Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-105 (2026)

Intestacy of plaintiff spouse - Effect on alimony

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)
- (1) If the bonds of matrimony have been dissolved at the suit of the plaintiff spouse, the defendant spouse shall not be entitled to any part of the real or personal estate of the plaintiff spouse in case of such plaintiff's intestacy.
- (2) Any entitlement a spouse may have to alimony shall be decided on the basis of factors set forth in § 36-5-121.

(b) However, when the cause of divorce is irreconcilable differences under § 36-4-103, subsection (a) shall not apply if the parties have entered into a written marital dissolution agreement wherein the plaintiff consents to the payment to the defendant of alimony, either in lump sum form or periodic payments; provided, that such marital dissolution agreement is approved by the court granting the decree of divorce.

Acts 1983, ch. 414, § 6; T.C.A., § 36-840; Acts 1987, ch. 390, § 5; 2005, ch. 287, § 4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2004–2007 · leading case: Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The court has further necessarily considered the statutory factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-5-105(l)-(10) all of which are relevant in this case except for subsection (7) relative to the preference of a 12 year old child which is not relevant based on the ages of the children…”

Gerald A. Ottinger v. Kimberly S. Ottinger (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “In its order disposing of the case, the trial court found the following: This is a most difficult decision to make because the application of the comparative fitness doctrine to the relevant factors set out in T.C.A. § 36-5-105, leaves the parties virtually dead even.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-105(l) — 1 case

Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “The court has further necessarily considered the statutory factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-5-105(l)-(10) all of which are relevant in this case except for subsection (7) relative to the preference of a 12 year old child which is not relevant based on the ages of the children…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.