TN Alimony Found to Be Transitional and Modifiable
Tennessee alimony modification law case summary following 14 years of marriage. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Summer Ann-Michelle Miller v. Richard Anthony McFarland – Tennessee transitional alimony termination.
Summer Miller and Richard McFarland were married in 1997 and had three minor children, one with special needs. They were divorced in 2011, and their marital termination agreement called for the husband to pay alimony of $929 per month for eight years. Later in 2011, the husband went back to court and asked Robertson County Circuit Court Judge John H. Gasaway, III to modify the alimony obligation. The husband asserted that his employment had changed and his income decreased. The wife argued that the reduction in pay amounted to voluntary underemployment. Judge Gasaway agreed with the wife, refused to lower the alimony or support obligations, and ordered the husband jailed for 30 days for contempt. The husband renewed the motion in 2012. At this time, the trial court held that the alimony in the case was alimony in solido which could not be modified. The husband argued, however, that the alimony amounted to alimony in futuro, which can be modified. Having exhausted his remedies in the lower court, the husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Once again, the husband argued that the alimony was alimony in futuro and thus subject to modification.
In this case, the agreement did not specify which type of alimony the payment represented. Therefore, the appeals court had to examine the definitions and make this determination. It noted that alimony in solido is a definite sum of money, whereas transitional alimony is one type of alimony in futuro. The husband argued that even though the amount could be ascertained, the alimony in this case was in the nature of rehabilitative alimony.
The appeals court carefully considered the evidence, noting especially that the wife was originally economically disadvantaged, but that her status had now changed. After weighing the totality of the circumstances, the appeals court concluded that the alimony was transitional, and thus subject to modification.
For these reasons, the appeals court remanded the case to Robertson County.
No. M2013-00381-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2014).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Law in Divorce | Answers to FAQs. Also, for legal updates, news, analysis, and commentary, see our Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Alimony category.
