Rehab Alimony Can Be Contingent on Wife Attending MTSU

Tennessee alimony case summary after 12 years married.

The husband and wife in this Franklin County, Tennessee, case were married in 1998 and had one child. The husband had a degree in computer science and worked as a software engineer. The wife had two years of college but had not completed her education degree. During the marriage, she worked for a medical equipment company and then as a real estate agent after getting her license. When their son was born in 2000, she stopped working. The parties also owned some real properties and operated an antique store.

The husband filed for divorce in 2010, and the wife filed a counter-complaint, both alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences.

The case was heard in 2013 by Judge Thomas W. Graham. After ruling on property issues, Judge Graham awarded the wife spousal support of $2,444 for 24 months, but the award was conditional on her pursuing an education degree at Middle Tennessee State University.

The wife later asked to have this condition removed, since she no longer wanted to be a teacher. When this request was denied, she appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which first addressed the alimony issue.

The appeals court first noted that this award was properly characterized as rehabilitative alimony, which is designed to allow a disadvantaged spouse to get back on his or her feet.

Even though the trial court had not made a specific finding as to whether the wife was the economically disadvantaged spouse, the appeals court agreed that she was. The husband had earned as much as $337,000 per year, whereas the wife had been out of the workforce for ten years, and had never earned more than $40,000 per year.

The appeals court then turned to whether the conditions were appropriate. It held that they were. A trial court has broad discretion when making spousal support decisions, and the court cited earlier cases approving conditions on the award of rehabilitative alimony.

In this case, the wife had told the trial court that she wanted to complete her education degree. The appeals court noted that she “received what she requested from the trial court” in its initial decision. Therefore, she had not shown any reason to modify the decision.

After addressing some other issues in the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order in all respects.

No. M2015-01391-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.