Alimony Could Be Modified Despite That It Was a Fixed Amount
Tennessee alimony modification case summary after divorce.
Deborah P. Linn v. Mark A. Linn
Alimony Could Be Modified Despite That It Was a Fixed Amount
The husband and wife in this Sumner County, Tennessee, were divorced in 2012 after over twenty years of marriage. The parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement under which the husband agreed to keep life insurance of $250,000 in effect, with the wife as beneficiary, and would pay alimony in futuro of $2500 per month for 120 months, and then $1500 per month until the wife died or remarried.
The husband paid $1150 every two weeks for a time, and in 2017 reduced the payments to $2300 per month and then $1500 per month. He made further reductions until ceasing to paying alimony in 2000. The parties stipulated that he was over $60,000 in arrears as of 2020.
In 2018, the husband filed a petition to modify his alimony, and alleged that he no longer had the ability to pay, and the wife no longer needed the original amount. He argued that the alimony should end when the wife became eligible for social security in 2020.
The wife, in turn, requested that the husband be held in contempt, and that his petition be denied.
At hearing, the evidence showed that the husband’s income at the time of divorce was $198,000, and that it had increased as high as $258,000 in 2015. But starting in 2018, it had dropped to $70,000.
The trial court held, that despite the characterization in the agreement, the alimony for the first 120 months was not alimony in futuro, but was actually alimony in solido, since it was for a definite sum over a definite time. It further held that alimony in solido could not be modified. While the alimony after 2022 might be modifiable, the court held that the husband’s petition was premature.
The trial court denied the husband’s petition to modify, and instead ordered him to pay the arrearages and life insurance premiums within 10 days. The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court turned to the issue that was the heart of the case: Whether the alimony was in solido or in futuro. It noted that alimony in solido was of a definite amount, but that the type of alimony is to be determined from the language of the order, and that the marital dissolution agreement was a contract.
The husband argued that it was error for the trial court to rewrite that contract, and the Court of Appeals agreed. It noted that the parties’ language was not necessarily dispositive, but it was strong evidence of their intent.
The appeals court pointed out that the entire alimony obligation was contained in a single sentence, and that there was no evidence that two different types of alimony were contemplated.
Since it concluded that the entire award was alimony in futuro, then the alimony could be modified. Therefore, the lower court erred in disposing of the case as it did. For these reasons, it reversed that portion of the lower court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
No. M2020–01624-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2021).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Modification in Tennessee Law | How to Modify Alimony and our video, How is alimony decided in Tennessee?
