Alice Marie Cherqui v. Moshe Laor, W2016-02502-COA-R3-CV

Wife and Husband divorced in 2014; their Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) and Permanent Parenting Plan (PPP) were incorporated into the final decree. They share one minor child.
MDA required Wife to pay $5,000/month for 40 months; half as alimony in solido and half as transitional alimony; provided that the total monthly payments were non-modifiable except if Husband failed to comply with specified provisions of the MDA/PPP, in which case Wife would be immediately relieved of any further obligation and Husband must reimburse any payments received after the date of non-compliance.
The PPP contained a passport provision requiring Father to complete and deliver specific notarized documents for the child’s passport within 30 days; Husband admitted he did not comply.
Wife filed a Notice of Termination of Alimony Payments based on Husband’s noncompliance; Husband sought enforcement and argued Wife remained liable for alimony in solido (non-modifiable). The trial court granted summary judgment for Wife and later awarded her $20,000 in attorneys’ fees; Husband appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding the MDA’s plain language terminated Wife’s entire alimony obligation (including alimony in solido) upon Husband’s noncompliance, and remanded to calculate appellate attorneys’ fees for Wife.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cherqui)	Defendant's Argument (Laor)	Held
Whether Husband's breach of the PPP relieves Wife of her entire alimony obligation under the MDA	The MDA’s unqualified language relieves Wife of the total monthly alimony payments (both solido and transitional) upon Husband’s noncompliance	The clause only affects the terminable/transitional portion; alimony in solido is a final, non-modifiable award and therefore remains owed	Court held the MDA unambiguously relieved Wife of her entire alimony obligation upon Husband’s noncompliance, including alimony in solido
Whether Wife is entitled to appellate attorneys’ fees under the MDA	MDA’s fee-shifting clause mandates reasonable fees to the party who successfully enforces the agreement, including on appeal	(Husband waived his cross-request for fees at argument)	Awarded Wife reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal and remanded for calculation

Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83 (Tenn. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Planters Gin Co. v. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co., Inc., 78 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. 2002) (interpretation of unambiguous contract language)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. 2006) (cardinal rule to ascertain parties’ intent from contract language)
Barnes v. Barnes, 193 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2006) (MDA treated as a contract)
Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012) (recognition of distinct types of spousal support)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (burden-shifting on summary judgment)
Kirk v. Kirk, 447 S.W.3d 861 (Tenn. 2013) (de novo review on appeals from summary judgment)
Marcum v. Ayers, 398 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (courts will not rewrite contracts for dissatisfied parties)
Towe Iron Works, Inc. v. Towe, 243 S.W.3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (courts do not reform contracts absent mistake or fraud)