TN Husband’s Alimony Obligation Won’t End at Retirement
Tennessee alimony law seeking to terminate or reduce alimony due to retirement. Divorce and alimony law from the Court of Appeals.
Jean Marie Bailey v. Billie Carson Bailey – Tennessee alimony modification due to retirement
The husband and wife were divorced in 2003. After his retirement in 2010, the husband filed an action to terminate or modify his spousal support and child support on the grounds that his income had decreased from as much as $95,000 down to $43,920. He argued that he was now paying more than half of his pension benefit. He also asserted that the wife was now receiving an annuity of $1,000 per month and was earning $2250 per month from her job. Based upon this information, the husband argued that the wife no longer had a need for spousal support. The trial court set the husband’s child support obligation at $0 per month, but found that he owed an arrearage of $1,170. The trial court also set the husband’s spousal support obligation at $1,275 per month, and found an arrearage of $16,000. At a later hearing, the child support arrearage had been satisfied. The trial court then set the spousal maintenance obligation at $1,000 per month, and ordered payment of $225 per month on the arrearage.
The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Since the original support obligation in this case was from a Marital Dissolution Agreement between the parties, the appeals court first noted that such agreements are subject to the normal rules governing construction of contracts, and that such agreements are normally binding upon the parties. The court noted that the most important principle of construction is that the court must ascertain the intent of the parties.
The husband argued that there was an additional oral agreement between the parties regarding the support obligation after his retirement, but the appeals court concluded that the trial court had correctly excluded such evidence. Since the decree was complete, evidence of an oral agreement was not admissible. In this case, the original agreement did not specify that it would terminate on the husband’s retirement.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had ruled correctly and affirmed.
No. E2013-02195-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2014).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, read Tennessee Alimony Law.
