Edwards v. Edwards - No. W2011-02305-COA-R3-CV, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 854 (Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2012)

Rule:

In fashioning an award of spousal support, the primary considerations are the recipient spouse's need and the obligor spouse's ability to pay.

Facts:

After the divorce trial between plaintiff George Edwards and defendant Alice Edwards, the trial court awarded the defendant transitional alimony and alimony in futuro. It also awarded the defendant a monetary amount per month for her share of the plaintiff’s military pension benefits. The plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend arguing inter alia that the military would not make direct payments to the defendant from his military benefits because the marriage did not overlap the plaintiff’s active-duty military service for the requisite number of years. Based on the plaintiff’s argument, the trial court modified the alimony award by deleting the requirement that the plaintiff divide his military pension benefits with the defendant, but increasing the plaintiff's in futuro alimony obligation by an equal amount. The plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in increasing the plaintiff's in futuro alimony obligation to the wife? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the defendant wife transitional alimony and alimony in futuro, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121, because the plaintiff husband was more capable than the defendant wife of acquiring capital assets and income in the future while the defendant wife was nearing retirement age with neither retirement funds nor the plaintiff husband's earning ability. The court noted that the plaintiff husband had a monthly surplus of $ 1,830.97 while the defendant wife had a monthly deficit of $ 1,200.