Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 8/31/2010

Andrews v. Andrews

Citations

344 S.W.3d 321
2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 553
2010 WL 3398826

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that an award of alimony in futuro is appropriate when the trial court finds there is relative economic disadvantage and that rehabilitation is not feasible
concluding that the evidence supported a finding that the husband could maintain an income of $850,000 per year when his average gross income in the four years prior to trial was $895,161 but he testified that he would soon be losing some of his “moonlighting” income
“Four types of spousal support are recognized in Tennessee: alimony in futuro, alimony in solido, rehabilitative alimony, and transitional alimony.”
“[T]he trial court’s failure to make a finding on the specific amount of Wife’s need d[id] not in and of itself render the alimony award an abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Holly M. Kirby

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.