Tennessee Mom Awarded Limited Rehabilitative Alimony For Attending College

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 12 years married and right of first refusal.

Daniel J. Velez v. Christy M. Velez

This was the second appeal in the Tennessee divorce case of Daniel and Christy Velez.  In the first appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals sent the case back to the Montgomery County trial court to determine whether rehabilitative alimony should be awarded, and the amount.  In that first appeal, the appeals court had noted that Christy was the economically disadvantaged spouse, and that her earning capacity was at the minimum-wage level.

On remand, the trial court had awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony of $800 per month for 39 months, and also awarded $2,600 to cover her attorney’s fees for the first appeal.

The husband and wife were married in 1998 and had two children, born in 2003 and 2007.  The mother was a stay-at-home mom and occasionally worked minimum-wage jobs.  The father served in the Navy until receiving a disability discharge in 2008.  He received disability payments, and later worked for a civilian contractor, earning $70,000 per year.  However, he testified that he was laid off in May 2013 due to a lack of business and had been drawing unemployment of $261 per week, which would run out at the end of 2013.

After the first appeal, the mother attended college and earned a degree as an occupational therapy assistant.  She had begun working at $24 per hour, and expected to work about 32 hours per week.  She did have student loans and tuition payments as a result of her education.

After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court concluded that the wife’s need for rehabilitative alimony would cease in June 2014 because of her full employment in her chosen profession.  Based upon the incomes and education costs, the trial court set the rehabilitative alimony at $800 per month for 39 months.  Since she had already received $25,000 in alimony payments, the trial court ordered the husband to pay her the remaining balance of $6,200.  The trial court also made rulings as to child support and attorney fees.  Both parties then brought a second appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which first addressed the issue of alimony.

The wife argued that the award of rehabilitative alimony was insufficient.  She pointed out that while she was in school, her tuition and living expenses were about $50,000, at a time when the husband had monthly income of over $9000 per month.  The appeals court noted that the trial court must consider many factors, and has considerable discretion in making the final award.

The purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to assist the economically disadvantaged spouse in acquiring necessary training.  The key factor is that spouse’s need, and the other spouse’s ability to pay.

The appeals court carefully examined the trial court’s ruling and the evidence, and concluded that the award did reflect these factors.  For that reason, it affirmed the award given by the trial court.

Another issue that arose during the remand and second appeal was modification of the parenting plan.  In particular, the wife argued that she was entitled to a right of first refusal to keep the children when the husband was unable to care for them.  In particular, she pointed to evidence that the husband was not taking his prescription medications, which resulted in behavior that negatively affected the children.  She had argued that this was a material change of circumstances, warranting a change to the parenting plan.

The trial court had not made a specific determination about whether there had been a material change of circumstances.  It merely noted that the children had thrived under the existing plan, and saw no need to make a change.  In particular, the trial court noted that the parties needed to communicate better, and that a right of first refusal would actually make matters worse.

After looking at the record, the appeals court concluded that the lower court had implicitly found that there had been no material change in circumstances.  Since the Court of Appeals agreed with that ruling, it also affirmed the lower court’s refusal to change the parenting plan.

After addressing a number of other issues, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

No. M2014-01115-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.