two most important factors in Tennessee

2016Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

2014Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

2020Of the statutory alimony factors, “the two most important factors considered are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2002). “[T]he disadvantaged spouse’s need is the threshold consideration.” Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2004“As with any award of spousal support, the two most important factors considered are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Robertson, 76 S.W.3d at 342 .

2020Of the statutory alimony factors, “the two most important factors considered are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2002). “[T]he disadvantaged spouse’s need is the threshold consideration.” Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2020In determining whether to award spousal support, the trial court is required to consider the relevant factors at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121(i).8 “While a trial court should consider all the relevant factors under the 7 The oral ruling was not incorporated into and made a part of the Final Decree; however, it provides insight into the court’s reasoning as it ruled on this issue. 8 Those factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121(i)are: (1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, p

2006Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i)(1)-(12) (2005).3 “The two most important factors are the obligor’s ability to pay and the obligee’s need.” Wiltse v. Wiltse, No. W2002-03132-COA-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 , at *19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2004) (citing Lancaster v. Lancaster, 671 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). “[T]he amount of alimony should be determined so ‘that the party obtaining the divorce [is not] left in a worse financial situation than he or she had before the opposite party’s misconduct brought about the divorce.’” Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410-11 (Tenn. 1995) (quo

2005The two most important factors in setting the amount of an alimony award are need and the ability to pay, with need being “the single most important factor.” Id., (quoting Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)).

2016Id. (citing Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 457 ; Bratton, 136 S.W.3d at 605 ; Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2002); Burlew, 40 S.W.3d at 470 ).

2014Id. at 110 (citing Riggs, 250 S.W.3d at 457 ; Bratton, 136 S.W.3d at 605 ; Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2002); Burlew, 40 S.W.3d at 470 ).

2022“The two most important factors a trial court must consider are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 638 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tenn. 2004)).

2013The two most important factors to consider when initially making or modifying an award of alimony are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tenn. 2004); Bogan, 60 S.W.3d at 730; Oakes v. Oakes, 235 S.W.3d 152, 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2006“The two most important factors are the obligor’s ability to pay and the obligee’s need.” Wiltse v. Wiltse, No. W2002-03132-COA-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 , at *19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2004) (citing Lancaster v. Lancaster, 671 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)).

2006Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i)(1)-(12) (2005).3 “The two most important factors are the obligor’s ability to pay and the obligee’s need.” Wiltse v. Wiltse, No. W2002-03132-COA-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 , at *19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2004) (citing Lancaster v. Lancaster, 671 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). “[T]he amount of alimony should be determined so ‘that the party obtaining the divorce [is not] left in a worse financial situation than he or she had before the opposite party’s misconduct brought about the divorce.’” Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410-11 (Tenn. 1995) (quo

2016App. P. 13(d); Bogan, 60 S.W.3d at 727 ; Tennessee Code Annotated ' 36-5-121(i) directs the court to consider relevant factors when it determines “whether the granting of an order for payment of support and maintenance to a party is appropriate, and in determining the nature, amount, length of term, and manner of payment.” It is well settled that the two most important factors to be considered are the disadvantaged spouse‟s need and the obligor spouse‟s ability to pay.

2003The two most important factors to be considered in modifying an award of alimony are “the financial ability of the obligor to provide for the support and the financial need of the party receiving the support.” Bogan, 60 S.W.3d at 730 (citations omitted).

2024Buntin v. Buntin, 673 S.W. 3d 593 , 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W. 3d 483, 497-98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)).

2017See Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483, 497-98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted).

2005The two most important factors in setting the amount of an alimony award are need and the ability to pay, with need being “the single most important factor.” Id., (quoting Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)).

2004The two most important factors in setting the amount of an alimony award are need and the ability to pay, with need being “the single most important factor.” Id. (quoting Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citations omitted)). -4- Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 clearly reflects a legislative preference for an award of rehabilitative alimony.

2017“While a trial court should consider all the relevant factors under the circumstances, the two most important factors to be considered are the need of the economically disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” disadvantaged spouse in acquiring additional education or training which will enable the spouse to achieve a standard of living comparable to the standard of living that existed during the marriage or the post-divorce standard of living expected to be available to the other spouse.” Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 108 .

2017The two most important factors are “the disadvantaged spouse’s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 110 (citation omitted).

2007On prior occasion, this Court has noted that, while all of the above factors — to the extent relevant to the facts of a given case — should be considered in determining spousal support, "the two most important factors are the demonstrated need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse's ability to pay." Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675, 683 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998).

2007On prior occasion, this Court has noted that, while all of the above factors-to the extent relevant to the facts of a given case-should be considered in determining spousal support, “the two most important factors are the demonstrated need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675, 683 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).

2013The two most important factors to consider when initially making or modifying an award of alimony are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tenn. 2004); Bogan, 60 S.W.3d at 730; Oakes v. Oakes, 235 S.W.3d 152, 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2011See, e.g., Oakes v. Oakes, 235 S.W.3d 152, 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2013See Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483, 497-98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted); Williams v. Williams, 286 S.W.3d 290, 295-96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted).

2012See Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483, 497-98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted); Williams v. Williams, 286 S.W.3d 290, 295-96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted).

2006“The propriety of awarding alimony as well as the adequacy of the amount of an alimony award depends upon the unique facts of each case.” Butler v. Butler, 680 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

2006“The propriety of awarding alimony as well as the adequacy of the amount of an alimony award depends upon the unique facts of each case.” Butler v. Butler, 680 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

2022“The two most important factors a trial court must consider are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 638 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tenn. 2004)).

2010“The two most important factors a trial court must consider are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.” Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634, 638 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tenn. 2004)).

2004Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465, 467 (Tenn. 2003); Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, No. W2000–01807-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 640368 , at * 2, 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2001) (no perm. app. filed).

2004Perry v. Perry, 114 S.W.3d 465, 467 (Tenn. 2003); Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, No. W2000–01807-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 640368 , at * 2, 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2001)(no perm. app. filed).

2001Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Crain v. Crain, 925 S.W.2d at 234 .

2000See Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Crain v. Crain, 925 S.W.2d at 234 .

2001Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 235 .

2000See Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

1999It has long been recognized that the “[n]eed of the obligee spouse and the obligor's spouse's ability to pay are the two most important factors in determining the appropriate amount of alimony, if any.” Barnhill v. Barnhill, 826 S.W.2d 443, 455 (Tenn. App. 1991) (citing Campanali v. Campanali, 695 S.W.2d 193 (Tenn. App. 1985); Hall v. Hall, 772 S.W.2d 432 (Tenn. App. 1989)).

1996Barnhill v. Barnhill, 826 S.W.2d 443, 455 , (Tenn. App. 1991).

2019Cain- Swope v. Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79, 95-96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016); Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 , -6- 342 (Tenn. 2002); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 730 (Tenn. 2001).

2017In considering these factors when new evidence has been submitted, the two most important factors are: 1) “the Plaintiffs‟ efforts to obtain the evidence to respond initially to the summary judgment motion” and 2) “the Plaintiffs‟ explanation for the failure to offer the newly submitted evidence in their initial response to the summary judgment motion.” Chambliss v. Stohler, 124 S.W.3d 116, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), The trial court correctly ruled that none of the “new” evidence submitted by Buyers was truly new as “[a]ll the proposed affidavits were things that were known to the parties or k

2017Interest on Alimony in Solido We first address Husband’s claim that the trial court erred in requiring him to pay interest on the award of alimony in solido, relying on Price v. Price, 472 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tenn. 1971).

2016Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2002); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 730 (Tenn. 2001); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 107 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).

2009Appellate courts are, therefore, reluctant to second guess a trial court’s decision regarding alimony “unless it is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to the public policy embodied in the applicable statutes.” Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163, 169 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (citations omitted). -12- Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121(i) outlines the factors to be considered in determining whether to award alimony and, if so, the type and amount.13 The two most important factors are the need of the disadvantaged spouse and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.

2006Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i)(1)-(12) (2005).3 “The two most important factors are the obligor’s ability to pay and the obligee’s need.” Wiltse v. Wiltse, No. W2002-03132-COA-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 , at *19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2004) (citing Lancaster v. Lancaster, 671 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). “[T]he amount of alimony should be determined so ‘that the party obtaining the divorce [is not] left in a worse financial situation than he or she had before the opposite party’s misconduct brought about the divorce.’” Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410-11 (Tenn. 1995) (quo

2004Lancaster v. Lancaster, 671 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (citing Aleshire v. Aleshire, 642 S.W.2d 729, 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981)).