Vincente Acosta v. Kity Sonia Acosta, 499 S.W.3d 785

Vincente Acosta (Husband) and Kity Sonia Acosta (Wife) married 1999, divorced 2002, remarried 2005; separated finally in 2010; no children of the marriage.
Husband earned about $52,687/year; Wife had minimal earnings (~$70/month), limited English, and physical impairments (back pain, headaches, vision issues) attributed in part to domestic violence.
At bench trial (Oct. 7, 2014) the court orally announced rehabilitative alimony of $1,000/month for up to two years but entered no written order incorporating the bench statement.
After submission of findings, the court sua sponte reopened the proof and held an additional hearing (Dec. 4, 2014) with Wife testifying; Husband objected to reopening.
The court later entered a final judgment (Jan. 7, 2015) awarding alimony in futuro of $1,500/month (with a $250/month credit for dissipation) and found Wife incapable of economic rehabilitation; Husband appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Husband)	Defendant's Argument (Wife)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in reopening proof after trial	Reopening was improper and prejudicial because trial had concluded and bench ruling issued	Reopening was permissible; additional evidence was brief and duplicative and did not prejudice Husband	Court did not abuse discretion in reopening; no injustice or unfair surprise shown
Whether trial court erred by changing award from rehabilitative $1,000/mo to alimony in futuro $1,500/mo	Award change was improper because court previously announced rehabilitative alimony at trial	Court reconsidered evidence before judgment and properly altered form/amount after reflection and additional hearing	Court may amend judgment before finality; decision affirmed as within discretion

Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (standard of review and principles governing spousal support)
Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012) (distinguishing alimony in futuro and rehabilitative alimony)
Simpson v. Frontier Cmty. Credit Union, 810 S.W.2d 147 (Tenn. 1991) (trial court discretion to permit additional proof after party has closed)
State v. Bell, 690 S.W.2d 879 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (reopening proof within trial court discretion absent injustice)
Jackman v. Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (alimony in futuro appropriate when rehabilitation not feasible)
Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 15 S.W.3d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court may alter/amend judgment before finality)
Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275 (Tenn. 1976) (authority for trial court to change its judgment prior to finality)