The case of Johanna and Craig Gonsewski takes us through the often complex and emotionally charged process of divorce proceedings. Their marriage and the legal complications that arose from their divorce demonstrate the importance of having a clear understanding of finances when dealing with marital disputes. As we explore their story, we gain insight into the challenges that arise when a couple's shared financial life becomes tangled in the eyes of the law.
On May 9, 1987, Johanna and Craig were married in Alabama. At the time of the marriage, Johanna was a recent graduate and working at Redstone Arsenal. Craig was still studying at the University of Alabama and wanted to be an accountant. In 1988, the couple moved to Tennessee to take over Craig's job. In 2008, the year before the divorce, Johanna was earning $72,000 per year with a minimal retention bonus, and Craig was earning approximately $138,000 per year as an accountant with his salary and bonuses.
In 2007, Johanna filed for divorce. Craig sought to have his attorney's fees and expenses awarded as alimony, claiming that Johanna had dragged out the case. Johanna had a similar claim, but was seeking both temporary and permanent alimony. The couple subsequently engaged in several legal battles, accusing each other of perjury and seeking restraining orders against each other. The trial court distributed the marital assets, which consisted primarily of the equity in the marital home, and ruled not to award alimony to Johanna because she was “not entitled to future alimony or alimony for rehabilitation purposes” due to her continuous employment history in the state of Tennessee. In addition to this ruling, the trial court refused to award attorney's fees to either party.
Johanna immediately appealed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in part and reversed it in part, awarding Johanna future alimony of $1,250 per month until she remarried or died. The Court of Appeals stated that the reversal of the judgment was due to the parties' income disparity. Craig immediately challenged the Court of Appeals' judgment, stating that it failed to take into account “…age, good health, a stable employment history, the lack of demonstrated need, and the legislative preference for support other than permanent alimony.”
The Supreme Court granted a review and ultimately affirmed the original decision of the Court of First Instance and overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court also referred to Johanna's stable employment history in reaching its decision, adding that she had also received a larger share of the marital assets.
The Gonsewski divorce highlights the complexity and highly technical nature of separation, particularly in relation to the division of assets and the determination of alimony. The lengthy legal battle, which escalated from the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court, illustrates the complexities faced by divorcing couples. It highlights the potential benefits of involving a financial expert in such situations. The process could have been greatly improved with the help of a third party to take stock of the marriage, project future income and conduct an income analysis. The analyses would have summarized the couple's financial situation and shown what each party could potentially earn. Had they involved an expert, they may have found a more efficient and cost-effective path to resolution.
Comments are closed.