Opinion ID: 1044003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Transitional Alimony

Text: In her prayer for relief, Wife sought spousal support, both temporarily and permanently. At trial, Wife testified that she was seeking alimony in solido in an unspecified amount from Husband's share of the equity in the marital residence and additional alimony of $1,500 per month. Neither in her complaint for divorce nor during her testimony did she specifically seek transitional alimony. The trial court denied Wife's demands for both in solido and periodic alimony. Although the trial court did not reference specifically transitional alimony in its order, its denial of any alimony in light of Wife's request for both lump sum and periodic alimony was sufficient, we hold, to include a denial of transitional alimony. [11] We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying transitional alimony. As set forth above, our legislature has declared that transitional alimony is to be awarded when the court finds that rehabilitation is not necessary, but the economically disadvantaged spouse needs assistance to adjust to the economic consequences of a divorce. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(4). For instance, in Gordon v. Gordon, the Court of Appeals considered a situation in which the wife had considerable earning capacity but was temporarily without a well-paying job. No. E2010-00392-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4244345, at  (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 27, 2010). Recognizing that, [g]iven [the wife's] age, health, education, intelligence, skills, industrious nature, occupations and employment history, there is every reason to believe that her lack of a desirable job will be short-lived, id., the intermediate appellate court characterized the case as an ideal one for transitional alimony, id. at . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's award to the wife of alimony in futuro to an award of twenty-four months of transitional alimony. Id. The instant case, in contrast, presents a very different scenario. As emphasized by the trial court in its denial of alimony, Wife has a stable work history with a stable income of more than $70,000 per year. She also obtained a greater share of the marital assets, receiving approximately $200,000. She is young, in good health, and college educated. She received pendente lite spousal support of $1,200 per month for sixteen months prior to the divorce hearing. Also, Husband was ordered to pay for one-half of the mortgage, taxes and insurance for the ninety days following the divorce during which Wife was permitted to remain in the marital residence. [12] We emphasize that, [w]hile there is no absolute formula for determining the amount of alimony, `the real need of the spouse seeking the support is the single most important factor.' Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn.1995) (quoting Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989)). See also Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 456 n. 5 (stating that transitional alimony is appropriate when a court finds that rehabilitation is not necessary but that the economically disadvantaged spouse needs assistance adjusting to the economic consequences of divorce). In our view, Wife has not demonstrated that she is in need of additional financial assistance in order to adjust to the economic consequences of her divorce. Moreover, while there is some disparity in the parties' income, the proof at trial established that this disparity was likely to be reduced significantly by the overall economic climate. The trial court duly considered Wife's request for temporary and permanent alimony in light of the appropriate factors and in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the case and deemed that no form of alimony was appropriate. The record does not persuade us that the trial court thereby abused its discretion, and we affirm its denial of transitional alimony to Wife.