 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roth v. Roth3/20/2001
Ms. Roth's testimony, and we have no basis to second-guess this decision. Accordingly, for the purpose of this appeal, we accredit the trial court's determination that Ms. Roth's physical condition impairs her from working full-time.
In her current circumstances, Ms. Roth is clearly economically disadvantaged when compared to Dr. Roth. Her part-time income cannot match Dr. Roth's income, and thus she will consistently lag behind his ability to support himself and accumulate capital assets for the future.
In addition, her ability to work outside the home is somewhat circumscribed because she received custody of the parties' children. Thus, it is evident that Ms. Roth will be unable to approach her pre- divorce standard of living if she is forced to rely upon her part-time salary as her sole means of support. Based on the length of the marriage, the manner in which the trial court divided the marital estate, Ms. Roth's physical condition, the fact that she received custody of the parties' children, her monetary and non-monetary contributions to the marriage, the standard of living the parties established during the marriage, Dr. Roth's responsibility for precipitating the demise of the marriage, and Dr. Roth's ability to pay spousal support, we have concluded that the trial court did not err by deciding to award Ms. Roth "closing in money" in the amount of $1,000 per month.
III.
We affirm the final divorce decree as modified by this opinion and remand the case to the trial court for whatever further proceedings may be required. We tax the costs of this appeal to Richard Daniel Roth and his surety for which execution, if necessary, may issue.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|