Husband Can’t Escape Alimony Merely Because of Retirement

Tennessee alimony modification, termination and retirement case summary.

William James Jekot v. Pennie Christine Jekot

The husband and wife in this Rutherford County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2005.  The wife was awarded rehabilitative alimony of $15,000 per month for twelve months, followed by $10,000 for 24 months, followed by $5,000 for 24 months.  In 2007 and 2011, there were appeals to the Tennessee Court of appeals.  In 2011, the trial court reduced the husband’s obligation to $5,000, but the court of appeals reversed.

About four years later, the husband was back in court asking for termination of his alimony.  He testified that he was 66 years old and planned to retire from his medical practice.

But despite the retirement, the husband had an ability to pay, thanks to successful investments over the years.  The trial court denied the petition to terminate alimony.  It noted that the husband still had sufficient income, and that the wife’s need had actually increased.  The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that in the case of an objectively reasonable retirement, this constitutes a substantial change of circumstances, allowing the court to look at the alimony modification.  But it also noted that a change of circumstances does not automatically mean that alimony will be reduced or terminated.

The appeals court noted that the burden of proof was upon the husband, and that the wife was not required to prove her ongoing need for alimony.  With this in mind, it held that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings.

The husband also argued that he should not be required to “dip in” to the property award he received at the time of the divorce.  But the appeals court noted that the alimony could be satisfied by investment income, and rejected this argument.

After examining all of the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the lower court had not abused its discretion, and affirmed this portion of the order.

The husband did fare better when he requested that the award of attorney fees to the wife be reversed.  The appeals court was unable to find any statute authorizing such fees in this type of case.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, but vacated the award of attorney fees.

No. M2016-01760-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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