Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (2024)

Decree for support of spouse

✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 762, s 7, eff. 3/31/2022.

Acts 2005, ch. 287, § 2; 2011 , ch. 119, § 3.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 475 cases (81 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 40× “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 34× “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Christina Lee Cain-Swope v. Robert David Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 . There is a statutory preference for rehabilitative or transitional alimony, Tenn.”
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 15× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(0(1). Alimony in futuro “is not, however, a guarantee that the recipient spouse will forever be able to enjoy a lifestyle equal to that of the obligor spouse.”
Alexander Stratienko v. Lisa Stratienko, 529 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (g)(1). Rather, Wife *405 had no income and no reasonable employment opportunities.”
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121© 15 “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Jennifer Lynn Jackman v. Kenneth Robert Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (e)(2) (2010). On the other hand, Wife argues that the trial court had not yet closed proof on her ability to be rehabilitated, and therefore did not abuse its discretion by awarding her alimony in futuro.”
Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 6× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (d)(2) — (3); Gonsewski, 350 S.”
Renee Pembroke (Cooley) v. Christopher Eugene Cooley, 543 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “3d at 107 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (f)(1)). Alimony in futuro can be awarded ―when the court finds that there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible.”
Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “3d at 12 . In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121 (i) “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “An award of alimony in futuro is appropriate when the trial court finds “that there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible.” Id. An award of alimony in futuro concurrent with an award of rehabilitative alimony may be appropriate when the trial…”
Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 4× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (2005); see generally Cynthia Starnes, Divorce and the Displaced Homemaker: A Discourse on Playing with Dolls, Partnership Buyouts and Dissociation Under No-Fault, 60 U.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(1): 2 cases
Williams v. Williams, 286 S.W.3d 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
Alexander Stratienko v. Lisa Stratienko, 529 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (g)(1). Rather, Wife *405 had no income and no reasonable employment opportunities.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(11): 1 case
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(2): 1 case
Rebecca Lynn Willenberg v. Mark Edward Willenberg, No. M2013-02627-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 4725252 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2014).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(2005): 1 case
Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, No. E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(I): 8 cases
Iain Hiscock v. Sue E. Hiscock, No. M2005-01489-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2006).
Joseph Winfred Reeves v. Felicia Kimberly Reeves, No. W2012-00267-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2013).
Ronnie Gale Gill v. Nancy Jane Gill, No. W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011).
Lisa Faye Roland Camp v. Randy Coleman Camp, No. W2006-02644-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2008).
C. Phillip McDow v. Sara Ciaramitaro McDow, No. W2005-02353-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(a): 15 cases
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121© 15 “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “3d at 12 . In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121 (i) “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Jennifer Lynn Jackman v. Kenneth Robert Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (e)(2) (2010). On the other hand, Wife argues that the trial court had not yet closed proof on her ability to be rehabilitated, and therefore did not abuse its discretion by awarding her alimony in futuro.”
In re Westerfield, 403 B.R. 545 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2009).
Sabra Elaine Ellis O'Daniel v. Rusty Wade O'Daniel, 419 S.W.3d 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(b): 2 cases
Sharon Kay Jackson v. Randall D. Jackson, No. W2006-00182-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 529928 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007).
Dale Robert Scherzer v. Melissa Marie Scherzer - Concurring, No. M2017-00635-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 2371749 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(b)(1)(B): 3 cases
William Hunter Babcock v. Sonnia Elizabeth Babcock, No. E2014-01670-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 1059003 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2015).
Harold Lee Harden v. Judy Kay Harden, No. M2009-01302-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 2612688 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2010).
Lisa Bass Collins v. Stephen Butler Collins, No. W2008-02660-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(c)(1): 5 cases
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Regina D. Wiser v. Cyrus W. Wiser, Jr., No. M2009-00620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2010).
Alexander A. Rogin v. Joelle L. Rogin, No. W2012-01983-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3486955 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 10, 2013).
Joy Henley McKee v. Jeffrey Elston McKee, No. M2009-01502-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3245246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2010).
Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr., No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(c)(2): 6 cases
Sharon Kay Jackson v. Randall D. Jackson, No. W2006-00182-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 529928 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007).
Mimi Hiatt v. Kevin L. Hiatt, No. E2015-00090-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2016).
Mihir Kishorchandra Patel v. Janki Anil Patel, No. W2018-00820-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2019).
Deborah R. Chase v. Christopher W. Chase, 670 S.W.3d 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Regina D. Wiser v. Cyrus W. Wiser, Jr., No. M2009-00620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d): 5 cases
Jekot v. Jekot, 232 S.W.3d 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Farnham v. Farnham, 323 S.W.3d 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
Deborah Elaine Murdock v. Joel Montgomery Murdock, No. W2019-00979-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 611024 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022).
William James Jekot v. Pennie Christine Jekot, No. M2006-00316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2006).
Victoria C. Jensen v. Tyler C. Jensen, No. E2023-00315-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2024).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(1): 14 cases
Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “An award of alimony in futuro is appropriate when the trial court finds “that there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible.” Id. An award of alimony in futuro concurrent with an award of rehabilitative alimony may be appropriate when the trial…”
Oakes v. Oakes, 235 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Matthew Wheeler Mabie v. Carla Jennings Mabie, No. W2015-01699-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 77105 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2017).
Trina A. Henson v. Chris Robert Henson, No. M2016-01661-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2017).
Sonja Broyles Williams v. Stewart Ashley Williams, No. W2016-01602-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2017).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(2): 30 cases
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “An award of alimony in futuro is appropriate when the trial court finds “that there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible.” Id. An award of alimony in futuro concurrent with an award of rehabilitative alimony may be appropriate when the trial…”
Jekot v. Jekot, 232 S.W.3d 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121© 15 “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Christina Lee Cain-Swope v. Robert David Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 . There is a statutory preference for rehabilitative or transitional alimony, Tenn.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(2)(2005): 3 cases
Dottie Diana Slaugher v. Henry Slaughter, Jr., No. W2007-01488-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2008).
Joanne Ruth Bearb v. Michael Edwin Bearb, No. W2007-00402-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2008).
Lisa Faye Roland Camp v. Randy Coleman Camp, No. W2006-02644-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2008).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(3): 7 cases
Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, No. E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009).
Johanna L. Gonsewski v. Craig W. Gonsewski, No. M2009-00894-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2010).
Sharon Kay Jackson v. Randall D. Jackson, No. W2006-00182-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 529928 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007).
Phillip Wayne Crocker v. Nancy Jo Reece Crocker, No. W2006-00353-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2006).
Theressa Joanne Booker v. Ricardo Baytonia Booker, Jr., No. M2005-01455-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(4): 8 cases
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Jekot v. Jekot, 232 S.W.3d 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Stephen Todd Mays v. Melissa Gail Mays, No. M2010-02479-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 1424970 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012).
Brenda Brewer v. Kenny Brewer, Sr., No. W2008-02041-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(5): 6 cases
Dale Robert Scherzer v. Melissa Marie Scherzer - Concurring, No. M2017-00635-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 2371749 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).
Bruce Anne Steadman v. Charles Daniel Farmer, No. M2021-00484-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2022).
Stephanie Brummett Zarecor v. Glenn Payne Zarecor, Sr., No. W2014-01579-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2015).
Diana Lynn Van Zandbergen v. Scott W. Van Zandbergen, No. M2022-00886-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2023).
Timothy Wade Keyt v. Nanci Suzanne Keyt, No. M2008-01609-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(l): 1 case
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121© 15 “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(e): 2 cases
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Robert A. Stolze v. Janet F. Stolze, No. M2010-00818-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2011).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(e)(1): 12 cases
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Jill Smothers Lucchesi v. Eugene Anthony Lucchesi, No. W2017-01864-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2019).
Michelle Henry v. Richard H. Henry, No. M2019-01029-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2020).
Rosalynn Addis v. Ryan Keith Addis, No. M2024-00668-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2025).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(e)(2): 9 cases
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Mimms v. Mimms, 234 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Jennifer Lynn Jackman v. Kenneth Robert Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (e)(2) (2010). On the other hand, Wife argues that the trial court had not yet closed proof on her ability to be rehabilitated, and therefore did not abuse its discretion by awarding her alimony in futuro.”
Andrea Renea Hopwood v. Corey Daniel Hopwood, No. M2015-01010-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3537467 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).
Amanda N. Burnett v. Aaron L. Burnett, No. E2021-00900-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(e)(3): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(e)(l): 1 case
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(0(1). Alimony in futuro “is not, however, a guarantee that the recipient spouse will forever be able to enjoy a lifestyle equal to that of the obligor spouse.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f): 9 cases
Sandra Zoe Jeanette Naylor v. William Lee Naylor, No. W2016-00038-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3923790 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2016).
Daniel James Finstad v. Jessica Ann Calfee Finstad, No. E2017-01554-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2018).
Michelle Henry v. Richard H. Henry, No. M2019-01029-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2020).
Kathy Lynn Averitte v. William Ronny Averitte, No. M2012-00738-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 357602 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2013).
Rex Hubbard v. Helen Louise Hubbard, No. M2009-00780-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(1): 16 cases
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(0(1). Alimony in futuro “is not, however, a guarantee that the recipient spouse will forever be able to enjoy a lifestyle equal to that of the obligor spouse.”
Jennifer Lynn Jackman v. Kenneth Robert Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (e)(2) (2010). On the other hand, Wife argues that the trial court had not yet closed proof on her ability to be rehabilitated, and therefore did not abuse its discretion by awarding her alimony in futuro.”
Sharon Kay Jackson v. Randall D. Jackson, No. W2006-00182-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 529928 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007).
Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr., No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2): 1 case
Christopher Eugene Rickman v. Tracy Anna Rickman, No. W2008-01276-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2)(A): 6 cases
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121(0(1). Alimony in futuro “is not, however, a guarantee that the recipient spouse will forever be able to enjoy a lifestyle equal to that of the obligor spouse.”
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Deborah P. Linn v. Mark A. Linn, No. M2020-01624-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2021).
Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr., No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).
Robert Eugene Callaway v. Linda Marie Callaway, No. E2024-00251-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2024).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2)(B): 12 cases
Deborah Lynn Mathews v. Douglas Clay Mathews, No. M2018-01886-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2019).
Deborah P. Linn v. Mark A. Linn, No. M2020-01624-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2021).
Sheryl Haynes v. Terry Haynes, No. W2021-01004-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2022).
Ronnie Gale Gill v. Nancy Jane Gill, No. W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011).
Rita Grace Tidwell Hickman v. Bobby Spencer Hickman, No. E2013-00940-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 786506 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2014).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2)(B)(ii): 1 case
Deborah Evans Wilhoit v. Gary Dennis Wilhoit, No. M2017-00740-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2018).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(3): 2 cases
Diana Lynn Van Zandbergen v. Scott W. Van Zandbergen, No. M2022-00886-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2023).
Shonda Kay Finchum v. Danny Wayne Finchum, No. M2012-00975-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(l): 1 case
Lofton v. Lofton, 345 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g): 3 cases
Ann Marie Gillespie v. Andrew Mark Gillespie, No. E2006-00734-R3-CV, 2006 WL 3732195 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2006).
Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, No. E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009).
Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum, No. M2017-02330-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2019).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(1): 7 cases
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Victoria C. Jensen v. Tyler C. Jensen, No. E2023-00315-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2024).
Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr., No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).
Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, No. E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009).
Sharon Kay Jackson v. Randall D. Jackson, No. W2006-00182-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 529928 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(1)(2005): 1 case
Donald Paul Clayton v. Andrea Dawn Clayton, No. W2009-01393-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(2): 7 cases
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Dale Robert Scherzer v. Melissa Marie Scherzer, No. M2017-00635-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).
Barbara M. Hicks Vick v. Brandon P. Hicks, No. W2013-02672-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 6333965 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2014).
Candace Renea Cavness Howard (Beasley) v. Breck Markham Beasley, No. W2019-01972-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 6149577 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2020).
Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr., No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(2)(C): 4 cases
Dale Robert Scherzer v. Melissa Marie Scherzer, No. M2017-00635-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).
Barbara M. Hicks Vick v. Brandon P. Hicks, No. W2013-02672-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 6333965 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2014).
Brittany Hatcher Loewen v. Jeffrey Wade Loewen, No. M2014-02501-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 6438753 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2015).
Ashley Renee Reed v. Michael Eugene Reed, No. M2011-00980-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2012).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(l): 1 case
Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h): 4 cases
Edna Gergel v. James Gergel, No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1222945 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).
Deborah Elaine Murdock v. Joel Montgomery Murdock, No. W2019-00979-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 611024 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022).
Amanda N. Burnett v. Aaron L. Burnett, No. E2021-00900-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022).
Ann Marie Gillespie v. Andrew Mark Gillespie, No. E2006-00734-R3-CV, 2006 WL 3732195 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(1): 4 cases
Christy Keller Elrod Church v. Darrell Gene Elrod, No. M2018-01064-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2019).
Ahmed Mote Alzamzami v. Arwa Al-Sulaihi, No. W2020-01467-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2022).
Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, No. E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009).
Sharon Kay Jackson v. Randall D. Jackson, No. W2006-00182-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 529928 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(1)(A): 1 case
Kari Dale Remus v. Brandon Joseph Nunn, No. M2023-00589-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 1298975 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2024).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(2): 2 cases
Luplow v. Luplow, 450 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).
Christy Keller Elrod Church v. Darrell Gene Elrod, No. M2018-01064-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2019).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(l): 1 case
Jekot v. Jekot, 362 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i): 197 cases
Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Initial decisions regarding the entitlement to spousal support, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support, hinge on the unique facts of each case and require a careful balancing of all relevant factors, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (i).…”
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Renee Pembroke (Cooley) v. Christopher Eugene Cooley, 543 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “3d at 107 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (f)(1)). Alimony in futuro can be awarded ―when the court finds that there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible.”
Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (d)(2) — (3); Gonsewski, 350 S.”
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121© 15 “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(1): 8 cases
Richard Alan Ellis v. Donica Ann Woods Ellis, No. W2019-01869-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2020).
Regina D. Wiser v. Cyrus W. Wiser, Jr., No. M2009-00620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2010).
Richard Alan Pearson v. Christen Creighton Pearson, No. W2018-01188-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2394247 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2019).
John William Owens v. Meredith Elizabeth Owens, No. E2020-01470-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2021).
Iain Hiscock v. Sue E. Hiscock, No. M2005-01489-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(10): 3 cases
Richard Egan v. Rachael Marie Bailey Egan, No. M2018-01858-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Theressa Joanne Booker v. Ricardo Baytonia Booker, Jr., No. M2005-01455-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(11): 10 cases
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Kathryn Nicole Brown v. Tyler Matthew Brown, 577 S.W.3d 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
Norris Bettis v. Rebecca Bettis, No. E2016-00156-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2016).
Norris Bettis v. Rebecca Bettis, No. E2016-00156-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2016).
Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum, No. M2017-02330-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2019).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(12): 5 cases
Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “See T.C.A. § 36-5-121 (g)(2) (2005). In contrast, alimony in futuro is paid on a long term basis, generally “until death or remarriage of the recipient.”
Carol Ann Vick Watson v. Frank Lee Watson, Jr., No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).
Richard Egan v. Rachael Marie Bailey Egan, No. M2018-01858-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).
David Ashley Leonard v. Kimberly Champion Leonard, No. E2023-01002-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2024).
Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, No. M2009-02401-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2012).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(2): 4 cases
Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “3d at 12 . In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121 (i) “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Tracy Lynn Hallums v. Bruce Alan Hallums, No. M2016-00396-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Theressa Joanne Booker v. Ricardo Baytonia Booker, Jr., No. M2005-01455-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(2005): 3 cases
Fickle v. Fickle, 287 S.W.3d 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
Lisa Marie Walls Altman v. Benjamin Altman, No. E2008-00081-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2008).
Saundra Kay (Pace) Mason v. James E. Mason, No. W2010-00973-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(2006): 1 case
Jan Marie Vaughn v. William Daniel Vaughn, No. W2007-00124-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 162543 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2008).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(3): 3 cases
Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “3d at 12 . In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121 (i) “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Anthony Bernard Mobley v. Priscilla Ann Caffa-Mobley, No. M2011-02269-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5986544 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2012).
Theressa Joanne Booker v. Ricardo Baytonia Booker, Jr., No. M2005-01455-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(4): 1 case
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(5): 1 case
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(6): 2 cases
Robin Claire Pearson Gorman v. Timothy Stewart Gorman, No. M2010-02620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2011).
Regina D. Wiser v. Cyrus W. Wiser, Jr., No. M2009-00620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(7): 5 cases
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Heather Marie Bailey v. Daniel Michael Bailey, No. M2022-01467-COA-R3-CV, 2025 WL 1517411 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2025).
Analiza P. Burnett v. David Mark Burnett, No. W2007-00038-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 727579 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2008).
Iain Hiscock v. Sue E. Hiscock, No. M2005-01489-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2006).
Robert Eugene Callaway v. Linda Marie Callaway, No. E2024-00251-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2024).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(8): 3 cases
Mark E. Hatley v. Ann E. Hatley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
Richard Egan v. Rachael Marie Bailey Egan, No. M2018-01858-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(9): 3 cases
Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (d)(2) — (3); Gonsewski, 350 S.”
Regina D. Wiser v. Cyrus W. Wiser, Jr., No. M2009-00620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2010).
Richard Egan v. Rachael Marie Bailey Egan, No. M2018-01858-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(l): 4 cases
Oakes v. Oakes, 235 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “In “assessing the appropriate amount of modification, if any, in the obligor’s support payments, the trial court should consider the factors contained in” Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121© 15 “to the extent that they may be relevant to the inquiry.”
Jennifer Lynn Jackman v. Kenneth Robert Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (e)(2) (2010). On the other hand, Wife argues that the trial court had not yet closed proof on her ability to be rehabilitated, and therefore did not abuse its discretion by awarding her alimony in futuro.”
Marsha Bordes v. Julian Bordes, 358 S.W.3d 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(j): 1 case
Brenda Kay (Woods) Shooster v. Raymond (Ray) Gerald Shooster, No. E2008-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(k): 3 cases
Leo Holt v. Alma Jean Holt, No. W2012-00265-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2013).
Lisa Faye Roland Camp v. Randy Coleman Camp, No. W2006-02644-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2008).
Leo Berg v. Julie Ann Rutledge Berg, No. M2013-00211-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 2931954 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2014).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(l): 1 case
Carolyn Ann Talley v. Clinton Eugene Talley, No. E2016-01457-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1592770 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2017).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(o): 1 case
Jamie Kay Cardle v. Daniel Marcum Cardle, No. M2016-00862-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2188534 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2017).
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.