Anupam Singla v. Anupam Garg Singla

11/27/2018

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

July 11, 2018 Session

ANUPAM SINGLA v. ANUPAM GARG SINGLA

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County

No. 44502 Joseph A. Woodruff, Chancellor

No. M2017-01278-COA-R3-CV

Anupam Singla (“Husband”) appeals the May 23, 2017 final order and judgment of the

Chancery Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”), which, among other things,

awarded Anupam Garg Singla (“Wife”) a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital

conduct, found that Husband had dissipated marital assets, divided the marital property,

awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro, and entered a Permanent

Parenting Plan for the parties’ minor child. Husband raises issues regarding the awards

of alimony, the finding that he dissipated marital assets, and whether the distribution of

marital assets was equitable. We find and hold that the Trial Court did not err in finding

that Husband had dissipated marital assets, but we modify the finding to reflect that

Husband dissipated only $73,010 in marital assets. We further find and hold that the

Trial Court did not err in awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro,

and that the Trial Court did not err in its division of the marital assets. We, therefore,

affirm.

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 RICHARD H.

DINKINS and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.

Loren A. Sanderson, Murfreesboro, and John Heacock, Nashville, Tennessee, for the

appellant, Anupam Singla.

Neil Campbell, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Anupam Garg Singla.

OPINION

Background

Husband and Wife were married in December of 2006. One minor child (“the

Child”) was born of the marriage. Husband filed for divorce in September of 2015. The

case proceeded to trial in April of 2017.

Husband testified at trial that he was 40 years old.1 He explained that he is from

India. He is not a United States citizen but instead is a permanent United States resident

who holds a Green Card. Husband has a Bachelor’s Degree in science and a Master’s

Degree in computer applications, both of which he obtained from universities in India.

Husband met Wife in India in December of 2006. Husband explained that their

marriage was an arranged marriage and that they were married in December of 2006.

Husband was working in the United States at the time of the marriage. Husband had

been working in the United States for 11 months prior to the marriage. Prior to the

marriage, Wife was a teacher teaching computer science to middle and high school

students in India. Wife has a Master’s Degree in computer science, which she obtained

from a university in India. Wife moved to the United States a few weeks after the

marriage, and the parties initially resided in California where Husband was employed by

a bank.

Husband testified that Wife obtained a work permit within the first year of the

marriage. Wife obtained a driver’s license in 2012. Wife, however, did not obtain a job

in the United States until 2014. The Child was born in 2009, and Wife stayed home with

the Child until February of 2014, when Wife obtained a job in an export house. Husband

testified that Wife had attempted to apply for information technology (“IT”) jobs in 2009

and 2010, but was not hired for those jobs.

Husband testified that Wife went to India in 2013 to visit her family. Wife was in

India for approximately two months and three weeks. Husband cared for the Child while

Wife was in India. At that time, Husband’s parents came to live with Husband to assist

him.

Husband admitted recording Wife’s telephone calls in 2013 without her

knowledge. Husband also admitted that he denied recording Wife’s telephone calls when

1

As this case is factually intensive, we find it necessary to state in detail the evidence presented and the

Trial Court’s order.

2

he first was questioned about recording the calls. Husband claimed that he could not

remember how many times he had recorded Wife.

Husband filed for divorce in California in 2013, but later dismissed the suit. He

admitted that he made cash withdrawals of $10,000 and $4,000 from his accounts in

2013. When asked the purpose of those withdrawals, Husband stated that he thought that

the money was used as a down payment for his Toyota Highlander.

In December of 2014, the parties moved to Louisville, Kentucky. Husband

testified that the parties lived in Louisville for three to four months before moving to

Franklin, Tennessee.

Husband testified that the parties had an argument in August of 2015. Husband

left the apartment where they lived and stayed in a hotel for a while. Husband testified

that he returned to the apartment on September 7th and discovered that Wife and the

Child no longer were living there. Husband later discovered that Wife had moved to

Ohio with the Child. Husband filed for divorce, and Wife returned to Franklin,

Tennessee on October 6, 2015.

Husband was questioned further about the parties’ separation on August 28, 2015

when he left the apartment, returned to find Wife still there, left again, and then returned

to find Wife gone. He was asked if he told Wife to leave, and he stated:

I -- I asked like we cannot no longer live together and then I asked her like

you can find a like a one bedroom apartment so that, you know, even I’m

looking for that and we can split rent. . . . No, no, not to leave. I asked her

to look for a one bedroom apartment as I’m - - as I’m already left this home

and I’m also looking for the same.

Husband was asked if he terminated the lease on the apartment, and he stated:

“No, I didn’t I - - it’s like a notice, which I said, I’m not - - I - - I’m not going to stay in

this apartment and she’s also a joint leaseholder as an adult which is apartment policy.”

Husband was asked if he remembered stating during his deposition that he submitted a

termination of the lease and told Wife she needed to look for a new apartment, and he

stated: “No, I didn’t say, she needed to look - - yes, I said like - - that’s I - - I - - I - -

you’re making me repeat only, it’s the same thing. I asked her to look for a one bedroom

apartment. I never asked her to leave, that doesn’t mean I asked her to leave.” Husband

was asked why he told Wife to look for a one-bedroom apartment, and he stated:

“Because if we’re going to stay alone, if we’re not staying together, so that we could just

split rent, we’ll have to pay less.” He was asked what he expected would happen to the

two-bedroom apartment the parties had been living in, and he stated “that will eventually

3

go away like - - . . . .” When questioned further, Husband admitted that he did submit a

notice to terminate the lease.

Husband was asked what he expected would happen to Wife when he submitted

the lease termination, and he stated that it was a two-month notice and that she could stay

there for 60 days and pay the charges and within that time could find another apartment.

Husband admitted that at that time he was employed, and Wife was not. Husband was

asked how Wife was supposed to pay for an apartment, and he stated:

No, still like even if she maintains it or lives in the same apartment, if she

goes back to the apartment and says, hey, I’m going to live here only, and

then the apartment they will come after me to pay for the rent. I’m not

saying they have to come after me. It is still me who has to clear the dues

and if she decided to move to another one bedroom and that’s what I

offered her, that’s exactly what I said, like if you move, of course, I’m

going to pay.

Husband admitted when pressed that he gave Wife no money in July of 2015. He

further admitted that in August of 2015 he gave Wife only $200, and in September of

2015 he gave Wife only $300. Husband admitted that he did not transfer any more

money to Wife until October of 2015 after she returned from Ohio. At that time,

Husband paid Wife $1,700 in temporary support. Husband admitted that he did not take

the Child with him when he moved out.

Husband was asked if he ever called Wife a ‘zero person,’ and he denied doing so.

Husband then was shown a copy of his deposition wherein he admitted to doing this, and

he stated: “No, I - - I don’t accept that.” A portion of Husband’s deposition was read at

trial wherein Husband first denied calling Wife a zero person and then finally admitted

that he might have done so in anger. Husband claimed he could not recall saying that.

Husband denied hitting Wife, twisting her arm, pulling her around by her nose, throwing

a chair at her, and causing her to bleed or bruise.

Husband testified that he has a 401(k) with a value of approximately $93,000. In

2015, Husband took a loan against his 401(k) to start a business. Husband testified that

he obtained a loan of $43,600 and has been paying it back. The business Husband started

is JS Exports. Husband testified that JS Exports was both opened and closed in 2015.

Husband stated that the business “was about exporting of cardboard so like there are

paper mills back in India, so it was that’s used as raw material there in those mills.”

Husband testified that he made no money from JS Exports. He also testified that Wife

knew about the business. He stated that it was formed in her name:

4

because she wanted to do something and while she was looking for job, and

so - - so that’s what we thought we talked with each about this is an

opportunity probably we can make - - start a business and then I will be just

supporting you for, you know, finding clients on that. So that’s what we

discussed in between, and that’s why this company was formed and the

business was started.

Husband testified that Wife was to be the owner of the business and stated that they “both

will support each other and I will also help her in running the business.” Husband was

asked what role he would have in the business, and he stated: “Finding clients, basically

who can provide us raw material and doing export paperwork.” Husband testified that

the tax return for the business “showed a no business activity on that, so there was no

profit, no loss, no return.” On his income and expense statement, Husband listed the

value of JS Exports as $4,000 and stated that he has 50% ownership of the business.

Husband owns a 2007 Toyota Highlander, which was purchased in January of

2013. On August 14, 2015, shortly before the parties separated, Husband purchased a

2013 BMW 528i xDrive. Husband testified that the BMW cost around $42,000 and that

he put $12,000 down and financed the remainder. He testified that he took $6,000 from

his 401(k) and the other $6,000 for the down payment came from his bank account.

Husband testified that the current value of the BMW is approximately $21,980. Husband

owes $21,116 on the BMW. Husband testified that he drives both the BMW and his

Toyota Highlander. He was asked why he needed a BMW when he had a Toyota

Highlander, and he stated: “I just have two vehicles. One vehicle is already transferred

on wife’s name - - so I have two vehicles and one has already been transferred to wife’s

name.” When questioned further, Husband admitted that he has both the BMW and the

Toyota Highlander and that Wife has a Toyota Camry. Husband admitted that there is

nothing wrong with the Toyota Highlander and that it is fully operational. He also

admitted when questioned further that he did not need the BMW and that the expense and

insurance, which he listed on his income and expense statement as $518 per month, is

unnecessary.

Husband is employed by Cognizant Technologies. Husband testified that his

annual salary is approximately $130,000, and he is also eligible for a 10% bonus.

Husband stated, however, that the bonus is not guaranteed. Husband’s tax return showed

his income for 2016 as $137,685.58.

Husband asserted that Wife needs alimony for only two or three years. He

testified that Wife is qualified to work in the IT field and as a teacher and that Wife

would need three to six months of vocational training to qualify for an entry level

position. Husband testified that Wife then could earn $65,000 per year. Husband was

5

asked if his communication skills were better than Wife’s and he stated: “We at - - at the

same level.” When questioned further, Husband admitted that Wife will need basic skill

training and classes to help her communication skills.

Husband admitted that he agreed during the parties’ mediation to give Wife one-

half of the parties’ tax refund for 2015. He admitted that at the time of trial he had given

her none of that money. Husband claimed he owed Wife $900 for the tax refund.

Husband admitted that the full refund was $3,552. He was asked why he claimed to owe

Wife only $900, and he stated: “Actually I paid for tax filing through consultant so that’s

- - that’s what I’m just taking off from this figure.” When pushed, Husband admitted that

he owes Wife $1,776 for the tax refund. Husband also admitted that the order entered

from the mediation stated that he agreed to pay that money within three days of receipt of

the refund. Husband received the refund in June or July of 2016. He still had not paid

Wife her share by the time of trial in April of 2017. When asked why he had not yet paid

Wife, Husband stated: “Sir, it is just my mistake, like, I should have.”

Husband also agreed that he was ordered to pay Wife $12,731. Husband admitted

he wrote a check on June 26, 2016 for $12,500, and that he then stopped payment on that

check before Wife could cash the check. He stated: “Yes. So at the time of my

mediation when this Agreed Order was entered so I was not given a copy of it and my

attorney was on leave and when I wrote a check, I wrote it for $12,500, but later I learned

this check is $12,731, and I stopped this check and give her a cashier’s check for the

correct amount.” Husband admitted that the order provided that he was to pay Wife no

later than the close of business on May 27, 2016. Husband was asked why he didn’t even

write the first check until June 26th, and he stated:

I - - I - - let me clarify. Because it was an Agreed Order, entered order in

which I was in agreement to. It was never my intention at any point of time

to not pay her dues; right. So I - - I don’t exactly recall what happened why

it was late, but yeah, there was some mess up there because I was not

having the Order and I want to - - something happened in - - during that

period but I made all of my, you know, best effort attempt because it’s an

Agreed Order. I can not evade that in any case. . . . No, it’s just my

negligence, and it’s all as an Agreed Order and I have to pay what I have to

pay. . . . Actually let me clarify you on that. Because we were separated

and we had to file income tax year for the year 2015, and so there were two

ways of filing that income tax return as a head of household or as a joint,

married, filing jointly and I also had to take an extension to file my taxes

because I was filing for both my parents and I had to personally appear in

the Nashville office so that - - so during that period the amount which I’m

supposed to pay I didn’t even know, right, what amount I’m getting

6

refunded to tax return. So there were so many things going on during that

period, but it was never my intention to never pay her half of that tax

return.

The $12,771 eventually was paid to Wife, but Husband admitted that Wife had to file

motions to compel the payment.

Husband testified that his parents have been living with him for almost two years.

Husband’s parents are not permanent United States residents, but Husband plans to assist

them in obtaining Green Cards. Husband admitted that he filed an affidavit that stated

that he was giving his parents $500 per month in support. When asked if he testified

during deposition that he was giving his parents $800 to $900 per month, he stated that he

could not recall but did not deny making this statement. Husband again was asked how

much he was giving his parents, and he stated: “Like for last two years they living with

me so there is no separate money I’m paying right now.” Husband then was asked why

he listed a payment of $500 per month to his parents on his income and expense

statement, and he stated: “That’s because when they are in India that’s - - that’s the

money generally like on an average I would give to my parents.”

Husband was asked why during discovery he did not disclose bank account . . .

4257, and he stated: “Because even I didn’t know that - - that bank account exists.” He

admitted that he had claimed this account did not exist, and he stated: “Yes, I said like to

the best of my knowledge I don’t have that bank account.” Husband also previously

denied having accounts . . . 4564 and . . . 6194. When questioned at trial, Husband

admitted that he did have accounts 4257, 4564, and 6194, all with Bank of America.

Husband claimed these accounts were closed in 2013 or 2014, and stated in his

deposition in 2015 that they were “not operational.” At trial, it was shown that account

4257 was closed in March of 2015, account 4564 was closed in January of 2014, and

account 6194 was closed in July of 2014.

Husband was asked if he remembered being asked to produce information

regarding every account he had closed or opened within the last five years, and he agreed

that he was asked to produce this information. He was asked why he did not disclose

those accounts when requested during discovery, and Husband stated: “Because I was not

aware of at the time of my discovery like I’d had these accounts and I - - I didn’t even

remember at that time of the discovery like disclosing these accounts like this happened,

they are - - I have to get - - .” Husband claimed he forgot about those accounts.

Husband admitted that he transferred $5,000 to account 4257 in December of

2014. He claimed that he does not remember why he transferred this money. He also

7

admitted that on that same day he transferred $6,300 to account 4257. When asked why

he transferred this money, Husband stated:

Yes. I remember. So I was running a loan from my Sony and prior

401(k) loan and when I quit my company you have to either repay back the

remaining balance or you have to take a penalty, so that I never wanted to

do. So I loaned this money from my sister Sapno so on 12/4/2014 for the

amounts if $6,000, and that money I transferred to the 4257, and then I paid

it to the JMC - - paid back that loan amount so that was the purpose.

Husband claimed that the $6,000 came from his sister. Husband testified that he took this

loan from his sister in December of 2014, to pay back the 401(k) loan he had taken before

he left Sony. He claimed that he paid it back after he had filed for divorce. Husband

admitted that during discovery he disclosed no debt owed to a sister or to any friend. He

stated: “Yes, at that point of time, and I had knowed at that point in time.”

Husband claimed that account 4564 was closed in 2012 because it had been

hacked. He was shown evidence of transfers from that account happening in 2014 and

was asked why he did not disclose the account, and he stated: “Because I didn’t even

remember all the closed accounts and that was the sole reason.”

Husband admitted that he transferred $4,000 to Jaglesh Singla on May 26, 2011.

Jaglesh Singla is Husband’s father. When asked what the purpose of the transfer was,

Husband stated:

The purpose of transfer was like we, my wife and my friend, Bradish

they had started a business for the kids at (inaudible) import back from

India and so we got our stuff manufactured from India and for that import,

the - - the Apple which we imported from India, so we paid that money to

the manufacturer and my father was like he used to have a company back in

India and he was getting all of the manufacturing done from different

manufacturers, contacting them, getting it packaged and doing all export

paperwork, and sending it over to us over here, so for that I transferred this

money.

Husband was asked if Wife was aware of this, and he stated “Yes, she was owner of the

business. She knew it.” The business was Globus Trans, LLC. Husband was asked why

he had stated that Wife did not work from the date of the marriage until 2014 if she had

been running this business, and he stated: “She - - she did - - she did - - she was not an

employee of the company but she was running a business so that’s what I mean.”

8

Husband also admitted that he transferred $8,500 to Mr. Singla in August of 2011, which

he claimed was for the same purpose.

Husband claimed a loss on the parties’ income tax returns for 2012 and 2013 for

the Globus Trans, LLC business. Husband testified that Wife’s name was listed on the

business, and they filed tax returns jointly. He testified that they claimed a $7,551 loss

for 2012 and a $13,143 loss for 2013.

In September of 2014, Husband transferred $4,000 to Asa Brojachia. Husband

claimed Mr. Brojachia was a partner in the exporting business and that Mr. Brojachia

gave him the money, and Husband just returned that money. When asked to clarify if

what he was saying was that his partner put money in the business and that Husband paid

him back, Husband stated: “No. So there has some other transactions with the partner,

we need to try the whole picture over here to understand the whole thing of it like - - but

that was one of the reasons.” Husband agreed when asked that this was a debt to him and

that he did not disclose this in discovery. He also admitted that the money did not come

from a business account, but instead came from his personal account.

Husband transferred $11,005 to ICICI Bank in India from one of the accounts he

had failed to disclose, account 4564. Husband claimed he never had an ICICI bank

account. Husband claimed his father owns the ICICI account. When asked why he

transferred money to his father’s account, Husband stated: “So all these accounts they are

my father’s accounts and the one matching with Jaglesh Singla, they are all ICIC

accounts of my father and so the money was sent for the same purpose.” Husband was

asked why if the purpose was business-related the money was not transferred from the

Wells Fargo business account, and he stated:

I don’t remember exactly why I did that, and we use to fund this

business from two sources that was my salaried account, so 4564 was my

salary account at that time and we also used to fund this business from

Bradish account who was the owner with my wife.

Husband then was asked why he had testified during his deposition that Wife did

not have access to any of his other bank accounts, and he stated: “I - - this is coming from

2011 and my depositions happen in 2015.” Husband admitted that he had testified that

Wife did not have access for ten years. He stated: Yes, to the best of my knowledge, I

said yes.” Husband was asked if when he stated that ‘they’ had funded what he really

meant was that ‘he’ had funded and that Wife had nothing to do with it, and he stated:

“Yes, because she was not owning at that time. . . . So, in fact, I was helping to set up a

business under her name.” Husband was asked if the transfers benefitted the marriage,

and he stated:

9

What I believe is like a - - because I was married to Indian wife and

we have an Indian culture and if wife’s father is not earning anything then

that’s part of our culture like we support our parents who has no other

source of income, and that’s directly or indirectly for the benefit of

marriage only. The way you may want to put it.

Husband admitted transferring $1,468.75 to his father’s account in India and stated

that money was for the living expenses he gave to his parents. Husband was asked if that

transfer had no marital purpose, and he stated: “Yes, as per US law, yes.”

Husband admitted he made a transfer of $7,500 on April 25, 2012 to his Citibank

India account. He admitted that he had testified during his deposition that he could not

access the statements for that account. Husband made a second transfer of $7,500 to his

account in India in June of 2012. Husband was asked several times where the money

now was, and he finally answered: “No, it’s not in the Citibank in India. That money was

transferred to my parents before filing of this divorce.”

During discovery, Husband stated that he had made no wire transfers during the

last five years. At trial, Husband admitted that this was not true. He was asked why he

had claimed he had made no wire transfers, and he first stated that his prior attorney

represented that the scope of the inquiry was only two years and then when questioned

further about whether he was blaming counsel he stated: “No sir, I’m not saying that. . . .

So I just forgot to provide these statements. I had to - - those were like these statements

are - - were like more than three years back at that time.”

Husband received a deposit of $10,000 in June of 2013. He was asked what that

money was for, and he stated: “It’s like between my brother-in-law, sister and myself,

like on different occasions, I used to take money, you know, for - - I - - I don’t remember

the reason why I - - I took money at that point.” Husband claimed he paid that money

back.

Between April 23, 2015 and June 23, 2015 Husband transferred 2,000,291 rupees

to his parents. Husband claimed that at that time the exchange rate was around 65 rupees

per dollar, making the amount in dollars $35,246. When asked to clarify, Husband

agreed that he transferred approximately $36,000 to his mother. He admitted that during

discovery he claimed he had transferred $29,000 to his parents not $36,000, and that this

statement was not correct. Husband stated: “Yes, because as I previously testified, I had

no access to the account so that’s what I - - the best of my knowledge I gave.” Husband

testified that the money still is sitting in his mother’s account. When asked, Husband

agreed that his mother is holding the money for him. Husband testified that the money

10

his mother is holding for him is different from the $800 to $900 he gives his parents

monthly.

When questioned, Husband admitted that while the divorce was pending, he

withdrew approximately $8,100 from his accounts in 2016 and $8,155 in 2017.

Wife testified at trial about Husband’s behavior toward her. She stated that

Husband would:

squeeze my face and tap on my head. He pulled my hair also. He slapped

me, he turned - - he turned my arm at the back and pushed me on the bed.

He pulled my nose. He pulled my [necklace] chain also. . . . And tapped

on my head and he threw things on me. He threw the kids book, the

Charlotte kid’s books on me from for me, like he was sitting here and he

threw books on me, like. . . . Yeah, books. The fat books, small, fat books

he threw them.

When my daughter was three years old, she had some books, like fat

books, he threw them on me. . . . In the beginning was fine but eventually,

he was - - eventually he was - - he wasn’t pleasing. Like if I - - I was not

stopping him. So he thought he would - - he would not do anything. He

was getting - - he - - he - - he gets anger . . . - - very soon and then when he

feels that, when he gets angry, then he hits me. . . . In the - - in the

beginning, he used to, like in - - it was, you know, in 2008, it was fine. He

was - - once he just - - he got angry and he threw the tea on the wall and

then his father came in 2000 - - 2007 or ’08, I showed him that - - that he

threw the tea on the wall. There was a tea still there and he said, I used to

throw the plate, his father said, I used to throw the plate. . . . In 2012, when

he came to know, like nothing is in my name. I’m - - I’m not having plot

on property, on my name, then his behavior getting change. He was - - he -

- he pulled my hair in 2012 and dragged me and send me and my daughter

in to India in 2012.

Wife testified that Husband has called her names. She stated: “He called me daughter of

donkey. He called me dog’s tail. He called me bitch. . . . [H]e called me zero-person.”

When she was asked what Husband meant by that, Wife stated:

I think my communication skill is not good and whenever we go - - goes to

some store, in front of sales person, he - - he - - he said, you will talk to me

in English, okay? You will talk to me in English, like this. Then if we

were discussing in Hindi, then he used to say, you will talk to me in English

11

in front - - in front of the sales person. Then - - then at home also, he - - if

I’m not able to do what he - - the way he wants, then he calls me zero-

person.

Wife testified that she and the Child went to India from March of 2012 until the

first week of June of 2012. In 2013, Wife again wanted to go to India to visit her father.

She wanted to take the Child with her, but Husband refused to give Wife the Child’s

passport. Wife testified that she did not have access to her own passport or the Child’s.

Husband kept the passports in a bank locker, which he alone could access. Wife testified

that she went to India alone in September of 2013. Wife stated that she went to India

because her father was ill and upset about her relationship with Husband.

Wife testified about what happened when she returned to the United States after

visiting her father in 2013. She stated:

When I came back to America, I called from the airport. He did not

answer. Then I went to - - I - - I went to home by taxi, nobody was at

home. And then I went to the landlord. He said, I’ll come back to this

home in the afternoon and he took [the Child] with her, and when he gave

the keys of the apartment, it was a single family home we were renting. He

gave me the keys of the home and he said that when I opened the home,

there was no stuff inside the home, only one bed was there. No Internet.

When asked if she was saying that when she returned to the home she found that

Husband had taken the Child and moved to a new residence, Wife agreed that was what

she was saying. Wife testified that she previously had notified Husband by email when

she would return. Wife testified that the next day she went to the landlord, and the

landlord called Husband. Husband then brought the Child to Wife. Wife lived with the

Child in the marital home for a few days, and then Husband told her she needed to move.

Wife found a space in a group home where she lived from December 15, 2013 until the

end of March of 2014 before the parties reunited and resumed living together.

Wife testified that the parties went to Best Buy in January of 2015 to purchase a

washer and dryer. Husband asked Wife to open an account, which was used to purchase

the washer and dryer. Husband still has the washer and dryer. In February of 2016, Wife

learned that Husband was not making payments on the account. She testified that she

called Best Buy, and stated:

When I called them, Best Buy, customer in service, they said the

payment had not been made on this account. And then I - - then I asked

from them the - - what the balance. Well, the balance was more than

12

expected. Then I asked them how it is possible, it was - - we bought only

washer dryer from that. They give me the list. They give two, three items.

They telling me that you bought some $500 camera or phone, and there was

two, three - - two or three more purchase, and it happened after he filed the

divorce. It was in October and December.

Then on hearing that, I requested that guy to can you please stop on

the purchases because I told him that this Best Buy card is not with me and

I don’t want no further purchases on that card.

Wife cannot close the Best Buy account because a balance is due. Husband has the card

for the account. Wife was asked if she knew why Husband stopped paying on the

account, and she stated: “He said that I - - I put stop on purchases and that he was - - he

felt angry and that’s why he stopped the payment on that.”

Wife was asked if she consented to Husband purchasing the BMW, and she stated:

“No. On the day of - - on the day they were going to buy the BMW, that day he told me

that he was going to buy the BMW and that’s why he said they’re going to New York.”

Husband flew to New York to purchase the BMW.

Wife testified that she was not told when Husband opened JS Exports. Wife never

did any work for JS Exports. Wife testified that she had heard that Husband had JS

Exports, but was not aware until Husband testified at trial that the business was in her

name. Wife was asked what she knew about the Globus Trans business, and she stated:

“Globus Trans, it - - it - - it was opened in 2010 on my name, and it was opened for kids,

April.” Wife never did any work for Globus Trans and never had access to the Globus

Trans accounts. Wife was aware that Husband had used her name for that business

because she stated: “[h]e said, well, we will open the business on your name because he’s

already working and cannot have open business on his name.”

Husband’s parents began living with the parties in May of 2015, several months

prior to the separation. Wife was asked about what happened in August of 2015 when

the parties separated, and she stated:

He - - last week of August, he was very - - with me. He hit me a

number of times. He threw a chair on me, he threw a chair on me in the last

week of August, and he - - he hit me very badly that week. Then in 28 of

August, he left home with his father, and on 29th or 30th, they came, they

all came. They took all his belongings and on the 2nd - - on 2nd of

September, they came back again, his mother, he, they all came back and

they said - - he said he has canceled the lease, he has broke the lease so you

13

have to leave this apartment and you go to some one bedroom apartment. I

said I will not leave this apartment. Then he just show me his big eyes and

said, if you will not leave this apartment, then you will have to pay the rent

and food. I said, I be - - how I will pay? Then he said, ask your father for

the rent and food, and then he - - then he - - then I - - I said, I don’t have

any money to go to the eye doctor. I was - - I was having an eye problem.

Then he smiled. He smiled and they left. And he said, I will ruin your life,

I will show what I am.

Wife testified that some of the assaults happened in front of the Child or Husband’s

father. Husband’s father did not assist Wife. Wife testified that Husband had stated: “I

will kill you and your family, I will kill you and your family . . . .” Wife testified that she

“thought it wasn’t safe . . . ,” and in September she went to the police about Husband’s

conduct. At that time, Wife had $27 in her account, about $70 or $80 in cash, and a

credit card with a limit of $600.

When Wife left the parties’ apartment, she and the Child went to stay with a

family friend in Ohio. They stayed in Ohio for a month. Wife was asked what she took

when she left the apartment, and she stated: “Nothing. I had only my purse with me.”

Wife texted Husband from Ohio telling him she needed the Child’s birth certificate to

enroll the Child in school, and Husband texted back a photo of a temporary restraining

order he had obtained. Wife returned to Tennessee on October 4, 2015. The parties then

agreed to a temporary parenting plan.

Wife was asked how many times she has lived on her own during her lifetime, and

she stated: “I never have been. I was with my parents early; after marriage, I was living

with him.” Wife explained that she was 28 years old at the time of the marriage and had

lived with her parents her entire life.

Wife has a Master’s in computer science, and she worked in India as a teacher

teaching basic computer knowledge to kids from 2005 through the date of the marriage in

December of 2006. Wife did not work from 2007 to 2014.

Wife was questioned about the job she held in 2014, and she testified that she

worked in an Indian warehouse. She stated:

It was an office job where I was taking care of the sales. I was

making the invoices, and I was taking care of the purchases also. I was

making purchasing orders and bought things, what I was doing. And I was

communicating with the clients on the phone. . . . It’s a - - it’s an Indian

14

store. It’s Indian warehouse. It’s a warehouse of Indian products, grocery,

and I used to - - I was a sales - - like sales person there.

The clients were Indian store owners. Wife made $10 per hour and earned approximately

$14,000 that year. Her salary was used to send the Child to private school, pay for the

Child’s tutoring, and pay for groceries. Wife was employed for approximately one year,

and then the parties moved because Husband got transferred to Kentucky.

When asked if she had done anything to obtain a job since the filing of the

divorce, Wife stated:

Yes. In - - in December, I joined a - - I - - I called a recruiter and

they - - I paid them fees, $500. They said they will help me get in a job

also and they will prepare me also for the job, and the training went for two

months and - - and then they were - - they just - - well, practical, like

practical. They involve very practical knowledge. I was looking for a

practical knowledge but they are not providing practical knowledge. . . .

The training was in quality assurance testing, and they - - for what they

teach us, teach me, there were seven other people in the - - all the training.

They were teaching us practical part of the QA testing and the practical part

was very little, not up to the - - where we need to be, the - - the - - we need

to go for a job, like I can say that I can work, it’s not up to that.

Wife stated that she also:

took the subscription of - - with me. . . . It’s called You and Me. You need

the online courses that you can pay and buy them, and you can see them

throughout your life. So I buy those and I start - - I watched - - watched

those videos and - - and I - - I prepared for the interview. I did my best to

prepare for them by August, and then I started applying in IT jobs but I - - I

applied in a number of IT jobs but only HC Company, they didn’t like that.

Wife testified that she also applied to two other companies, but could not remember the

names of those companies. She also applied for a secretarial position with the Tennessee

government and for another position with the government. Wife testified that for one of

those government jobs she received an email telling her that the position already had been

filled and for the other she was told she was not qualified. Wife had one interview, but

did not get the job. Wife also applied at Macy’s. Macy’s interviewed Wife and told her

she would need to work the night shift and weekends. Wife stated that she cannot work

these shifts because of the Child.

15

Wife attempted to obtain financial aid to attend classes at Columbia State

Community College, but was told that on the basis of her tax return she could obtain a

loan but not a scholarship. Wife did not take the loan because she could not repay it.

Wife testified that the class she wanted to take cost $4,000. She was asked why she

wanted to take this class, and she stated:

Actually, my - - I did my college masters in 2004 and there’s a gap

of 13 years. If I go for the employment, then they - - when they see the

gap, they just - - they - - because they all seen the gap, they don’t like it. So

I just want to put the one certification on my resume so - - so that it will be

picked up, my information will be picked up.

If Wife takes the class she expects to be able make $10 per hour. If she is able to obtain

an IT job, Wife thinks she could make “anywhere from $15 to $20, $22” per hour. Wife

testified that she needs to have her transcripts from India translated into English and

evaluated in order to attend college.

Wife was asked if she wants to work in the IT field, and she stated: “Yes, I do. . . .

The IT, I want to go learn software testing, and I want to go in that field also. I will try

my best - - . . . for first year.” Wife did some training in 2009 to be a quality assurance

tester, but the training was not completed because the instructor left. Wife completed 18

or 20 hours of training. Wife testified that she would like to receive training to become a

quality assurance tester. She never has worked in that field and so does not know how to

do documentation. When questioned, Wife admitted that she now could do a basic

quality assurance job.

After the parties separated, Wife borrowed $9,900 from Babeek Sharma, the son

of one of her father’s friends, in installments in approximately March, May, and

November: “Because I was not getting my daily expenditures in March and I left with

only $47, then I - - then I - - he helped me by transferring money in my account.” Wife

has paid back $4,000. Wife owes $10,250 to Ahwan Singla, a friend of her father’s, who

paid her attorney’s fees directly to her attorney and who also gave Wife money for

clothes and food in September of 2015. Wife has not paid back any of this loan.

During the pendency of the divorce, Wife looked at the bank statements and

learned that Husband had spent about $19,000 on gold and silver. Wife has none of that

gold and silver in her possession. Wife was gifted jewelry upon the marriage, and

Husband’s mother now has possession of some of that jewelry.

After trial, the Trial Court entered its detailed Memorandum and Order on May

23, 2017, inter alia, awarding Wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital

16

conduct, finding that Husband had dissipated marital assets, dividing the marital property,

awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro, and entering a Permanent

Parenting Plan for the parties’ minor child, after finding and holding, inter alia:

On June 21, 2016, following an attempt at mediation, Judge Michael

W. Binkley, Chancellor, entered an Agreed Order, requiring Husband to

distribute to Wife the sum of $12,731.00, characterized as a partial

equitable distribution of marital assets. Husband was also ordered to pay to

Wife one-half of the parties’ 2015 federal individual income tax refund

within three days of Husband’s receipt of the refund. Husband received the

Parties’ income tax refund in the total amount of $3,552.00, but did not

remit any portion of Wife’s one-half share ($1,776.00) until ordered to do

so in open court on April 21, 2017.

On October 13, 2016 Wife filed a Motion seeking sanctions against

Husband for discovery abuses, as well as failure to comply with the Court’s

Order of July 15, 2016. This Motion for Sanctions was heard the morning

of trial. This Court granted Wife partial relief for Husband’s failure to

comply with discovery by excluding Husband’s untimely disclosed

contemplated expert witnesses from testifying. The Court also ordered

Husband to remit Wife’s share of the 2015 income tax refund.

DISCUSSION

A. Findings of Fact

This is an arranged marriage of eleven (11) years duration. The

parties were introduced to each other in early December 2006 through their

respective extended families and were married in India on December 14,

2006. At the time of the marriage, Husband was thirty (30) years of age,

and had been working in the information technology field in the United

States for five years. Husband was born May 11, 1976, in the Indian state

of Punjab and is forty-one (41) years old. He is a citizen of the Republic of

India, but is an authorized permanent resident alien in the United States.

Husband holds the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in physics, and a

master’s degree in computer science. Husband purports to be in good

physical and emotional/mental health.

Wife was born on September 11, 1978 in Punjab and is now thirty-

nine (39) years old. She was twenty-eight (28) years old at the time of the

arranged marriage to Husband. She also is an Indian citizen and a

17

permanent resident alien in the United States. She was working in India

teaching computer science classes to students, in the Indian school

equivalent of 8th through 10th grade, prior to her move to the United States.

She holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in computer science by Indian

universities. Wife was diagnosed several years ago with hypothyroidism,

for which condition she takes a daily dose of synthetic thyroid hormone.

Apart from occasional fatigue, Wife reports no acute symptoms associated

with this condition. Wife also sought and received treatment for situational

depression shortly after Husband filed for divorce. She was prescribed a

90-day course of anti-depressant medication, which she completed.

Through exercise and mental health counseling, Wife believes she no

longer needs medication for depression and has not refilled the earlier

prescription.

Husband and Wife have one child (hereinafter referred to as Child), .

. . born in the United States. At the time of trial, Child is about to complete

her second grade year . . . [of school].

In January 2007, Wife resigned her teaching position in India and

migrated to the United States in order to be with Husband. The parties

initially made their marital home in Lake Forrest, California. Wife was

granted a United States work permit in October 2007, but at Husband’s

request, Wife eschewed employment for a time in order to devote herself to

family life and her role as Husband’s spouse.

Child was born while the parties lived in California. Husband

devoted his energies toward generating income through employment, while

Wife invested her time in caring for Child and making a home for the

family. Although Husband did, from time to time, care for Child’s needs,

Wife performed the vast majority of day-to-day child care and supervision.

In 2012, Wife took a two-month trip to India with Child, so that

Child could meet her maternal grandparents and other members of Wife’s

extended family. Wife and Child returned from India to the United States

where they resumed living with Husband in the apartment Husband had

rented for the marital residence.

In 2013, Wife again planned such a trip to India. The trip was

motivated, in part, by a report Wife received from one of her sisters in India

to the effect that Wife’s father was ill. This time, however, Husband

objected to Child accompanying Wife and insisted Wife travel to India

18

without Child. He told Wife that his parents, who had come to live with the

parties in the United States, would be available to take care of Child during

the day while he worked.

Husband had Child’s passport in his possession and refused to give it

to Wife in order for Child to fly with Wife to India. Because of Husband’s

insistence that Child remain in the United States, Wife departed alone for

India in late March 2013. While she was in India, Wife attempted to stay in

touch with Child through telephone and video calls, but with varying

success. Wife became concerned with the increasing gaps of time she was

unable to reach Husband by phone or otherwise establish contact with

Child.

In early June 2013, Wife informed Husband via voicemail and email

she was returning to the United States and then also provided Husband with

detailed flight arrival information. When Wife’s flight arrived in Los

Angeles, neither Husband, his parents, nor anyone else was present to meet

her. Wife arranged taxi transportation to the apartment she and Husband

maintained as their marital residence only to discover Husband had

abandoned the marital residence, cancelled the lease, and moved with Child

and his parents to a new location.

Wife managed to reach Husband by telephone and he agreed to meet

Wife the next day with Child. The next morning, Husband arrived at

Wife’s location with Child. He turned Child over to Wife and told Wife

she was now responsible for providing Child with housing. Wife managed

to find accommodations in a boarding house occupied by other young

women from India where she and Child remained for several weeks. Wife

eventually convinced Husband to allow her and Child to return to a family

setting.

Husband filed suit for divorce in California in 2013, but dismissed

the divorce action after Wife reunited with him. Shortly after Wife and

Child were reunited with Husband, Wife obtained employment in a retail

store, India Exports, where she worked until Husband took a new job in

Louisville, Kentucky, and the family had to move in early 2014. The

family lived in a rental residence in Louisville for approximately six (6)

months. During that time, Husband again had a job change that required he

move from Louisville to Middle Tennessee. Husband commuted on

weekends for several weeks until he found an apartment in Franklin,

19

Williamson County, Tennessee. In May 2015, Wife and Child again

moved to join Husband.

Throughout the marriage, Husband controlled the family finances,

and he did so in a manner that was oppressive to Wife. Although Wife had

a deposit account in her name, her only source of income, apart from the

brief period she was employed at India Exports, was whatever allowance

Husband gave her; usually, these amounts were $500 or less per month.

Husband’s financial control extended to entering into business transactions

without informing Wife. Husband formed business entities ostensibly

where Wife owned the capital stock or equity membership interest, but

where Wife actually had no genuine involvement or participation in the

business. In some instances, Wife was completely unaware of Husband’s

actions. Husband used Wife’s name as a straw-man owner as a strategy

calculated to insulate Husband from the business’ liabilities and claims of

creditors. Husband opened a store credit card account at Best Buy in

Wife’s name. The initial purchase on this account was for a washer and

dryer. Thereafter, Husband held onto the card and used the account for his

personal purchases without consulting Wife. He also engaged in numerous

foreign currency transactions, whereby he would wire substantial sums of

dollars through ICICI Bank in India for conversion to rupees. These rupees

would then be deposited into an account at Citi Bank in India in his

mother’s name, which she would hold for Husband’s benefit. Husband

took out loans from family members and other related parties without

Wife’s knowledge or consent. In discovery and at trial, Husband failed to

credibly account for these loan transactions. Husband also borrowed

$43,600.00 from the vested balance of his 401(k) retirement savings which

he claims to have used in connection with the purchase of a new BMW

automobile. This was also done2 without Wife’s knowledge or consent and

done solely for Husband’s enjoyment.3 Husband also paid generous

amounts each month to his parents and brought his parents to the United

States to live in the marital home with Wife and Child.

Additionally, Husband was emotionally and physically abusive

towards Wife, and on occasion, towards Child. Wife testified Husband’s

anger and hostility towards her was triggered by Husband discovering Wife

did not own an interest in certain real estate holdings in India belonging to

2

Husband offered contradictory testimony on the subject of the purpose for this 401(k) loan. The Court’s

finding is based upon Husband’s entire testimony on this topic.

3

This car purchase was also unnecessary inasmuch as Husband already had a car for his exclusive use.

20

her father and sisters. Wife believes Husband had a misimpression of

Wife’s financial status at the time of the arranged marriage.

Husband habitually made recordings of telephone conversations

between Wife and Wife’s parents or sister. Husband would frequently

become inappropriately angry when frustrated or when Wife failed to meet

his housekeeping or child care expectations. Husband denigrated Wife

verbally, calling her “zero person,” “daughter of a donkey,” and “bitch.”4

When he was angry, Husband would slap Wife, pull her hair, squeeze her

face with his hands, push her, pull her by the nose, twist her arm behind her

back, strike her on the head, and pull her by her ear lobes. These assaults

were painful to Wife and occasionally left marks on her body or caused her

to bleed, as when he pulled her ear lobe causing an abrasion with her

earring.

At trial, Wife testified to all of the foregoing and Husband denied

this verbal and physical abuse in his trial testimony. The Court credits

Wife’s testimony and finds Husband’s denials to be unworthy of belief.

Wife’s emotional affect and general demeanor while testifying were

consistent with truthfulness. Wife withstood a careful and searching cross

examination without impeachment. Wife’s testimony was direct,

responsive, rich in detail, consistent, and coherent. Husband’s emotional

affect and general demeanor while testifying were not consistent with

truthfulness. Husband was impeached repeatedly with his prior deposition

testimony wherein he acknowledged having been verbally abusive and

attempted to justify his conduct with self-serving rationalizations predicated

upon a patriarchal paradigm of marriage. Moreover, Husband was evasive

and argumentative when answering questions on cross-examination as well

as questions posed by the Court. His credibility was further diminished by

his repeated failures to provide reliable information in discovery.

Husband attempted to bolster his credibility by offering the

testimony of his father, Jaresh [sic] Singla, who testified he lived in the

marital home for a number of years, and claimed to never to [sic] have

witnessed his son commit any physical abuse. On cross-examination, the

elder Mr. Singla was shown to be biased in favor of his son. He also has an

economic interest in buttressing his son’s testimony, inasmuch as the elder

Mr. Singla and Husband have intertwined family business ventures, the

younger Mr. Singla financially supports his parents, and provides them with

4

In their conversations at home, Husband and Wife spoke Hindi to each other.

21

housing in the United States. When questioned on cross-examination

whether he had ever witnessed Husband address Wife in demeaning terms,

the elder Mr. Singla testified he witnessed “some quarrelling” between the

parties. To the extent the elder Mr. Singla’s testimony was offered to

corroborate Husband’s implausible denials, the Court gives such testimony

little weight.

Wife, with Child, lived with Husband and Husband’s parents, in a

two-bedroom apartment in Franklin, Tennessee from May 2015 until

August 28, 2015 when Husband and his parents left the apartment to stay in

a hotel. On September 2, 2015, Husband told Wife he had cancelled the

lease on the apartment and that she would be responsible for paying the

lease going forward. He also told her that if she could not afford the rent

on the apartment, she would have to find other accommodations. On

September 4, 2015, Husband again told Wife either she or her family would

have to pay the rent on the marital apartment or else she would have to

vacate. Husband and Wife argued. Wife repeatedly stated she had no

means of paying the rent. Husband became increasingly angry, culminating

in Husband saying “I will kill you and your family” or words to that effect.

When Husband left the apartment, Wife took Child and drove to the

Franklin Police Department where she reported Husband’s behavior. A

police officer took her report and asked Wife if she wanted Husband

arrested. Wife told the officer she did not want Husband arrested and the

officer advised Wife to go to a domestic abuse shelter.

Being unemployed and depending entirely on Husband for family

support, Wife was faced with what she plausibly believed to be the prospect

of eviction for nonpayment of rent. Therefore, Wife arranged to obtain

living accommodations for herself and Child, with the extended family of

her father’s friend. This person lived in Cincinnati, Ohio. On September

11, 2015, Wife left Tennessee and drove with Child to Ohio. The next day,

Husband discovered Wife had left the Parties’ apartment. He and his

parents checked out of the hotel where they had stayed for several days, and

moved back into the apartment, where Husband and his parents remain to

date.

Meanwhile, Wife was in Ohio and relying on the generosity of her

father and extended family members for support. On September 17, 2015,

Wife sent a text message to Husband asking for Child’s birth certificate in

order to enroll Child in public school. Husband did not reply until

22

September 21, 2015, when he texted to Wife a photograph of the first page

of an ex parte restraining order Husband had obtained against Wife.

On October 4, 2015, Wife returned to Franklin, Tennessee with

Child. She used some of the funds made available to her by her father and

his friends to lease a one-bedroom apartment for herself and Child. The ex

parte restraining order was dissolved, and the parties entered into a

temporary parenting plan on October 6, 2015, naming Wife as primary

residential parent and giving Husband visitation on alternate weekends

from Thursday afternoon until Monday morning.

Currently, Wife and Child live in a one-bedroom apartment . . . in

Franklin, Tennessee. What furniture Wife has in this apartment was

acquired after the parties’ separation. Child is . . . currently in the second

grade for the 2016-2017 academic year. . . .

Wife frequently allows Husband extended and additional parenting

time when he requests it. Notwithstanding Wife’s accommodations to

Husband, he does not keep her informed of his parenting activities with

Child and is not prompt in returning Child to Wife at the end of his

scheduled parenting time. In January 2016, without informing Wife,

Husband took Child to visit Husband’s extended family in Virginia. Wife

learned of this out-of-state trip only after she went to the customary pick-up

point and Husband did not show up to drop off Child as planned.

***

The only closely held business interests offered into evidence are

Globus Trends, LLC, and JS Exports. Husband claims each of these

business entities are Wife’s property since the capital stock or membership

interest is ostensibly in her name. The Court finds, however, Wife was

used by Husband as a straw-man owner, without Wife’s knowledge or

consent, in an attempt to create a shelter of his personal assets from claims

of creditors. In any event, both businesses failed and at the time of trial

have no value.

***

Wife contends Husband dissipated $128,149.00 by imprudent investments

and transfers to his parents. Husband insists the transfers to his parents

23

served a marital purpose because, according to Indian culture, he owes a

familial support obligation to his parents.

From the entire testimony, the Court finds Husband dissipated

marital assets as follows: (i) $23,505.00 in imprudent and oppressive

investments; (ii) $45,000.00 in transfers to his parents for their support; (iii)

$12,010.00 down payment towards purchase of BMW; (iv) $16,000.00 in

transfers to Sapna Singla for non-marital purposes. The total of these

dissipating transactions is $96,515.00. In addition, Husband transferred

$36,000.00 through ICICI Bank where the dollar denominated transfer was

converted to Indian rupees and further deposited in an account with Citi

Bank in India in Husband’s mother’s name. Husband’s mother is holding

this account for Husband's benefit. The Court finds the purpose of these

transfers was to conceal marital assets and attempt to remove them from

this Court’s jurisdiction. During the trial, the Court orally ordered Husband

to cause these funds held by his mother in India transferred to the custody

of the Clerk & Master for safekeeping pending the final disposition of this

case.

***

Both Husband and Wife are well educated as each holds a graduate

degree in computer science granted by a university in India. Husband has a

demonstrated track-record of gainful employment in the information

technology (“IT”) field in the United States, and Wife worked in India,

teaching computer science to students in the Indian equivalent of middle

school. She left this occupation after the marriage in order to join Husband

in the United States and she has not worked in the IT field since then.

Except for a brief retail sales job, Wife has not been employed outside the

home since the marriage. Wife’s facility with the English language is very

good in writing, but very poor in oral communication. Before Wife could

be gainfully employed in any occupation, she would need to receive

additional training in English communication skills. Neither party made a

tangible or intangible contribution to the others’ education, training, or

increased earning power.

Husband has a far greater capacity to acquire capital assets and

income in the future than Wife. Per Husband’s wishes, Wife devoted her

energies almost exclusively in her role as Wife and homemaker while

Husband devoted his energies and efforts to earning income. Husband

dissipated marital assets through imprudent and oppressive business

24

decisions as well as through transactions calculated to disguise and conceal

assets. Husband’s wrongful conduct continued throughout the time this

case was pending and included the failure or refusal to meet his obligations

to provide truthful and timely responses to Wife’s legitimate discovery

requests.

Husband’s separate property consists principally of undivided

fractional interests in Indian real estate with a value of $8,900.00. Wife’s

separate property consists of jewelry gifted to her at the time of the

marriage with a value of $16,716.00. At the time of the marriage, the

parties’ estates were of negligible value.

Wife is clearly an economically disadvantaged party. She has not

worked in her chosen field of IT for a decade; due to the progressive nature

of this field, Wife will require additional formal education in order to

update her knowledge base. Moreover, she will require additional

education to improve her ability to communicate in English. Contrarily,

Husband has been able to earn a six-figure income in the IT field for the

duration of the marriage. There is no evidence his earning capacity will be

diminished following the divorce.

***

Wife candidly admitted she had a period of adjustment and

situational depression as a result of this litigation, and that she in fact had

been prescribed antidepressant medication, but that she no longer needed

the medication after the adjustment to being separated. Wife admitted she

still loves her Husband, and mourns the loss of the marriage, despite a

contentious divorce and trial. Contrarily, Husband demonstrated issues

with anger management, impulse control, and a need for disproportionate

control and dominance in the relationship. The Court finds Husband lacks

a commitment to candor and transparency in the way he dealt with Wife

during the marriage. His use of her as a straw-man owner of closely held

businesses was dishonest and oppressive. . . .

***

Husband has the ability to earn a six-figure income. Husband’s

current earning capacity is $140,000.00 and Husband made $137,000.00 in

2016. (Ex. 5). It is undisputed Husband provided temporary family

support to Wife in the amount of $1,700.00 per month from October of

25

2015 to July of 2016, at which time the temporary support was increased to

$2,000.00 per month. Husband has also continued to support his own

parents, which includes $1,200.00 to $1,500.00 per month according to the

testimony of the elder Mr. Singla.

Wife is presently unemployed. For the duration of the marriage,

Wife was financially dependent upon Husband. Wife has looked for

employment, but has been unsuccessful. It was clear based upon the

testimony of the witnesses that Wife has some obstacles to overcome when

engaging in the work force in the United States. Wife has significant

formal education, including a graduate degree in computer science, but due

to her decade-long absence from the IT workforce and limitations in her

language skills, she requires substantial rehabilitation before she can

maximize her earning potential in the United States. Further, Wife’s

communication skills are limited and a great deal of work will be required

in order for Wife to assimilate into the work force for her to earn what she

hopes to earn.5 Notably, she is not voluntarily unemployed. Wife has

identified suitable relevant educational opportunities offered at the Franklin

campus of Columbia State Community College. Based upon the exhibits

received into evidence and testimony of the parties, it is clear both parties

agree Wife is in need of alimony.

This is an eleven (11) year arranged marriage. Husband and Wife

are in good physical health. Although Wife experienced a period of

situational depression during the stress of the divorce, she has recovered

and no longer takes any medication for depression.

It is evident that Wife will be the primary residential parent of Child

and she does not have any family members to assist her, living in the

United States. Therefore, it will be undesirable for Wife to seek

employment for which the hours would not accommodate care for the child

when she is not in school. Accordingly, Wife will have to seek

employment with a traditional Monday through Friday work schedule.

After careful review of Wife’s income and expense statement, (Ex.

32), the court finds that: (1) Wife’s request for the reasonable expense of

$1,450.00 in rent for a two-bedroom apartment would be appropriate; (2)

all Wife’s proposed utility expenses are reasonable and appropriate; (3) all

of Wife’s car operation expenses are reasonable; (4) all of the installment

5

The parties communicated with one another in Hindi and Punjabi during the marriage, and those are

Wife’s primary languages.

26

contracts and monthly bills are reasonable; and (5) in regards to “other

expenses,” the Court finds all of Wife’s contemplated expenses are

necessary and reasonable. These anticipated expenses do not include

Child’s tutoring, the credit card bills the court has ordered the Husband to

pay, and Wife’s legal expenses. The Court further finds that once Wife

obtains a two-bedroom apartment, and the additional expenses that go

along with that apartment, her reasonable monthly expenses will be

$4,841.00. Wife has agreed that her current income should be imputed at

$1,257.00, and based upon the income shares worksheet, Wife will be

receiving $1,127.00 in child support; therefore, leaving Wife with a

shortage of $2,457.00 per month. Further, the Court finds after the division

of marital assets, both parties will have very limited retirement savings

plans and Husband will be in a better position to accommodate future

retirement savings than Wife.

The Court finds that it is clear that both parties are educated with

graduate degrees in the IT field. Husband is not seeking and does not

currently need any future education and training. He is working in his

chosen profession, and earning a six-figure income. Although she has a

similar education, it is clear that Wife’s education is outdated in a field that

is ever-changing. Further, it is apparent that Wife has attempted to obtain

other employment since the separation of the parties in 2015 and has been

unable to secure a job. She has applied at many retail jobs and government

jobs, all to no avail. Wife has attempted to apply to Columbia State

Community College, in order to improve her skills and training in hopes of

obtaining an “IT job” to improve her earning capacity. Wife testified

without contradiction, she needs a lump sum of approximately $4,200.00 to

enroll in classes at Columbia State Community College and to have her

transcript sent to the school from India.

The Court finds that the parties, for numerous reasons, do not have

significant real or personal separate assets. The Court finds that this marital

estate has a total gross asset value, including an adjustment for Husband’s

dissipation of assets of $278,749.00 and that after division, Husband will be

awarded $153,635.00 and Wife will be awarded $125,124.00.

The parties’ standard of living is depends [sic] upon Husband’s

income of approximately $140,000.00 per year. The Court does not find

the parties’ lifestyle is extravagant, but rather a reasonable standard of

living, based upon the amount of Husband’s income. Because of the

limiting factor of Wife’s language skills and her educational needs, Wife

27

would not be able on her own to obtain the standard of living established

during the marriage. Wife credibly testified, and the Court therefore finds,

she could earn approximately $20.00 per hour after full rehabilitation and

after she has gained five (5) to seven (7) years of experience in the IT field.

This weighs in favor of an award of rehabilitative alimony as well as an

amount of alimony in futuro.

Wife gave up a teaching career and relocated from India to Los

Angeles for this marriage. She obtained a retail sales job - the only job she

had during the marriage – in the Los Angeles area and had to leave that job

due to Husband’s relocation to Louisville, Kentucky. Wife did not work

while the parties lived in Louisville. She relocated again for Husband’s

career to Franklin, Tennessee. Wife has made contributions as a mother

and homemaker equal to or exceeding those of Husband, and has indirectly

contributed to Husband’s increased earning capacity. Husband has also

substantially contributed with his earning and monetary contributions.

However, this contribution is partially offset by Husband’s dissipation of

marital assets.

The Court finds that Husband is clearly at fault in dissipating marital

assets and has engaged in inappropriate conduct by controlling and

oppressing Wife. Husband’s actions left Wife uninformed about the

family’s finances. Further, Husband’s degradation of Wife, treating her as

a “zero person” and treating her as less than an equal to him has clearly

impaired her confidence to reenter the workforce.

***

Husband concedes that Wife needs rehabilitative alimony but

disputes the length of time required for Wife’s rehabilitation. Husband

argues alimony should be paid for only a few years. Wife has proved,

however, she can only be partially rehabilitated for employment in the

United States and is requesting rehabilitative alimony for seven (7) years,

together with an award of alimony in future [sic]. Based upon Wife’s

inability to be fully rehabilitated, she will not be able to achieve the earning

capacity of Husband nor to achieve the standard of living experienced

during the marriage. Therefore, the Court finds Wife is an appropriate

candidate for alimony in futuro. The economic disadvantage existing

between Wife and Husband both throughout and after the marriage will

persist, even after reasonably foreseeable rehabilitation. At her best, Wife

is never likely to achieve the same degree of success in the IT field enjoyed

28

by Husband, if for no other reason, because he has more than a decade of

work experience. In comparison, Wife lost her opportunity to gain IT

experience while she was staying at home, caring for Child and trying to be

the traditional Indian wife Husband expected her to be.

Based upon a careful consideration and weighing all of the foregoing

facts, circumstances, and factors, it is clear, Wife will need approximately

$2,500.00 of spousal support per month in addition to her imputed income

of minimum wage and Husband’s child support obligation in the amount of

$1,127.00. The Court finds that Wife will be able to partially rehabilitate

herself through her proposed plan and education to the point that she can

earn approximately $20.00 per hour. The Court accepts Wife’s testimony

and finds it will take Wife approximately five (5) to seven (7) years to

achieve her maximum possible rehabilitation.

***

The facts of this case support an award of alimony in futuro. Wife

had no or very little earning history during the marriage; she worked during

one (1) year of the marriage making approximately minimum wage; prior

to the parties’ marriage Wife was earning income using her education

teaching in the IT field at a secondary school in India; this marriage was an

arranged marriage; Wife relocated no less than four (4) times during the

course of the marriage including immigration to the United States; Wife’s

communication skills are limited as her first languages are Hindi and

Punjabi; her education is in a field that has rapidly changed since she

completed her formal education; and Husband’s degrading treatment of

Wife during the marriage as a “zero person” has hindered her ability to

reenter the workforce.

The Court hereby grants Wife’s request for rehabilitative alimony in

the amount of $1,500.00 per month for a period of eighty-four (84) months,

beginning on the first day of June, 2017, and continuing for eighty-three

(83) months thereafter. Additionally, the Court finds that Wife can only be

partially rehabilitated and further awards Wife $1,000.00 per month in

alimony in futuro. Additionally, the Court awards Wife alimony in solido

in the amount of $4,200.00 for the purpose of tuition at Columbia State

Community College.

***

29

Husband made materially misleading and incomplete statements in

response to interrogatories, and failed to produce documents in response to

Rule 34 requests, and provided evasive deposition testimony, none of

which discovery abuses were cured in the course of this divorce

proceeding. Further, the Court finds that Husband’s actions were

calculated to withhold and/or disguise information and his actions clearly,

escalated this matter and caused Wife to incur a great deal of attorney’s

fees. The Court expressly finds Husband’s conduct during the course of

this case has been oppressive to Wife and has unnecessarily increased the

expense of this litigation. Husband was not forthcoming with candid and

complete answers to legitimate discovery requests. He made statements in

the course of discovery that were misleading, incomplete, and untruthful.

Husband attempted to hide assets and engaged in currency transactions and

business arrangements deliberately opaque and calculated to disguise his

assets.

(footnotes in original but renumbered; some footnotes omitted). Husband appeals the

Trial Court’s order to this Court.

Discussion

Although not stated exactly as such, Husband raises three issues on appeal: 1)

whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Wife alimony in futuro of $1,000 per month in

addition to seven years of rehabilitative alimony; 2) whether the Trial Court erred in

finding that Husband dissipated marital assets; and, 3) whether the Trial Court equitably

distributed the marital property in light of the alleged errors of awarding alimony in

futuro and finding dissipation of marital assets. Wife raises a separate issue regarding

whether she is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of

correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the

evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692

(Tenn. 2014). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no

presumption of correctness. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d at 692.

We first consider whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Wife alimony in

futuro of $1,000 per month in addition to seven years of rehabilitative alimony. As our

Supreme Court has instructed:

For well over a century, Tennessee law has recognized that trial

courts should be accorded wide discretion in determining matters of spousal

30

support. See Robinson v. Robinson, 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 440, 443 (1846)

(“Upon a divorce . . . the wife is entitled to a fair portion of her husband’s

estate for her support, and the amount thus to be appropriated is a matter

within the legal discretion of the chancellor. . . .”). This well-established

principle still holds true today, with this Court repeatedly and recently

observing that trial courts have broad discretion to determine whether

spousal support is needed and, if so, the nature, amount, and duration of the

award. See, e.g., Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 605 (Tenn. 2004);

Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Crabtree v. Crabtree,

16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000).

Equally well-established is the proposition that a trial court’s

decision regarding spousal support is factually driven and involves the

careful balancing of many factors. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 235

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); see also Burlew, 40 S.W.3d at 470; Robertson v.

Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 340–41 (Tenn. 2002). As a result, “[a]ppellate

courts are generally disinclined to second-guess a trial judge’s spousal

support decision.” Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 234. Rather, “[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, 76 S.W.3d

at 343. 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.’ ” 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.

31

***

Current Tennessee law recognizes several distinct types of spousal support,

including (1) alimony in futuro, (2) alimony in solido, (3) rehabilitative

alimony, and (4) transitional alimony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–5–121(d)(1).

In analyzing the present dispute, it is helpful to begin with an overview of

each type.

The first type of spousal support, alimony in futuro, is intended to

provide support on a long-term basis until the death or remarriage of the

recipient. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–5–121(f)(1). This type of alimony can be

awarded where “the court finds that there is relative economic disadvantage

and that rehabilitation is not feasible.” Id. See also Burlew, 40 S.W.3d at

470–71; Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 456 n.2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

Alimony in futuro is appropriate when

the disadvantaged spouse is unable to achieve, with

reasonable effort, an earning capacity that will permit the

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.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–5–121(f)(1).

Alimony in futuro “is not, however, a guarantee that the recipient

spouse will forever be able to enjoy a lifestyle equal to that of the obligor

spouse.” Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 456 n.2. In many instances, the parties’

assets and incomes simply will not permit them to achieve the same

standard of living after the divorce as they enjoyed during the marriage.

Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 340. While enabling the spouse with less income

“to maintain the pre-divorce lifestyle is a laudable goal,” the reality is that

“[t]wo persons living separately incur more expenses than two persons

living together.” Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 234. “Thus, in most divorce cases

it is unlikely that both parties will be able to maintain their pre-divorce

lifestyle. . . .” Id. It is not surprising, therefore, that “[t]he prior concept of

alimony as lifelong support enabling the disadvantaged spouse to maintain

the standard of living established during the marriage has been superseded

by the legislature’s establishment of a preference for rehabilitative

alimony.” Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 340.

32

***

In contrast to alimony in futuro, rehabilitative alimony is intended to

assist an economically disadvantaged spouse in acquiring additional

education or training which will enable the spouse to achieve a standard of

living comparable to the standard of living that existed during the marriage

or the post-divorce standard of living expected to be available to the other

spouse. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–5–121(e)(1). See also Robertson, 76

S.W.3d at 340–41; Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 456 n.4. Rehabilitative alimony

thus serves the purpose of assisting the disadvantaged spouse in obtaining

additional education, job skills, or training, as a way of becoming more

self-sufficient following the divorce. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 340–41;

Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735, 738–39 (Tenn. 1991). This purpose is

markedly different than the purpose of alimony in futuro, which is to

provide long-term support when the economically disadvantaged spouse is

unable to achieve self-sufficiency. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 234.

***

The statutory framework for spousal support reflects a legislative

preference favoring short-term spousal support over long-term spousal

support, with the aim being to rehabilitate a spouse who is economically

disadvantaged relative to the other spouse and achieve self-sufficiency

where possible. See Tenn. Code Ann § 36–5–121(d)(2)–(3); Bratton, 136

S.W.3d at 605; Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465, 467 (Tenn. 2003). Thus,

there is a statutory bias toward awarding transitional or rehabilitative

alimony over alimony in solido or in futuro. While this statutory

preference does not entirely displace long-term spousal support, alimony in

futuro should be awarded only when the court finds that economic

rehabilitation is not feasible and long-term support is necessary. See

Bratton, 136 S.W.3d at 605; Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 341–42.

Finally, in determining whether to award spousal support and, if so,

determining the nature, amount, length, and manner of payment, courts

consider several factors:

(1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and

financial resources of each party, including income from

pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other

sources;

33

(2) The relative education and training of each party, the

ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education

and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further

education and training to improve such party’s earnings

capacity to a reasonable level;

(3) The duration of the marriage;

(4) The age and mental condition of each party;

(5) The physical condition of each party, including, but not

limited to, physical disability or incapacity due to a chronic

debilitating disease;

(6) The extent to which it would be undesirable for a party to

seek employment outside the home, because such party will

be custodian of a minor child of the marriage;

(7) The separate assets of each party, both real and personal,

tangible and intangible;

(8) The provisions made with regard to the marital property,

as defined in § 36–4–121;

(9) The standard of living of the parties established during the

marriage;

(10) The extent to which each party has made such tangible

and intangible contributions to the marriage as monetary and

homemaker contributions, and tangible and intangible

contributions by a party to the education, training or increased

earning power of the other party;

(11) The relative fault of the parties, in cases where the court,

in its discretion, deems it appropriate to do so; and

(12) Such other factors, including the tax consequences to

each party, as are necessary to consider the equities between

the parties.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–5–121(i). Although each of these factors must be

considered when relevant to the parties’ circumstances, “the two that are

considered the most important are the disadvantaged spouse’s need and the

obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 457. See also

Bratton, 136 S.W.3d at 605; Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 342; Burlew, 40

S.W.3d at 470. Carefully adhering to the statutory framework for awarding

spousal support, both in terms of awarding the correct type of support and

for an appropriate amount and time, fulfills not only the statutory directives

but also alimony’s fundamental purpose of eliminating spousal dependency

where possible.

34

Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105-11 (Tenn. 2011) (footnote omitted).

Husband argues in his brief on appeal that the Trial Court incorrectly applied a

standard of “exact equivalence” when it determined that Wife is unable to be fully

rehabilitated. Husband is mistaken. The Trial Court carefully considered the relevant

statutory factors in light of the evidence presented and determined that Wife will be

“unable to achieve, with reasonable effort, an earning capacity that will permit [Wife’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 [Husband] . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(1) (2017). We need not

reiterate the evidence presented, which supports the Trial Court’s finding, as it is

discussed fully above. This is especially so given the Trial Court’s credibility

determinations as to Husband and Wife. We do not find that the Trial Court applied an

incorrect standard when making its determination regarding alimony.

Husband also argues in his brief on appeal that this case is analogous to Gorashi-

Bajestani v. Bajestani, wherein this Court vacated an award of alimony in futuro.

Gorashi-Bajestani v. Bajestani, No. E2009-01585-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3323743, *17

(Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2010), no. appl. perm. appeal filed. Husband asserts that in

Gorashi-Bajestani this Court “recognized that the wife’s educational background

(equivalent to her husband’s), combined with her age, good health, and multi-lingual

status rendered an award of alimony in futuro arising from an eight-year marriage an

abuse of discretion,” and that in the case now before us on appeal “Wife was in her late

thirties at the time of trial, enjoyed good health and multi-lingual status, and holds a

master’s degree in computer science, just as Husband does.”

The case now before us on appeal, however, is distinguishable from Gorashi-

Bajestani. For starters, the wife in Gorashi-Bajestani was not simply multi-lingual, one

of the languages she spoke fluently was English. Gorashi-Bajestani, 2010 WL 3323743

at *1. In the case now before us on appeal, while Wife speaks fluent Hindi and Punjabi,

the Trial Court found that Wife’s oral communication skills in English were “very poor,”

and that Wife would need additional training in English in order to obtain a job in her

chosen field. The evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against this

finding. Even Husband admitted when pressed that Wife will need further skill training

in English. Furthermore, in Gorashi-Bajestani, the wife was a licensed engineer who had

obtained her engineering degree in the United States and had worked within her chosen

field within the United States prior to the birth of her children. Gorashi-Bajestani, 2010

WL 3323743 at *1. In the case now before us on appeal, Wife has a degree in computer

science, which she obtained from a university in India, and never has worked within the

United States in her chosen field. Additionally, the Trial Court noted that “[Wife’s]

education is in a field that has rapidly changed since she completed her formal education .

35

. . ,” in contrast to the chosen field of the wife in Gorashi-Bajestani. In addition to all of

the foregoing, the wife in Gorashi-Bajestani received almost $2.6 million of the marital

property in the distribution whereas in the case now before us on appeal Wife received

only $125,124.00. Gorashi-Bajestani, 2010 WL 3323743 at * 17. We do not find the

case now before us on appeal to be analogous to Gorashi-Bajestani.

The Trial Court considered the relevant statutory factors in light of the evidence

presented to it, as discussed more fully above, and made detailed and thorough findings.

The evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings. We find no error

in the Trial Court’s award of alimony in futuro of $1,000 per month in addition to seven

years of rehabilitative alimony.

We next consider whether the Trial Court erred in finding that Husband dissipated

marital assets. As our Supreme Court has instructed:

Whether dissipation has occurred depends on the facts of the

particular case. 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 526 (2009). The

party alleging dissipation carries the initial burden of production and the

burden of persuasion at trial. Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899, 919

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2007), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2008).

Dissipation of marital property occurs when one spouse wastes marital

property and thereby reduces the marital property available for equitable

distribution. See Altman v. Altman, 181 S.W.3d 676, 681–82 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 2005), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 31, 2005). Dissipation

“typically refers to the use of funds after a marriage is irretrievably

broken,” Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tenn. 2006), is

made for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, and is often intended to

“hide, deplete, or divert” marital property. Altman, 181 S.W.3d at 681–82.

In determining whether dissipation has occurred, trial courts must

distinguish between dissipation and discretionary spending. Burden, 250

S.W.3d at 919–20; 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 526 (2009).

Discretionary spending might be ill-advised, but unlike dissipation,

discretionary spending is typical of the parties’ expenditures throughout the

course of the marriage. Burden, 250 S.W.3d at 919–20.

Larsen-Ball v. Ball, 301 S.W.3d 228, 235 (Tenn. 2010).

With regard to this issue, the Trial Court specifically found, inter alia:

Husband dissipated marital assets as follows: (i) $23,505.00 in imprudent

and oppressive investments; (ii) $45,000.00 in transfers to his parents for

36

their support; (iii) $12,010.00 down payment towards purchase of BMW;

(iv) $16,000.00 in transfers to Sapna Singla for non-marital purposes. The

total of these dissipating transactions is $96,515.00. In addition, Husband

transferred $36,000.00 through ICICI Bank where the dollar denominated

transfer was converted to Indian rupees and further deposited in an account

with Citi Bank in India in Husband’s mother’s name.

With regard to the investments, we do not find that the investments, even though

imprudent in hindsight, constituted dissipation as sometimes people make what look to be

imprudent investments that wind up paying off. Husband made some bad business

decisions. However, as Wife would have shared, in the divorce at least, the gains if those

investments had paid off, so should she share in the poor results. We, therefore, vacate

the finding that Husband dissipated $23,505.00 in imprudent and oppressive investments.

The evidence in the record on appeal, however, does support the Trial Court’s

findings that Husband dissipated significant marital assets in other ways as found by the

Trial Court. The evidence in the record, as discussed more fully above, supports a

finding that Husband dissipated $73,010 in marital assets. We affirm the finding that

Husband dissipated these marital assets.

Next, we consider whether the Trial Court equitably distributed the marital

property in light of the alleged errors of awarding alimony in futuro and finding

dissipation of marital assets. As discussed fully above, we find no error in the awards of

alimony, and although we vacate the finding that Husband had dissipated some of the

marital assets in business investments, we affirm the finding that Husband had dissipated

$73,010 in marital assets. The Trial Court correctly considered the relevant factors

contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121 in light of the evidence presented to it as

discussed fully above. The finding that Husband did not dissipate as much of the marital

assets as found by the Trial Court does not change the analysis in any significant manner.

We find no error in the Trial Court’s distribution of the marital assets as the distribution

remains equitable even with our modification of the amount of martial assets that

Husband dissipated.

Finally we consider Wife’s issue regarding whether she is entitled to an award of

attorney’s fees on appeal. In the exercise of our discretion, we award Wife attorney’s

fees on appeal. We remand to the Trial Court for a determination of the correct amount

of the attorney’s fees award.

37

Conclusion

The judgment of the Trial Court is modified to reflect that Husband dissipated

$73,010 in marital assets and is affirmed in all other respects, and this cause is remanded

to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and for collection

of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the appellant, Anupam

Singla, and his surety.

______________________________________

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE

38