A recent Court of Appeals case shows Tennessee divorce attorneys when alimony in futuro is appropriate. In the Jackman v. Jackman case, No. W2010-01435-COA-R3-CV, the husband and wife married in 1996 but separated in 2002 after the wife discovered husband was having an affair. During the divorce proceedings, wife argued that not only was she economically disadvantaged but she was also unable to ever work again due to, among other physical ailments, depression and anxiety disorder. This was confirmed during depositions of her treating psychiatrist and court-appointed psychologist.
The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $2,400 a month in rehabilitative alimony. But before a final decision was made the court ordered the wife to undergo a vocational rehabilitation evaluation to make sure that she really was unemployable. The vocational rehabilitation program confirmed that she was not. The wife then argued that the court order should be amended to change the alimony to be in futuro instead of rehabilitative. The trial court permitted the change and increased the husband's alimony from $2,400 a month to $2,900 a month. The trial court also ordered the husband to maintain an additional $150,000 in life insurance coverage to secure his alimony obligation to his wife. The husband then appealed the trial court's decision.
Husband argued that even if the trial court could amend an alimony award (which the appellate court held it could), granting the wife alimony in futuro was not proper. Under T.C.A. § 36-5-121(f)(1), a party is granted alimony in futuro when the disadvantaged spouse is unable to achieve an earning capacity that will permit the spouse to have a living standard comparable to the living standard that they enjoyed while married. While T.C.A. § 36-5-121(i) uses twelve factors in determining alimony, the appellate court ruled that the two most important factors relating to an alimony award are the need of the economically disadvantaged spouse and obligor spouse's ability to pay. Since it was determined that the wife could never work again, the court ruled that granting alimony in futuro was appropriate. Also, even though alimony in futuro is usually not granted in situations where the marriage was of short duration, the court held that in such was not the case here. Even though they were separated in 2002, they did not divorce until 2006. Therefore the marriage legally lasted ten years.
The Appellate Court also held that although the husband had to support his current spouse and their three children, this was not a factor to take into account when determining alimony. As the court stated, the rule in Tennessee is that obligations voluntarily assumed by a party are not proper considerations for changed circumstances to reduce payments otherwise owed. Lastly, the appellate court held that requiring the husband to maintain a life insurance policy on the wife was proper. Under T.C.A. § 36-5-121(l), a trial court is allowed to require a spouse to maintain a life insurance policy to secure their alimony obligation.
