Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121 (2026)

Decree for support of spouse

✓ current as of May 2026
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 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(2005) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(I) — 8 cases
Iain Hiscock v. Sue E. Hiscock (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Ronnie Gale Gill v. Nancy Jane Gill (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
— 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
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(b)(1)(B) — 3 cases
Harold Lee Harden v. Judy Kay Harden (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
— 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.”
Alexander A. Rogin v. Joelle L. Rogin (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(c)(2) — 6 cases
Mimi Hiatt v. Kevin L. Hiatt (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
— 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).
Victoria C. Jensen v. Tyler C. Jensen (Tenn. Ct. App. 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).
— 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
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(3) — 7 cases
— 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).
Brenda Brewer v. Kenny Brewer, Sr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(5) — 6 cases
— 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 (Tenn. Ct. App. 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).
Michelle Henry v. Richard H. Henry (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).
Rosalynn Addis v. Ryan Keith Addis (Tenn. Ct. App. 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.”
Amanda N. Burnett v. Aaron L. Burnett (Tenn. Ct. App. 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
Michelle Henry v. Richard H. Henry (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).
Rex Hubbard v. Helen Louise Hubbard (Tenn. Ct. App. 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.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2) — 1 case
— 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 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) — 12 cases
Deborah P. Linn v. Mark A. Linn (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
Sheryl Haynes v. Terry Haynes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Ronnie Gale Gill v. Nancy Jane Gill (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f)(3) — 2 cases
— 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
Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum (Tenn. Ct. App. 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 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(1)(2005) — 1 case
— 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.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(2)(C) — 4 cases
— 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 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Amanda N. Burnett v. Aaron L. Burnett (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(1) — 4 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(1)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(h)(2) — 2 cases
Luplow v. Luplow, 450 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).
— 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
Iain Hiscock v. Sue E. Hiscock (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(10) — 3 cases
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— 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 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
Norris Bettis v. Rebecca Bettis (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum (Tenn. Ct. App. 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.”
Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke (Tenn. Ct. App. 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.”
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(2005) — 3 cases
Fickle v. Fickle, 287 S.W.3d 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(2006) — 1 case
— 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.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(4) — 1 case
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(5) — 1 case
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(6) — 2 cases
— 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).
Iain Hiscock v. Sue E. Hiscock (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i)(8) — 3 cases
Mark E. Hatley v. Ann E. Hatley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson (Tenn. Ct. App. 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.”
— 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
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(k) — 3 cases
Leo Holt v. Alma Jean Holt (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Leo Berg v. Julie Ann Rutledge Berg (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(l) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(o) — 1 case
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.