Opinion ID: 1044003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Award of Alimony in Futuro

Text: Guided by the foregoing principles, we turn to the specific contentions made in this case. As noted, the trial court denied Wife's request for both short and long-term alimony, explaining that she had a stable job with the State, earned a good income, and that her share of the marital estate was sufficient for her to find another residence. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered Husband to pay Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $1,250 per month until her death or remarriage. The intermediate appellate court reasoned that, although there was no need for economic rehabilitation given that Wife was a college graduate and had a steady career, alimony in futuro was necessary to mitigate the harsh economic realities of divorce due to the disparity in the parties' incomes. Husband argues that the intermediate appellate court's decision blurs the distinction between alimony in futuro and transitional alimony. He points out that the decision essentially establishes a precedent whereby a spouse may be entitled to permanent support simply on the basis of a difference in income and regardless of age, good health, history of stable employment, lack of demonstrated need, and legislative preference for support other than permanent alimony. He also argues that the Court of Appeals substituted its judgment for that of the trial court without finding an abuse of discretion. Wife responds that awarding permanent alimony is the only way to balance the financial equities of the parties. She, like the Court of Appeals, relies heavily upon the disparity in the parties' income. She also argues that Husband has the ability to pay the amount awarded. Finally, Wife points out that the demise of the marriage was Husband's fault. We are persuaded that alimony in futuro should not have been awarded in this case. As noted, alimony in futuro is intended to provide support on a long-term basis if the court finds that there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(1). See also Burlew, 40 S.W.3d at 471; Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 456 n. 2. In this context, rehabilitation means that the disadvantaged spouse is unable to achieve, with reasonable effort, an earning capacity that will permit the spouse's standard of living after the divorce to be reasonably comparable to the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, or to the post-divorce standard of living expected to be available to the other spouse. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(1). Here, Wife has a strong earnings record through the course of the marriage. The record is silent on what, if anything, Wife could or could not do to alter her earning capacity to permit her standard of living after the divorce to be reasonably comparable to the standard of living during the marriage. No evidence was presented regarding the prospect or feasibility of Wife making any reasonable effort in this regard as contemplated by section 36-5-121(f)(1). Moreover, little evidence, other than their income and expense statements, was presented concerning the parties' standard of living during the marriagewhether lavish, frugal, or somewhere in between. Nor was evidence presented regarding the post-divorce standard of living expected to be available to Husband. We are not inclined to speculate about these matters, which relate directly to the statutory standard for awarding permanent alimony. What is established by the record is that Husband and Wife were married twenty-one years. They were both forty-three years old at the time of trial. They both have college degrees and worked throughout the marriage. Neither has a physical or mental condition that bears upon the alimony decision. There are no minor children that make employment outside the home undesirable or difficult. The parties received comparable shares of the marital property, with Wife receiving slightly more than Husband. Wife earns $72,000 a year (plus a longevity bonus), has been employed by the State of Tennessee for at least 16 years, and works in the field of information technology. Husband earns an annual $99,900 base salary. He receives bonuses that are contingent upon his and his employer's performance. His bonuses in the two years prior to the divorce were approximately $34,000 each, but he testified that the bonuses are likely to decrease due to the economic downturn and the completion of a long-term project. Husband also obtained loans to help the parties' children achieve a college education. The children reside with him when they are not in school. Husband had been ordered to pay Wife $1,206 during the pendency of the divorce as temporary spousal support, and he testified that, in his opinion, this support should have been sufficient to enable Wife to transition to her post-divorce standard of living so that no additional spousal support would be needed. The proof further showed that the parties made equal contributions to the marriage. Husband stipulated that Wife should be granted a divorce based upon his inappropriate marital conduct. Wife introduced evidence showing a gross monthly income of $6,125 from her employment and monthly expenses of $7,978, including the full mortgage payment of $2,882.12 and a $506 child support obligation. [10] Husband introduced proof showing a gross monthly income in 2008 of $11,451 from his employment and monthly expenses of $7,521, including the pre-trial spousal support of $1,206. He received slightly less marital property than Wife, and is providing the parties' daughters money for college. The trial court was aware of all of the foregoing facts and circumstances when it denied Wife's request for alimony in futuro. As indicated above, an appellate court should not reverse a trial court's alimony decision unless the trial court has abused its discretion. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d at 220; Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 343. This standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn.2001). Viewing the foregoing evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's decision, Wright, 337 S.W.3d at 176, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision not to award alimony in futuro. We also note that the Court of Appeal's decision to grant alimony in futuro based on the facts of this case is inconsistent with this Court's decision in Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d at 357. In that case, this Court held that an award of alimony in futuro was unjustified even though the husband's income exceeded $400,000 and the wife earned $41,200 working part-time from home. Id. at 357 and n. 1. The parties in Crabtree had been married for twenty-three years, and the wife was forty-three years old at the time of the divorce. The husband admitted to adultery and stipulated to the divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. The wife was a certified public accountant, and the husband testified that her actual earning potential was between $65,000 and $100,000 per year. This Court affirmed a grant of rehabilitative alimony for five years but, despite the husband's substantially higher earning capacity, held that an award of alimony in futuro . . . [was] not justified and [did] not recognize or further the legislative purpose of encouraging divorced spouses to become self-sufficient. Id. at 360. The same can be said of the present case, for the facts here offer even weaker support for awarding alimony in futuro than the facts in Crabtree. As in Crabtree, Wife was forty-three years old at the time of the divorce. Unlike the wife in Crabtree, Wife has been steadily employed, worked for the same employer for more than 16 years, and earns an annual salary of $72,000 (plus longevity bonus). Husband's income is also substantially lower than the husband's income in Crabtree. The Court of Appeals in this case observed it is more likely than not that Husband will continue to receive substantial bonuses which will further the discrepancy in the earnings of the parties. Gonsewski, 2010 WL 565649, at . The record, however, does not support this conclusion. Husband testified the bonuses likely will decrease due to the economic downturn and the completion of a long-term project. No contrary evidence was introduced, leaving us with a record establishing that Husband's bonuses are uncertain and will probably decrease. In short, Wife has the ability to support herself and, absent an abuse of discretion, we are not inclined to second-guess the trial court's decision not to award alimony in futuro. While we recognize that the record demonstrates a likelihood that Husband's income may continue to exceed Wife's by some extent, and that Wife's post-divorce lifestyle may decline to some extent, we are not willing to overrule the trial court on this basis. The economic realities are such that it is likely that Husband's standard of living will also decline as he establishes a separate household without Wife's income. We reiterate that [t]wo persons living separately incur more expenses than two persons living together. Thus, in most divorce cases it is unlikely that both parties will be able to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle once the proceedings are concluded. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 234.