- 7 -
rehabilitation a new goal of existing forms of alimony or made a
new form of alimony called “rehabilitative”. Then, in the early
1990s, the Tennessee Supreme Court held in a pair of cases that
Tennessee still recognized only two forms of alimony--in solido
and in futuro. In Isbell v. Isbell, 816 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1991),
the Court created a default rule of construction for awards of
rehabilitative alimony like the one at issue in this case:
But where the rehabilitative award has been
made for a fixed amount, the award must be
considered non-modifiable, even if it is to
be paid in installments and not in a lump
sum. The certainty that results from such a
rule benefits both parties, allowing each to
make long-range financial plans for their own
futures and for the future of any children
affected * * *.
Id. at 739.4
Shortly after Isbell, the Court decided Self v. Self, 861
S.W.2d 360 (Tenn. 1993). Self also arose from an order to pay a
fixed sum for a fixed term, in this case $3,000 per month for 48
months. The trial court that ordered these payments explicitly
stated that it meant then to allow Mrs. Self to become
financially independent:
the wife is both capable of and entitled to
4 The Court did emphasize that this was only a default rule
--carefully observing that a trial court could place conditions
on the award of rehabilitative alimony or ensure that the default
rule wouldn’t apply by not making the award for a sum certain.
Isbell, 816 S.W.2d at 739 n.1. It also noted that the parties
themselves could impose conditions on rehabilitative alimony by
their own agreement. Id. at 739.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011