Broadbent v. Broadbent
211 S.W.3d 216 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce proceeding, a court may award alimony in solido to compensate an economically disadvantaged spouse for the loss of their separate assets when that loss was caused by the other spouse's actions, particularly in a short-term marriage with no marital property to divide.
Facts:
- Shari Langhi, a kindergarten teacher, received substantial monetary gifts from her parents, which she invested conservatively in savings accounts and certificates of deposit before meeting Robert Broadbent.
- In 1998, prior to their marriage, Broadbent, a telecommunications analyst who traded heavily in the stock market, helped Langhi open investment accounts for her funds.
- Langhi testified she instructed Broadbent to invest her money only in low-risk blue chip stocks.
- In October 1999, Langhi gave Broadbent a Limited Power of Attorney, providing him direct access to her accounts.
- Broadbent proceeded to trade aggressively with Langhi's funds, investing mainly in technology stocks and trading on margin, which significantly increased the risk.
- The parties married in December 1999 but continued to live in their separate residences.
- During a stock market decline in 2000, the accounts Broadbent managed for Langhi suffered a loss of approximately $75,000 more than they would have had the funds remained in conservative investments.
- The parties separated in January 2001 after a marriage of approximately 13 months.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Broadbent filed for divorce against Shari Langhi in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, the trial court.
- Shari Langhi filed a counterclaim for divorce, requesting reimbursement for her separate funds lost by Mr. Broadbent's stock trading.
- The trial court granted the divorce to Ms. Langhi, found Mr. Broadbent 70% responsible for the loss of her funds, and ordered him to pay her $51,500 in alimony in solido.
- Mr. Broadbent (as appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the alimony award, holding that the trial court's use of a 'comparative fault' analysis was improper.
- Ms. Langhi (as appellant) petitioned for and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by awarding alimony in solido calculated by assigning a percentage of relative fault to each spouse for the investment loss of one spouse's separate property?
Opinions:
Majority - Janice M. Holder, J.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding alimony in solido based on the relative fault of the parties for the loss of one spouse's separate assets. The court reasoned that while dissipation of assets typically applies to the division of marital property, alimony statutes allow a court to consider the relative fault of the parties and other equitable factors. In a marriage of short duration where the primary goal is to restore the parties to their pre-marital financial positions, and where no marital property exists for equitable division, alimony in solido is a proper tool to compensate an economically disadvantaged spouse who was left in a worse financial situation due to the other spouse's conduct. The trial court's use of the term 'comparative fault' was imprecise, but its underlying analysis of each party's responsibility for the financial loss was a proper exercise of its discretion in crafting an equitable alimony award.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that alimony in solido can serve as a flexible equitable remedy, going beyond its traditional role of spousal support. It confirms that courts can use alimony to restore a spouse's separate property that was lost due to the other spouse's actions, effectively making the injured party whole. This is particularly significant in short-term marriages where the lack of accumulated marital property would otherwise leave the disadvantaged spouse with no remedy through property division. The court's approval of a 'relative fault' calculation for the amount of the award further entrenches the concept of fault as a key factor in the financial outcomes of a divorce.
