- 8 -
rehabilitation * * * [t]his will, if Mrs.
Self desires, allow support for her in an
amount sufficient to allow her to be self
supporting and obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in
a field of her choosing. The Court feels
that * * * she should be rehabilitated to
such an extent that she can be gainfully
employed and after four years take her place
in the economic market place. * * *
Id. On these facts, Mrs. Self had a strong argument that the
payments--fixed in amount and term--were rehabilitative alimony:
The Court had made a specific finding that she was capable of
rehabilitation and fixed the payments to pay for rehabilitation.
Unlike the Rogers’ case, moreover, the trial court’s order in
Self expressly stated that the payments would cease upon Mrs.
Self’s death or remarriage. Then, four years after the trial
court entered its order, Mrs. Self moved to keep the alimony
payments coming because, despite a good faith effort, she had yet
to be rehabilitated. The trial court dismissed her petition,
holding that it lacked jurisdiction because rehabilitative
alimony was a form of alimony in solido, and alimony in solido is
unmodifiable under Tennessee law. See McKee v. McKee, 655 S.W.2d
164, 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).
The Tennessee Supreme Court agreed. It reasoned that
[t]he critical factor in determining whether
an award for the support and maintenance of a
former spouse is subject to modification is
the initial finding by the trial court
regarding the relative economic conditions of
the parties and the feasibility of
rehabilitation of the disadvantaged spouse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011