Divorce can seem heartless when it comes to considerations of expenditures for an adult child, especially when alimony is a consideration.
Griffin v. Griffin (Tenn. App. Ct. 2022)(No. M2021-00173-COA-R3-CV)
The two most important factors for the determination of alimony are as follows: 1) The disadvantaged spouse’s need and 2) the obligor spouse’s ability to pay. In Griffin, the appellate court reviewed Husband’s payments of their adult child’s expenses:
1) Medical insurance
2) Car insurance
3) Car loan payment
An Alimony Rule: Parents are generally not responsible for the expenses of their adult children. So, a court may deduct such expenses when assessing a parent’s ability to pay spousal support.
Medical Insurance: The trial court reduced the medical insurance premium by 25% (from $1,100 to $825). The only evidence was that removing the Wife from the medical insurance reduced the premium from $1,900 to $1,100. The Husband’s medical insurance policy was a flat rate for the inclusion of the dependents regardless of the number. The trial court used a “common sense” approach to deduct the adult child's portion of the premium by deciding to deduct 25% of the insurance premium. The appellate court found that the trial court erred with this arbitrary approach.
Car insurance: The trial court reduced the Husband’s car insurance premium by $142.95. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that if the adult son wanted to keep the car then he would pay the insurance.
Car loan payment: The trial court eliminated the $420.82 car payment. For equitable distribution, the trial court allocated the debt to the Husband, so the Husband argued that it was not reasonable that the court allocated the debt but did not count the monthly payment. Also, the trial court said that the Husband could pay the debt with his share of the liquid assets. The appellate court agreed with the trial court, especially given that if the adult child wanted to keep his car, then he would make the payments, and if he did not then his dad (the Husband) could sell the car to reduce his personal liability on the loan.
Another Alimony Rule with an Equitable Distribution consideration: Whether an expense can be satisfied from the assets awarded in a divorce does not determine the reasonableness of the expense. But whether an expense is reasonable depends on the circumstances. Courts may anticipate marital debt will be satisfied by liquid assets awarded in the divorce. Courts should consider which party is “best able to repay the debt” when allocating marital debts.
Moral of the story: Adult children are expected to be financially responsible adults; or another take away could be that you don’t get your child a car, of which your child cannot afford to make the payments.
Comments