Transitional Alimony Appropriate After 26 Yr Marriage

Transitional alimony is appropriate in cases where a spouse needs assistance adjusting to the economic consequences of divorce.

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 26 years married.

Elizabeth Jane Knizley v. Andrew Carlton Knizley

The wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case filed for divorce after almost 27 years of marriage.  The parties’ property included a car collection, and the valuation opinions differed by more than $1.5 million.

Before trial, the parties were able to agree on many issues.  They agreed that the wife would be named primary residential parent of the minor child, with the husband receiving liberal parenting time.

Trial was held on the remaining issues, including alimony.  The wife asked for alimony in future of $15,000 per month.  In his opening, the husband’s attorney stated that “husband agrees it is an alimony in futuro case,” but asked that the amount be set at $7,000 per month.

After trial, the court issued a 65 page order on various issues.  The alimony was transitional, and set at $7,000 per month for 3 years, then $5,000 for 3 years, and then $3,000 for the final three years.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that the parties had agreed to alimony in futuro, and that the trial court improperly turned this into a dispute by changing to transitional alimony.  The Court of Appeals framed the issue as being whether there had been a “stipulation” as to the type of alimony, and whether this stipulation was enforceable.

The court defined a stipulation as being an agreement entered into mutually and voluntarily.  If so, stipulations are binding.

The husband acknowledged the statement by his attorney, and similar statements by him during his testimony.  But he argued that it was not a stipulation, but merely an observation made in the context of the disposition of other issues in the case.  He also pointed to a separate document entitled “Stipulations,” in which the alimony was not referenced.

The appeals court agreed with the husband that there had been no stipulation.  It first noted that the word “stipulation” was never used when discussing alimony.  The statements as to alimony in futuro, in context, referred to such alimony being appropriate if certain other positons were accepted.

Since there was no stipulation, the appeals court next examined whether the award in this case was appropriate.  It noted that transitional alimony is appropriate in cases where a spouse needs assistance adjusting to the economic consequences of divorce.  In this case, the lower court had looked at the statutory factors and determined that transitional alimony was called for.  After examining the evidence, the Court of Appeals agreed with the outcome.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. M2018-00490-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.