Remarriage Not Grounds to Modify Alimony in Futuro

Alimony Modification

Tennessee alimony modification case summary.

The husband and wife in this Campbell County, Tennessee, case were married in 1989 and divorced in 2014. At the time of the divorce, the parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement that called for the husband to pay the wife $3,577 per month. This represented alimony and child support for their one minor child. The agreement specified that child support would be computed, and the remaining portion would be designated as alimony. There was one modification of the agreement, and in 2017, the husband petitioned to have the alimony reduced. He argued that he had not been represented by an attorney when he signed, and that the agreement was deficient. Specifically, he argued that the agreement failed to specify whether the alimony was in future, rehabilitative, or transitional. He also argued that the wife received an inordinate share of the marital property, and that he was paying over half of his income in alimony.

The case was heard by Judge Amanda Sammons, who denied the husband’s petition. The court ruled that because the alimony was for an indefinite length of time, that it was to be characterized as alimony in futuro. Since the husband failed to prove that there had been a substantial and material change of circumstances, the trial court denied the petition. In fact, the court noted that the husband’s finances had actually improved somewhat. Disappointed in this outcome, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court had erred in finding no substantial change of circumstance. In addition, he argued that the characterization as alimony in futuro was incorrect.

After stating the standard of review, the appeals court turned to the issue of whether there had been a substantial and material change of circumstances. The appeals court disagreed, and noted that the parties’ financial situation was essentially the same as it had been at the time of the divorce. In fact, it noted that the husband had received a salary increase of about $3,000 per year. And the wife had remained out of the workforce, instead focusing on homeschooling their child.

The only significant change had been the fact that the husband had remarried. However, the appeals court cited numerous cases holding that the voluntary assumption of new obligations, such as marriage, does not constitute a change of circumstances.

For these reasons, the Court of Appels affirmed the lower court’s determination, before turning to the issue of classification of alimony type. Again, it agreed with the trial court’s interpretation. Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s judgment and assessed the costs of appeal against the husband.

No. E2019-00037-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2019).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Modification in Tennessee Law | How to Modify Alimony.