TN Wife Entitled to Rehabilitative Alimony For Self-Study

Tennessee alimony modification case summary after 30 years married.

Cynthia Rhea Helton v. Gregory Herbert Helton

The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married for about 30 years before their 2011 divorce.  They had two children, both of whom were past the age of majority.  The court awarded the wife $2,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for 40 months.  The husband had a $1.2 million life insurance policy, and the husband was ordered to keep the wife a one-third beneficiary.

The husband remarried, and later asked the court to modify the order.  He asked the court to terminate his spousal support obligation on the grounds that the wife was not making efforts toward rehabilitation.  He argued that the wife was not taking steps to return to employment as a licensed pharmacist.  He also asked to modify the insurance requirement, permitting him to name his current wife as a beneficiary, to replace another beneficiary who had predeceased him.

At hearing, the wife testified that she had not yet begun formal education to resume her career as a pharmacist, but that she had purchased a book to study terminology in the field.  She argued that this was necessary before resuming formal education, since she had been away from the profession for twenty years.

The trial court denied both of the husband’s motions.  On the insurance policy, the court reasoned that the wife was essentially the new owner of the deceased beneficiary’s interest, since she had an expectation of receiving a share of that beneficiary’s estate.  The trial court also denied the husband’s motion to terminate alimony, and awarded the wife her attorney’s fees.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that a trial court’s ruling on modification will generally not be modified unless there has been an abuse of discretion.  The  court did note one earlier case where rehabilitative alimony was modified because the spouse was not taking steps toward rehabilitation.  But in this case, the appeals court noted that the wife intended to return to the pharmaceutical field, but first had to obtain the necessary background knowledge before pursuing formal education.  Under those circumstances, the appeals court agreed that there were no grounds to modify the earlier order.

The husband fared better when it came to the insurance policy.  It first noted that the interest of a predeceased beneficiary, in this case, the grandfather, was a “mere expectancy,” and that he had no vested interest in the policy.

It noted that even if the grandfather had received his share, the wife had no vested interest in the funds he would have received.  For this reason, the appeals court held that the husband had the power to modify the beneficiary of this share of the policy.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

No. E2014-01861-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.