Session January 18, 2017
from the Chancery Court for Madison County No. 71133 James F.
appeal stems from a divorce proceeding in which Wife was
awarded alimony in futuro. For the reasons stated herein, we
vacate the trial court's award of alimony and remand for
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery
Court Vacated and Remanded
W. Camp, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Stevonski
Jeanette Arnold Buntyn, Appellee. 
B. Goldin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
John W. McClarty and Brandon O. Gibson, JJ., joined.
B. GOLDIN, JUDGE
and Procedural History
Arnold Buntyn ("Wife") and Stevonski Elliott Buntyn
("Husband") were married in 1994. Although two
children were born of the marriage, only one was a minor at
the time of trial. Wife was employed as a social worker for
West Tennessee Healthcare at the time of trial while Husband
was gainfully employed with a tire and wheel company.
present litigation was commenced in October 2013 when Wife
filed a complaint for divorce. Therein, Wife asserted that
Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct and that
irreconcilable differences had arisen in the marriage. In
addition to requesting that the trial court make an equitable
distribution of the parties' property and approve her
proposed parenting plan, Wife requested that she receive an
award of alimony.
filed an answer to Wife's complaint in December 2013.
Although he admitted that irreconcilable differences had
arisen between the parties, he denied that he was guilty of
inappropriate marital conduct. Contemporaneous with the
filing of Husband's answer was his filing of a
counterclaim for divorce. In his counterclaim, Husband
alleged that Wife was guilty of inappropriate marital
conduct. Husband also requested that he be awarded alimony
from Wife. Wife would later file an answer to Husband's
counterclaim in January 2014, wherein she denied that she was
guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. A one-day trial
eventually took place in July 2014.
October 10, 2014, the trial court entered its "Final
Decree of Divorce." In addition to awarding Wife a
divorce, dividing the parties' property, and
incorporating a parenting plan, the trial court's divorce
decree ordered Husband to pay Wife $100.00 per month as
alimony in futuro. Although Husband subsequently
filed a motion to alter or amend the divorce decree, the