Jennifer Lynn Jackman v. Kenneth Robert Jackman
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband and Wife married February 18, 1996; separated July 2002; divorce finalized November 18, 2005; trial reserved all financial issues for February 20, 2006.
- Trial court awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony and required a vocational rehabilitation evaluation; alimony steps included $2,000/mo during COBRA, then $2,400/mo until age 59½, with future retirement offset and COBRA costs.
- Wife completed a vocational rehabilitation evaluation (dated September 11, 2006) indicating unemployability; trial court later stated that the evaluation would guide any future rehabilitation determination.
- Husband filed contempt and modification petitions in August 2008 seeking reduction/termination of alimony based on Wife’s noncompliance; Wife counter-petition sought modification to alimony in futuro; consent decree later required another evaluation.
- Rule 60.01 motion filed by Wife in June 2009 claiming the final order omitted findings that alimony was not final and subject to change; October 2009 amended final order nunc pro tunc to April 17, 2006.
- May 13, 2010 hearing resulted in conversion of rehabilitative alimony to alimony in futuro, increased monthly amount, and requirement of additional life insurance; July 8, 2010 memorialized order; Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60.01 was misapplied to amend the final order | Jackman contends the April 17, 2006 order was unambiguous and Rule 60.01 cannot alter its meaning | Jackman argues the court corrected an omission to reflect its intent to rely on VR results | Amendment under Rule 60.01 was proper |
| Whether converting rehabilitative alimony to alimony in futuro was proper | Wife had not closed proof on rehabilitation; alimony in futuro appropriate only if not rehabilitable | Court retained jurisdiction to review VR results and determine alimony nature | Yes; alimony in futuro supported by VR results and retained jurisdiction |
| Whether the increase in alimony amount was proper | Wife’s financial need and Wife’s disability argued for increased support | Husband could rely on his financial capacity and voluntary obligations | No abuse of discretion; amount increased |
| Whether requiring additional life insurance to secure alimony in futuro was proper | Insurance requirement ancillary to alimony in futuro | Statutory authority to require life insurance to secure alimony remains valid | No abuse of discretion; upheld life insurance requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 (Tenn. 2002) (review of spousal support awards; de novo, with abuse of discretion standards applied to weighing factors)
- Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2001) (factors governing alimony and post-divorce support; deference to trial court’s discretion)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard in alimony determinations; finality vs. adaptability of orders)
- Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate review of alimony decisions; emphasis on proper legal standards and balance of equities)