposes 

when the Trial Court also found that Wife was capable of going to school for those two 

years to improve her financial situation and awarded rehabilitative alimony for Wife to 

do exactly that. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed as Modified; Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS R.

FRIERSON, II, J., joined, and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., filed a separate concurring and 

dissenting opinion.

Keith A. Hopson, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Stacy Lynn Santee.

Andrew N. Wilson, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Robert Harvey Santee.

02/15/2018
-2-

OPINION

Background

The parties married in 1990. Husband is a radiologist who earns around half a 

million dollars per year. Wife, a high school graduate, was a stay-at-home parent. Wife 

sold some Mary Kay products during the marriage, but she lost money doing so. Five 

children were born of the marriage, but only one was a minor at the time of trial. This 

child, Tavyn, was born in 2000. Wife acknowledged having had an adulterous 

relationship, which began in 2012. Husband sued for divorce in September 2013. This 

case was tried over the course of two days in August 2016.

Wife testified to her very limited work history:

Q. Now, in the course of all this time of the marriage, did you ever work 

outside the home, or would --

A. No.

Q. -- you stay at home?

A. I stayed at home.

Q. How did you see your role and Dr. Santee’s role in supporting this 

family and the home?

A. He is a great provider. He always made sure the kids were taken care of, 

there was food on the table, there was -- you know, we had vacations, 

everything. He -- excuse me -- he wasn’t emotionally there, but he was --

he always took care of us that way. I have always volunteered at school. 

I’ve always been hands-on with my kids because I think that that’s my goal. 

That was my -- that’s my biggest accomplishment in my life, is my children 

and taking care of their needs and being there. And they know if they pick 

up the phone and say, “I need,” or “I want,” I’m there, period.

Husband testified as to whether Wife worked during the marriage, and his blunt 

testimony reflects the difficult circumstances under which the marriage ended:

Q. All right. Now, how many jobs outside the home has she had since you 

and she have been married?

A. She sold Mary Kay products.

Q. And do you know what income she made from that?

A. She lost money with that. She left her -- she did not go out and do what 

her manager told her to do, which was to have parties and whatnot to get 
-3-

people to buy her product, so that her product sat around, especially when 

she started screwing around with Chad Hopson, and the product expired. It 

was over $10,000 worth of product that had to be thrown away.

Q. Well, before all of that, what other jobs did she hold outside the home to 

produce a meaningful income?

A. None.

Q. None. So as far as you know, she has no real ability to earn an income 

anywhere close to the lifestyle that you and she had, does she?

A. She would have to go get a lot of schooling in order for that to happen.

Q. So the answer to my question is?

A. Is no.

Regarding certain marital debts, the division of which is an issue in this appeal, 

Wife testified as follows:

Q. Okay. Let me talk to you about other assets that you and Dr. Santee 

have. There’s a list of cars that we talked about and he had talked about as 

well. The Subaru to Dr. Santee and the Suburban to you, do you believe 

that’s a fair --

A. Yes.

Q. -- distribution of those cars? The balance of the cars are in the hands of 

the children. Do you want the kids to be able to keep their car?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. Now, there’s some debt associated with some of the cars?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Were some of the cars bought after this divorce started?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you sign any of that debt?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Santee did?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you ask that he be required to pay those?

A. Yes.

***

Q. – aren’t you? There is a couple of life insurance policies that Dr. Santee 

has. Probably one of them -- and I’m guessing rounded values of about 

$50,000. Now they’re about maybe $200,000, if that, with a loan against 

one of them. I think he had testified yesterday it was -- may be on here. It 

was over $80,000.
-4-

A. Okay.

Q. Did you receive the benefit of any of the $80,000 loan that Dr. Santee 

took out against that life insurance policy --

A. No.

Q. -- at the start of this litigation?

A. No.

Q. I know he indicated he had some expenses he had to pay, including 

attorney fees. Do you ask the Court to treat that liability separate and not 

part of your liability?

A. Yes.

Husband testified to the expenses he had incurred since the case was filed as well 

as his overall financial status:

Q. Have you been paying the expenses since this case was filed almost 

three years ago, the household expenses, Dr. Santee?

A. Yes, whenever I received the bills from Stacey.

Q. And, again, you previously testified to that temporary agreed order dated 

November 1st, 2016, wherein you agreed to pay all the household expenses 

and the $2,100. Did you do that?

A. Yes.

Q. Each and every month?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, that changed September the 17th, 2015, wherein the 

Court ordered $6,000 a month, and you recall you were not at that hearing, 

nor was I, and that was changed to $6,000. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, ultimately an agreed order was entered that modified 

that somewhat, that allowed those -- that alimony and the expenses to be 

paid from a joint marital account. Do you recall that?

A. Yes. I was barely able to pay the $2,100. There was no way I could pay 

the 6,000.

Q. All right.

A. So --

Q. Did you pay --

A. -- we took it from the joint --

Q. The question was did you pay from the joint account?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, from September up until April you paid that $6,000; is that 

correct?

A. Yeah.
-5-

Q. From what?

A. It was paid automatically from a Edward Jones joint account, as we 

agreed. 

Q. All right. And did there come a period of time where that you no longer 

did that?

A. Yeah. The funds ran out. The trial got postponed. It was supposed to 

be in December. It was -- but then the trial got postponed. So the funds ran 

out.

Q. Total, all the expenses that you were paying each month, including the 

6,000, all the household expenses, your expenses, what did those total each 

month, approximately?

A. I’d have to look at the statement. I think it was, like, 28,000.

Q. Monthly?

A. Yeah.

Q. All right. And I believe you said your take-home pay was about $9,500 

twice a month. So that would be $19,000; is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. So were you able to cover that without dipping into the marital assets?

A. No.

Q. Now, Dr. Santee, what is it that you’re asking? You’re asking the Court 

to award you the divorce; is that correct?

A. Correct. 

Q. And what are you asking? We’ve talked about some of these assets. 

The 529 we want to go to the children, for them to receive their vehicles. 

What is it that you’re asking the Court to do with the other assets, 

generally, so the Court understands?

A. I think she -- she can stay in the house and have an equal amount of my

retirement money set aside for me, then equitably divide up the rest of the 

retire[ment] money. And I think she needs to pay off a lot of the bills she 

ran up on her boyfriend. I shouldn’t be having to pay that, as well as the --

I should get back some of the money that I had to pay Mr. Gass, the 20,000.

Q. You paid your wife’s temporary attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$20,000 --

A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, that November -- or excuse me. I think it was October 2015 order 

did allow for the Court to consider a reallocation of that amount that you 

paid, the 20,000; is that correct?

A. Correct.
-6-

Q. And you’re asking the Court to have her pay that from the assets that are 

awarded her, and then you pay your attorney’s fees?

A. Right.

Q. All right. And --

A. As far as alimony, I think I’ve paid a sufficient amount of alimony. She 

will have enough assets that she can live comfortably.

Q. And you paid --

A. She --

Q. – you’ve paid alimony for almost three years now?

A. Three years now, yes.

In December 2016, the Trial Court entered its final judgment of divorce. The Trial 

Court incorporated into its final judgment its findings of fact and conclusions of law 

rendered orally in August. The Trial Court granted Husband a divorce based upon 

Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct. The Trial Court stated, in part, as follows:

This is a divorce case. The husband is 57 years old. He is a 

practicing radiologist with an income at present of approximately $500,000 

a year. The wife is a high school graduate and has been at all times during 

the marriage a housewife and stay-at-home mother. The parties have been 

married approximately 26 years. They have five children: Danika, Ashton, 

Ciana, Anya, and Tavyn. All children except Tavyn are adults and 

emancipated. Tavyn is currently 16 years of age.

All issues are before the Court, that is to say the divorce and grounds 

for it, the division of property, spousal support claimed by the wife, 

custody, coparenting, and child support for the minor child, Tavyn. The 

divorce was filed in September, on September 12th of 2013. An 

unfortunate series [of] events caused the case to be substantially delayed. 

The parties had arranged for a custody evaluation for the children. There 

was more of them than just Tavyn at the time that were minors.

***

Anyway, the parties tried and tried and tried to get a custody 

evaluation done and, for various reasons, just couldn’t get one done, and 

that caused the case to be delayed. There were two temporary support 

orders entered in the case, one November the 1st of 2013. That was an 

agreed order reached at mediation. It provided that the husband would pay 

all the household expenses for the wife and children. The Court observes 

that also at the time, and today indeed, that the wife’s mother was living in 

the marital home at the time. It provided the husband pay all those 
-7-

expenses plus the sum of $2,100 a month. Then in 2015, September 17th, 

there was another order entered, and this order was entered on motion of 

notice by the wife. The husband and counsel were not present for the 

hearing. Husband’s counsel had filed a notice of unavailability the day 

before the hearing but had not gotten the Court’s permission for a 

continuance of the matter. In any event, the Court signed a new temporary 

support order. That order gave the wife possession of the house and 

ordered the husband to pay household expenses and increased support from 

$2,100 a month to $6,000 a month. That’s kind of a thumbnail sketch of 

the type of case and the procedural history.

***

Property division has a number of factors that the Court is to 

consider. They’re set out in 36-4-121. The Court will not detail those 

factors, at least, because it is -- was and is, in the Court’s opinion, 

appropriate from the beginning in this case to divide the property 50/50. 

This is a long-term marriage, 26 years. The statute tells us that the 

contributions of one party as a spouse are -- or homemaker are to be 

considered equal to the contributions of the other spouse who is the 

breadwinner. Here, certainly the husband is a hard worker, extraordinarily 

good provider, no question about that; but, on the other hand, the evidence 

here is that mother has been a good mother and at least until approximately 

2012 a good homemaker, and this marriage, though with some problems, 

minor in nature as the Court sees them, quite successful until 2012.

***

The Court will first address the matter of credibility of the witnesses, 

and on the critical and the disputed issues as between the husband and the 

wife the Court must certainly accredit the husband’s testimony and cannot 

fully accredit or accredit the wife’s. The record contained several instances 

which demonstrate to the Court the wife’s lack of credibility. To her credit, 

at the time of trial she certainly admitted, did not deny, the fact that she had 

been carrying on an extramarital affair that began in July, August of 2012.

***

Move on to the issue of alimony, this was and is a particularly 

contentious, difficult issue as between the parties and for the Court. In the 

first instance we have a statute, TCA 36-5-121, which sets out certain 
-8-

factors which must be considered by the Court in matters involving 

alimony, several of the factors.

First of all, the Court observes that there is no question here but the 

wife is economically disadvantaged within the meaning of the statute. 

There just is no question about that. The husband is a medical doctor, earns 

half a million dollars a year because of his very hard work schedule and the 

success that he’s made himself. On the other side of the coin, the wife is a 

high school graduate only and has not worked outside the home at least in 

some 26 years. So there just is no question but that the wife is 

economically disadvantaged as compared to the husband.

***

The wife testified at her deposition that she wanted to get a two-year 

degree and to become a medical assistant. As the Court observed earlier, 

she’s in excellent health and could do that. The Court concludes that the 

wife can and should be rehabilitated to the degree possible under the 

circumstances.

***

The Court also notes, by the way, in this that in five years the 

husband will be -- rather, the wife will be 55 years old; the husband will be 

62. There was evidence at the trial to the effect that the parties had seen a 

financial adviser back in 2012 and that, at least from the husband’s 

viewpoint, that they had agreed that “Look, we need to embark on a plan 

here that will allow me to retire in the year 2017,” that is, five years from 

2012. And there was some evidence to the effect that “In order to get that 

accomplished, we need to get ahold of our expenditures and not spend so 

much.” There’s also evidence to the effect that the wife did not agree with 

that and, perhaps not coincidental, that it was 2012 when, according to the 

wife, that the parties began to drift apart. And it was certainly in 2012 

when the wife began the affair with Mr. Hopson.

The Trial Court ordered Husband to pay Wife $3,500 per month in rehabilitative 

alimony for 60 months. The Trial Court ordered the respective sides to pay their own 

attorney’s fees. Regarding child support, the Trial Court imputed to Wife an income of 

$29,300 per year. Wife was named primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child. 

Wife timely appealed to this Court.
-9-

Discussion

Although not stated exactly as such, Wife raises the following issues on appeal: 1) 

whether the Trial Court erred in its allocation of the debts of the parties; 2) whether the 

Trial Court erred in its award of rehabilitative alimony to Wife instead of alimony in 

futuro and whether the Trial Court erred in the amount of alimony awarded to Wife; 3) 

whether the Trial Court erred in imputing income to Wife for purposes of calculating 

child support; and 4) whether the Trial Court erred in not awarding Wife her attorney’s 

fees as alimony in solido.

We first address whether the Trial Court erred in its allocation of the debts of the 

parties. Wife takes issue with being allocated one-half of three debts: two debts on cars 

purchased by Husband for two of the parties’ children, and a life insurance policy. Wife 

was ordered to pay $10,000, $11,000, and $30,000, respectively, on these debts. Notably, 

Wife received slightly over one million dollars net in the overall division of the marital 

estate. Wife nevertheless argues that these particular debts were not incurred to her 

benefit and that she should not have to pay them. Wife also testified that Husband 

bought three cars for the children after the divorce was filed, and that the insurance policy 

was purchased at the beginning of the litigation. We have stated regarding division of 

marital debt:

Marital debt, like marital property, should be divided equitably in 

accordance with the factors in Tenn. Code. Ann. § 36-4-121(c) and in light 

of (1) which party incurred the debt, (2) the purpose of the debt, (3) which 

party benefitted from incurring the debt, and (4) which party is better able 

to repay the debt. See Cutsinger v. Cutsinger, 917 S.W.2d at 243; Mahaffey 

v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d at 623-24. Marital debts need not be divided in 

precisely the same manner as the marital assets, although they frequently 

follow their related assets. See Mondelli v. Howard, 780 S.W.2d 769, 773 

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); Mansfield v. Mansfield, No. 01A01-9412-CH-0058, 

1995 WL 643329, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 1995) (No Tenn. R. App. 

P. 11 application filed).

Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). As noted by this Court in 

King v. King, 986 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Roseberry v. 

Roseberry, No. 03A01-9706-CH-00237, 1998 WL 47944, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 

1998), no appl. perm. appeal filed), when dividing marital property:
-10-

The trial court’s goal in every divorce case is to divide the parties’

marital estate in a just and equitable manner. The division of the estate is 

not rendered inequitable simply because it is not mathematically equal, 

Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823, 832 (Tenn. 1996); Ellis v. Ellis, 748 

S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tenn. 1988), or because each party did not receive a 

share of every item of marital property. Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d [163] 

at 168.... In the final analysis, the justness of a particular division of the 

marital property and allocation of marital debt depends on its final results. 

See Thompson v. Thompson, 797 S.W.2d 599, 604 (Tenn. App. 1990).

In the present case, we simply do not find that the Trial Court’s allocation to Wife 

of part of these debts in any sense renders the overall roughly 50/50 division of the 

marital estate inequitable. Both parties walk away with approximately one million 

dollars in assets as a result of the Trial Court’s division. We decline Wife’s invitation to 

tweak what is an overall equitable division of the marital estate including allocation of 

marital debt. We affirm the Trial Court in its allocation of marital debts in its overall 

division of the marital estate. 

We next address whether the Trial Court erred in its award of rehabilitative 

alimony to Wife instead of alimony in futuro and whether the Trial Court erred in the 

amount of alimony awarded to Wife. Wife argues that the Trial Court’s award of 

rehabilitative alimony of $3,500 per month for 60 months was insufficient, that Wife 

never realistically will be able to achieve on her own a standard of living comparable to 

that she enjoyed during the marriage, and that alimony in futuro is necessary to sustain 

her going forward. Our Supreme Court has discussed as follows regarding the different 

types of alimony available in Tennessee:

This Court has frequently recognized that trial courts in Tennessee have 

broad discretion to determine whether spousal support is needed and, if so, 

to determine the nature, amount, and duration of the award . . . .

***

Tennessee recognizes four distinct types of spousal support: (1) 

alimony in futuro, (2) alimony in solido, (3) rehabilitative alimony, and (4) 

transitional alimony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(1) (2010 & Supp.

2012). Alimony in futuro, a form of long-term support, is appropriate when 

the economically disadvantaged spouse cannot achieve self-sufficiency and 

economic rehabilitation is not feasible. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 107. 

Alimony in solido, another form of long-term support, is typically awarded 

to adjust the distribution of the marital estate and, as such, is generally not 
-11-

modifiable and does not terminate upon death or remarriage. Id. at 108. 

By contrast, rehabilitative alimony is short-term support that enables a 

disadvantaged spouse to obtain education or training and become selfreliant following a divorce. Id.

Where economic rehabilitation is unnecessary, transitional alimony 

may be awarded. Transitional alimony assists the disadvantaged spouse 

with the “transition to the status of a single person.” Id. at 109 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rehabilitative alimony “is designed to increase 

an economically disadvantaged spouse’s capacity for self-sufficiency,” . . . .

***

Tennessee statutes concerning spousal support reflect a legislative 

preference favoring rehabilitative or transitional alimony rather than 

alimony in futuro or in solido. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(2)-(3); 

Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 109. Not even long-term support is a guarantee 

that the recipient spouse will be able to maintain the same standard of 

living enjoyed before the divorce because “two persons living separately 

incur more expenses than two persons living together.” Gonsewski, 350 

S.W.3d at 108 (quoting Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 234 (Tenn. Ct. 

App. 1998)). Although the parties’ standard of living is a factor courts must 

consider when making alimony determinations, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-

5-121(i)(9), the economic reality is that the parties’ post-divorce assets and 

incomes often will not permit each spouse to maintain the same standard of 

living after the divorce that the couple enjoyed during the marriage. 

Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 113. Decisions regarding the type, length, and 

amount of alimony turn upon the unique facts of each case and careful 

consideration of many factors, with two of the most important factors being 

the disadvantaged spouse’s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay. Id. 

at 109-10.

Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108, 114-16 (Tenn. 2012).

As articulated by our Supreme Court in Mayfield, there is in Tennessee a statutory 

preference for rehabilitative or transitional alimony over alimony in futuro or alimony in 

solido. The characteristics of rehabilitative and transitional alimony are established by 

statute as follows:

(e)(1) Rehabilitative alimony is a separate class of spousal support . . . . To

be rehabilitated means to achieve, with reasonable effort, an earning 
-12-

capacity that will permit the economically disadvantaged spouse’s standard 

of living after the divorce to be reasonably comparable to the standard of 

living enjoyed during the marriage, or to the post-divorce standard of living 

expected to be available to the other spouse, considering the relevant 

statutory factors and the equities between the parties.

(2) An award of rehabilitative alimony shall remain in the court’s control 

for the duration of such award, and may be increased, decreased, 

terminated, extended, or otherwise modified, upon a showing of a 

substantial and material change in circumstances. For rehabilitative 

alimony to be extended beyond the term initially established by the court, 

or to be increased in amount, or both, the recipient of the rehabilitative 

alimony shall have the burden of proving that all reasonable efforts at 

rehabilitation have been made and have been unsuccessful.

(3) Rehabilitative alimony shall terminate upon the death of the recipient. 

Rehabilitative alimony shall also terminate upon the death of the payor, 

unless otherwise specifically stated.

***

(g)(1) Transitional alimony means a sum of money payable by one (1) party 

to, or on behalf of, the other party for a determinate period of time. 

Transitional alimony is awarded when the court finds that rehabilitation is 

not necessary, but the economically disadvantaged spouse needs assistance 

to adjust to the economic consequences of a divorce, legal separation or 

other proceeding where spousal support may be awarded, such as a petition 

for an order of protection.

(2) Transitional alimony shall be nonmodifiable unless:

(A) The parties otherwise agree in an agreement incorporated into the initial 

decree of divorce or legal separation, or order of protection;

(B) The court otherwise orders in the initial decree of divorce, legal 

separation or order of protection; or

(C) The alimony recipient lives with a third person . . . .
-13-

(3) Transitional alimony shall terminate upon the death of the recipient. 

Transitional alimony shall also terminate upon the death of the payor, 

unless otherwise specifically stated in the decree.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (2017).

It is undisputed that Wife is the economically disadvantaged spouse. In addition, 

this was a marriage of quite some duration—over 25 years. These factors would tend to 

support an award of alimony in futuro. Other factors, however, weigh against such an 

award of long-term support. For one thing, the Trial Court found specifically that Wife is 

in excellent health, and could in time enter the workforce. Also, there is the issue of 

Husband’s plan to retire from his lucrative career, which naturally would affect his ability 

to pay. The Trial Court observed that perhaps it was not coincidental that Wife began her 

affair around the time she learned of Husband’s plan to retire. 

Wife disputes Husband’s account, but the Trial Court found Husband to be 

credible and Wife not credible. We extend strong deference to a Trial Court’s credibility 

determinations. “[A]ppellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of 

witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells v. 

Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999). We, therefore, accredit 

Husband’s version of events. 

Wife essentially triggered this divorce. It was legitimate for the Trial Court to 

factor this history into its decision-making regarding spousal support including both the 

type and the amount. The evidence does not preponderate against any of the Trial 

Court’s findings. Our standard of review on the alimony issue being abuse of discretion, 

we find the Trial Court did not commit reversible error in declining to award Wife 

alimony in futuro or in the amount of rehabilitative alimony awarded. While the 

rehabilitative alimony awarded by the Trial Court will not transform Wife entirely from 

being economically disadvantaged, it will enable her to increase her capacity for selfsufficiency. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d at 115. Here, the Trial Court found that rehabilitative 

rather than alimony in futuro or transitional alimony is necessary and appropriate. 

Applying all the relevant statutory factors to the Trial Court’s findings in this case along 

with the Trial Court’s division of the marital estate, we find the result to be neither 

illogical nor unjust.

1

 We disturb neither the type, amount, nor duration of the alimony as 

awarded by the Trial Court.

 

1 Husband does not request on appeal that the alimony awarded be modified in any way.
-14-

We next address whether the Trial Court erred in imputing income to Wife for 

purposes of calculating child support. Regarding imputing income for child support 

purposes, we have stated:

The Tennessee Child Support Guidelines provide that income may 

be imputed to a parent when the court determines that the parent is 

voluntarily underemployed. Wadhwani v. White, No. M2015-01447-COAR3-CV, 2016 WL 4579192, at *13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016) (citing 

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04-.04). The guidelines provide factors 

to be considered when determining whether a parent is willfully and 

voluntarily underemployed or unemployed. Richardson v. Spanos, 189 

S.W.3d 720, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). The factors include, inter alia, the 

parent’s past and present employment; the parent’s education, training, and 

ability to work; the parent’s role as stay-at-home parent; and any additional 

factors deemed relevant to the particular circumstances of the case. See

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04-.04(3)(a)(2)(iii).

The issue of voluntary underemployment is a question of fact that 

requires careful consideration of all the attendant circumstances. Owensby 

v. Davis, No. M2007-01262-COA-R3-JV, 2008 WL 3069777, at *4 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. July 31, 2008) (citing Richardson, 189 S.W.3d at 726). We afford 

the trial court considerable discretion in this determination. Thayer v. 

Thayer, No. M2015-00194-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 4056316, at *4 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. July 26, 2016) (citing Willis v. Willis, 62 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. 2001)). “The trial court’s decision is entitled to a presumption of 

correctness, particularly ‘when it is premised on the trial court’s singular 

ability to ascertain the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” Id. (citing Reed v. 

Steadham, No. E2009-00018-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 3295123, at *2 

(Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2009)).

Ghorashi-Bajestani v. Bajestani, No. E2016-00063-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 809880, at 

*9 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 1, 2017), no appl. perm. appeal filed.

The Trial Court imputed to Wife an annual gross income of $29,300 for child 

support purposes. However, the Trial Court also found that Wife could become a fulltime student and earn a two-year degree to become a medical assistant. This clearly was 

the basis for the Trial Court’s award of rehabilitative alimony. We find it difficult to 

square these findings. The one minor child was 16 at the time of trial. Wife had been a 

stay-at-home mother for decades, and she never earned any income during the marriage. 

If Wife is to be a full-time student for two years to increase her capacity for selfsufficiency, it is unrealistic and illogical to suppose she could work a full-time job during 
-15-

those two years as well. We vacate this portion of the Trial Court’s ruling, and child 

support is to be recalculated without imputing any income to Wife for that two year 

period.

The final issue we address is whether the Trial Court erred in not awarding Wife 

her attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. Regarding attorney’s fees as alimony in solido, 

our Supreme Court has stated:

It is well-settled that an award of attorney’s fees in a divorce case 

constitutes alimony in solido. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(1) 

(“alimony in solido may include attorney fees, where appropriate”); 

Herrera v. Herrera, 944 S.W.2d 379, 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). The 

decision whether to award attorney’s fees is within the sound discretion of 

the trial court. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d at 361; Kincaid v. Kincaid, 912 

S.W.2d 140, 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). As with any alimony award, in 

deciding whether to award attorney’s fees as alimony in solido, the trial 

court should consider the factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 36-5-121(i). A spouse with adequate property and income is not 

entitled to an award of alimony to pay attorney’s fees and expenses. 

Umstot v. Umstot, 968 S.W.2d 819, 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). Such 

awards are appropriate only when the spouse seeking them lacks sufficient 

funds to pay his or her own legal expenses, see Houghland v. Houghland, 

844 S.W.2d 619, 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), or the spouse would be 

required to deplete his or her resources in order to pay them, see Harwell v. 

Harwell, 612 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980). Thus, where the 

spouse seeking such an award has demonstrated that he or she is financially 

unable to procure counsel, and where the other spouse has the ability to 

pay, the court may properly grant an award of attorney’s fees as alimony. 

See id. at 185.

Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 113 (Tenn. 2011).

Wife argues in her brief on appeal as follows: “It is clear that the Wife does not 

have sufficient funds to pay her legal expenses and would have to deplete her resources 

awarded in this divorce action to pay her legal expenses.” Wife seeks the following: 

[T]hat Husband be ordered to reimburse her for the attorney fees that she 

has expended in this cause which would be $10,000.00, which is one-half 

the amount previously ordered by the trial court, this $10,000.00 reflecting 

the Wife’s portion of the parties joint tax refund and in addition, the 

$3,000.00 amount Wife paid subsequent to the $20,000.00 ordered by the 
-16-

trial court in the Order Granting Exclusive Occupancy of the Marital Home, 

Increase in Spousal Support and Award of Attorney Fees and Professional 

Fees filed on September 17, 2015 and subsequently modified by an Agreed 

Order filed on October 6, 2015.

Husband, for his part, testified at trial that he already paid Wife’s attorney’s bill in 

the amount of $20,000. Moreover, Wife’s assertion that she lacks sufficient funds to pay 

her legal expenses is not supported by the evidence. We disagree with Wife’s implicit 

position that an economically disadvantaged spouse automatically is entitled to an award 

of attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. That would negate the discretionary nature of the 

award, and Wife has failed to identify any abuse of discretion resulting in reversible error 

by the Trial Court. We affirm the Trial Court in its declining to award Wife attorney’s 

fees as alimony in solido.

In summary, we vacate that portion of the Trial Court’s decision imputing income 

to Wife for child support purposes, and child support is to be re-calculated accordingly. 

We affirm the Trial Court on all other issues. 

Conclusion

The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed as modified, and this cause is 

remanded to the Trial Court for collection of the costs below and such further 

proceedings as are necessary and consistent with this Opinion. The costs on appeal are 

assessed one-half equally against the Appellant, Stacy Lynn Santee, and her surety if any, 

and the Appellee, Robert Harvey Santee.

____________________________________

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE