Alimony In Futero

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion. 

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

Sparks v. Sparks, No. E2022-00586-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2023). 

[T]rial courts in Tennessee have broad discretion to determine whether spousal support is needed and, if so, to determine the nature, amount, and duration of the award. See Gonsewski [v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2011)]; Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 605 (Tenn. 2004); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000). Because a trial court’s “decision regardingspousal support is factually driven and involves the careful balancing of many factors,” Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 105 (footnote omitted), the role of an appellate court is not to second guess the trial court or to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding, or refusing to award, spousal support. Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court causes an injustice by applying an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical result, resolves the case on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or relies on reasoning that causes an injustice.” Id. (citing Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011); Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010)). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, an appellate court “should presume that the trial court’s decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 105–06; see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) (“[R]eview of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding[s], unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.”).

Ellis v. Ellis, No. E2020-00869-COA-R3-CV, p. 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2022).

Equally well-established is the proposition that a trial court’s decision regarding spousal support is factually driven and involves the careful balancing of many factors. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 235 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); see also Burlew, 40 S.W.3d at 470; Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 340-41 (Tenn. 2002). As a result, “[a]ppellate courts are generally disinclined to second-guess a trial judge’s spousal support decision.” Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 234. Rather, “[t]he role of an appellate court in reviewing an award of spousal support is to determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and reached a decision that is not clearly unreasonable.” Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tenn. 2006). Appellate courts decline to second-guess a trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 343. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court causes an injustice by applying an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical result, resolves the case on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or relies on reasoning that causes an injustice. Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011); Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010). This standard does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but “‘reflects an awareness that the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives,’ and thus ‘envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal.’” Henderson, 318 S.W.3d at 335 (quoting Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). Consequently, when reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, such as an alimony determination, the appellate court should presume that the decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.

Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 105-06 (internal citations and footnote omitted).

Haynes v. Haynes,  No. W2021-01004-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2022) (memorandum opinion).

Husband’s appellate brief focuses primarily on the trial court’s classification of the parties’ residence as marital property and its award of alimony in futuro to Wife. In each of these areas, a trial court’s decision is fact-dependent and involves consideration of many factors. Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2011); Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). Thus, a trial court is “vested with a great deal of discretion,” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), when making these decisions, and “[a]ppellate courts decline to second-guess a trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion.” Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 105. A court abuses its discretion when it “causes an injustice by applying an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical result, resolves the case on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or relies on reasoning that causes an injustice.” Id. (citing Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011); Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010)).

Murdock v. Murdock, No. W2019-00979-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. March 2, 2022).

Trial courts have “broad discretion to determine whether spousal support is needed and,  if  so,  the  nature,  amount,  and  duration  of the  award.”  Gonsewski  v.  Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2011);  Burlew,  40 S.W.3d  at 470;  Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356,  360  (Tenn.  2000).  Absent  an  abuse  of  discretion,  the  appellate  court  is  generally disinclined to second-guess the trial judge’s decision on spousal support.  Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d  at 105 (citing  Kinard, 986 S.W.2d  at  234).  Abuse of discretion is found only when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision  on  a  clearly  erroneous  assessment  of  the  evidence,  or  employs  reasoning  that caused an injustice to the complaining party.  Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012) (citing  State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 39 (Tenn. 2010)). Under the abuse of  discretion  standard,  a  trial  court’s  ruling  “will  be  upheld  so  long  as  reasonable  minds can disagree as to the  propriety of the decision made,” or “as long as it falls within a range of acceptable alternatives.”  The standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its  judgment  for  that  of  the  trial  court.  Discover  Bank,  363  S.W.3d  at  487;  Eldridge  v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001);  Salvucci v. Salvucci, No. W2013-01967-COAR3-CV, 2014 WL 4201441, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2014).

Nelson v. Justice, No. E2020-01172-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2022)

Tennessee law recognizes that trial courts have “broad discretion to determine whether spousal support is needed and, if so, the nature, amount, and duration of the award.” Gonesewski v. Gonesewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 605 (Tenn. 2004); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000)). “[A] trial court’s decision regarding spousal support is factually driven and involves the careful balancing of many factors.” Id. (citing Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 235 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). Therefore, this Court is “disinclined to second-guess a trial judge’s spousal support decision.” Id. (citing Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 234). Rather, this Court is to “determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and reached a decision that is not clearly unreasonable.” Id. (citing Broadbent v. Broadbent, 211 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tenn. 2006)).