Gonsewski: Tennessee Supreme Court Says No to Lifetime Alimony for Wife

October 19, 2011 (Press-News.org) Gonsewski: Tennessee Supreme Court Says No to Lifetime Alimony for Wife

On September 16, 2011, the Tennessee Supreme Court handed down an important decision about when lifetime alimony is appropriate -- or inappropriate, as the court found in Gonsewski v. Gonsewski.

At the time of their contentious 2009 divorce, Johanna and Craig Gonsewski had been married for 21 years with two adult daughters, had college degrees, were each 43 years old and had both worked throughout the marriage. Johanna earned $72,000 in yearly salary plus a small bonus. In the previous year Craig had earned about $137,000, including a bonus of around $33,000.

In the trial court, Chancellor Tom E. Gray made decisions about several issues, including dividing the marital property roughly in half, with slightly more going to Johanna; and denying her both alimony (spousal support) in futuro (lifelong) and rehabilitative alimony (support for a limited time to improve the receiving spouse's "earning capacity"). The chancellor based his decision on Johanna's steady job, income level and equity in the house.

Johanna asked the Court of Appeals of Tennessee to review several issues, including the denial of alimony. The appellate court, among other things, ordered Craig to pay permanent alimony (until remarriage or death) of $1,250 monthly.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and the Tennessee legal community anticipated that the court would provide significant guidance on when alimony in futuro is justified.

The court does not disappoint and speaks at length on the issue, holding that the trial court's denial of lifelong alimony had been correct and reversing the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court points to the state alimony statute's preference for short-term alimony, and also to the evidence before the trial court about education, age and stable income.

The opinion also strongly emphasizes that an award of alimony is based on the trial court's analysis of the evidence, that the appeals court should leave the initial alimony decision undisturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion here.

Finally, the Supreme Court references one of its prior decisions that had emphasized the legislative goal to promote self-sufficiency in divorced spouses. The court there found that permanent alimony was not appropriate considering the economic disparity between the spouses, which was even more extreme ($400,000 salary versus $41,200 in annual part-time work) than in Gonsewski.

The Gonsewski decision is in line with modern alimony developments in many other states that recognize that the traditional model of the wealthy husband supporting the dependent ex-wife for the rest of her life is no longer the usual reality. More often, the alimony question is becoming whether the spouses have similar earning capacity, or whether that capacity could be reached by the more dependent spouse with training or education. If the answer is yes, lifelong or even long-term alimony is less likely to be granted.

If you are considering divorce, be sure to consult early with an experienced family lawattorney about potential alimony and other issues. In addition, if you are the subject of an existing Tennessee alimony order you may want to discuss current legal developments with a lawyer.

Article provided by The Law Office of David L Scott
Visit us at http://www.attorneydavidscott.com