Gonsewski v. Gonsewski
350 S.W.3d 99
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Wife Johanna Gonsewski and Husband Craig Gonsewski married May 9, 1987; they were 21 years old and married 21 years at separation.
- They have two adult daughters; custody not at issue.
- At divorce (2009), Wife worked for the State of Tennessee in IT; Husband was an accountant and comptroller.
- Wife earned about $72,000 per year plus longevity bonus; Husband earned about $99,900 base with substantial bonuses prior to the downturn.
- The trial court denied alimony and attorney’s fees; Court of Appeals awarded alimony in futuro and alimony in solido to Wife; this Court reverses.
- The Court reinstates the trial court’s judgment, denying alimony in futuro, denying transitional alimony, and denying attorney’s fees as alimony in solido.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony in futuro was appropriate | Gonsewski argues rehabilitation unavailable; disparity justifies future alimony | Gonsewski argues no rehabilitation failure; long-term alimony not warranted | Alimony in futuro reversed; not warranted |
| Whether alimony in solido for attorney's fees was appropriate | Gonsewski seeks fees as alimony in solido due to Wife’s needs | Wife had adequate resources; fees inappropriate | Alimony in solido for attorney’s fees rejected |
| Whether transitional alimony was appropriate | Wife sought transitional alimony to bridge transition | No rehabilitation need; Wife stable; transitional alimony improper | Transitional alimony denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Robinson, 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 440 (1846) (trial courts have broad discretion in spousal-support matters)
- Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004) (preference for rehabilitative/short-term over long-term alimony)
- Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2001) (statutory framework and discretion in spousal support)
- Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000) (holding alimony in futuro unjustified where rehabilitative option viable)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (post-divorce earning capacity and self-sufficiency considerations)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998) (two key factors: need and ability to pay dominate analysis)