Opinion ID: 2337292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alimony In Solido, Alimony In Futuro, and Rehabilitative Alimony

Text: The Wife argues that she should have been awarded alimony in futuro rather than alimony in solido. The Husband argues that the in solido award is excessive. The parties also disagree with the Court of Appeals' ruling on rehabilitative alimony. A brief review of the differences between these three types of alimony is in order. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant portion of the statute governing alimony is Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-101(d), which provides in pertinent part: It is the intent of the general assembly that a spouse who is economically disadvantaged, relative to the other spouse, be rehabilitated whenever possible by the granting of an order for payment of rehabilitative, temporary support and maintenance. Where there is such relative economic disadvantage and rehabilitation is not feasible in consideration of all relevant factors, including those set out in this subsection, then the court may grant an order for payment of support and maintenance on a long-term basis or until the death or remarriage of the recipient except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a)(3). Tenn.Code.Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1). Accordingly, as we recently stated, the legislature has demonstrated a preference for an award of rehabilitative alimony to rehabilitate an economically disadvantaged spouse. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d at 358. When deciding whether rehabilitation is possible, and, in general, determining the proper form and amount of alimony, courts must consider the relevant factors set forth in section 101(d)(1)(A) through (L), but the real need of the spouse seeking the support is the single most important factor. In addition to the need of the disadvantaged spouse, the courts most often consider the ability of the obligor spouse to provide support. 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 Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675, 683 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999). A court must keep in mind that the purpose of spousal support is to aid the disadvantaged spouse to become and remain self-sufficient and, when economic rehabilitation is not feasible, to mitigate the harsh economic realities of divorce. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d at 682 (citing Shackleford v. Shackleford, 611 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tenn.Ct.App.1980)). The amount of alimony should be determined so that the party obtaining the divorce [is not] left in a worse financial situation than he or she had before the opposite party's misconduct brought about the divorce. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d at 411 (citing Shackleford, 611 S.W.2d at 601). In Crabtree v. Crabtree we recently held that [i]f an award of rehabilitative alimony is justified by the parties' circumstances, a trial court initially should award rehabilitative alimony only. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d at 360. The legislative purpose of rehabilitation is to encourage divorced spouses to become self-sufficient. Id. If rehabilitation is not feasible, the trial court may then make an award of alimony in futuro. Accordingly, a concurrent award of both types of alimony is inconsistent. Id. This holding emphasizes both the legislative preference for rehabilitation as well as the established rule that this preference does not entirely displace other forms of spousal support when the facts warrant long term or more open-ended support. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d at 682; see Aaron, 909 S.W.2d at 410; Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735, 739 (Tenn.1991). There are two forms of long term or more open-ended support: alimony in futuro and alimony in solido. Whether alimony is in futuro or in solido is determined by either the definiteness [ in solido ] or indefiniteness [ in futuro ] of the sum of alimony ordered to be paid at the time of the award. Waddey v. Waddey, 6 S.W.3d 230, 232 (Tenn.1999) (citing McKee v. McKee, 655 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983)). Alimony in solido is an award of a definite sum of alimony and may be paid in installments provided the payments are ordered over a definite period of time and the sum of the alimony to be paid is ascertainable when awarded. Id. A typical purpose of such an award would be to adjust the distribution of the parties' marital property. See, e.g., Lindsey v. Lindsey, 976 S.W.2d 175, 180-81 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997); Houghland v. Houghland, 844 S.W.2d 619, 622-23 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992). Alimony in futuro, however, lacks sum-certainty due to contingencies affecting the total amount of alimony to be paid. Waddey, 6 S.W.3d at 232. Unlike alimony in solido, an award of alimony in futuro is subject to modification, and its duration may be affected by contingencies agreed upon by the parties or imposed by courts. Id. at 232-33; see also Day v. Day, 931 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996) (Final awards of alimony in solido are not modifiable.). As we have noted, the purpose of this form of alimony is to provide financial support to a spouse who cannot be rehabilitated.