Wife Not Entitled to Alimony in Futuro After 28 Years Married

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 28 years married.

Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum

Wife Not Entitled to Alimony in Futuro After 28 Years Married

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were married in 1987.  In 2015, the wife filed for divorce.  A trial was held, and in 2017, the trial court issued its ruling.  The court awarded the wife transitional alimony of $2000 per month for 24 months, followed by $1000 per month for another 24 months.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and argued that she should have been awarded alimony in futuro.  She also argued that she should have been awarded alimony in solido to cover future dental expenses.

The appeals court recited the relevant factors, and noted that any alimony decision is fact intensive.  Therefore, appellate courts are reluctant to second guess the trial court.

The trial court had made extensive factual findings which were quoted by the appellate court.  In particular, it noted that the wife was healthy and able bodied with some post-secondary education.  She had worked for substantial periods during the marriage, but was currently under-employed due to her personal choice.  It noted that this choice was based in part upon her choice to work without compensation in her paramour’s business.  There was no reason why the wife could not seek work, and the parties’ fault was equal.

The appeals court noted that long-term alimony in futuro was appropriate only in cases where the spouse could not be rehabilitated.  But in this case, with reasonable effort, it found that the wife had an earning capacity sufficient to compare with the standard of living during the marriage.  For these reasons, the Court of Appeals agreed that a temporary award of transitional alimony was appropriate.

The wife also asked for alimony in solido to cover future dental bills.  She set forth a “treatment plan,” but also admitted that dental insurance would cover much of the expense.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that she had not met her burden of proof.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment in all respect.  It declined to award attorney’s fees to either party.

No. M2017-01326-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.