## Facts

- George W. Edwards (husband) sued Alice Edwards (wife) for divorce in Tennessee.
- The parties’ marriage was long-term, and the trial court conducted a bench trial on divorce-related issues, including spousal support.
- The proof included undisputed evidence of both parties’ incomes and expenses.
- The trial court found George was not a credible witness on major topics, including his conduct and financial claims.
- George offered an unconvincing explanation for conduct the trial court viewed as plainly adulterous.
- George attempted to inflate Alice’s earning capacity and minimize his own resources, but he could not support those claims with reliable proof.
- After weighing the statutory factors for spousal support, the trial court found the marriage was beyond rehabilitation and that Alice was the more economically disadvantaged spouse.
- The trial court determined Alice had a need for support and that George had the ability to pay.
- The trial court awarded Alice transitional alimony for the period immediately following the divorce and also awarded alimony in futuro for ongoing, long-term support.
- George appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings and the structure and amount of the alimony award.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Alice was the more economically disadvantaged spouse and that the marriage was beyond rehabilitation for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Alice transitional alimony followed by alimony in futuro, including the amounts awarded.
3. Whether the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s credibility determinations and related findings about fault, incomes, expenses, need, and ability to pay.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the record supported the trial court’s findings that Alice was the more economically disadvantaged spouse and that rehabilitation was not feasible.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding both transitional alimony and alimony in futuro based on the statutory factors and the parties’ financial proof.
- The court gave strong deference to the trial court’s credibility findings, including the rejection of George’s testimony regarding adultery-related facts and financial matters.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee spousal support awards are governed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121, which requires consideration of multiple statutory factors.
- Need and ability to pay are the leading considerations in selecting the type, amount, and duration of alimony.
- Transitional alimony may be awarded to assist a spouse with the economic consequences of divorce when short-term support is justified.
- Alimony in futuro may be awarded when the economically disadvantaged spouse cannot be rehabilitated to an earning capacity that will permit a post-divorce standard of living reasonably comparable to the marital standard (or to the other spouse’s standard).
- A trial court may use more than one form of alimony in a single judgment when the proof supports that structure.
- Appellate review of alimony is for abuse of discretion; appellate courts generally will not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations made by the trial judge after a bench trial.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of transitional alimony and alimony in futuro because the trial court’s credibility determinations and detailed statutory findings were supported by the evidence, showing Alice’s economic disadvantage and need and George’s ability to pay, along with proof of George’s adultery and unreliable financial testimony.


Edwards v. Edwards, 2012 WL 6197079 (2012)