ÿWPC³ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é B)'DCP AM“U*à B #'v~JvÓÈ D3› 0@Î AOÆ] 0D# D/g B–˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- DEE !"Ó€,Gav 3|x,2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMarch€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¶ XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›LARRY€STEVEN€BRIDGES,à àà àœ€€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›Ìà àœPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellee,€€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à àRobertson€œCircuit›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à àœ(Domestic€Relations)›ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)à àNo.€8809›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à à01„A„01„9510„CV„00463ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|³Š` ç `€€Lß›RUBY€œADCOCK›€BRIDGES,à àà àœ€€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›Ìà àœDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff/Appellant.)›ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€ROBERTSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€SPRINGFIELD,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€JAMES€WALTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌJAMES€L.€SMITHÌ315€West€Main€Street,€Suite€20ÌœHendersonville›,€Tennessee€37075ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌBruce€N.€OldhamÌSue€œHynds›€DunningÌOLDHAM€&€DUNNING,€œLLC›Ìœ102B›€Public€SquareÌœGallatin›,€Tennessee€37066ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ̛̜à àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇLARRY€STEVEN€BRIDGES,à àà àœ€€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›Ìà àœPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellee,€€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à àRobertson€œCircuit€›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à àœ(Domestic€Relations)›ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)à àNo.€8809›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›à à01„A„01„9510„CV„00463ÌRUBY€œADCOCK›€BRIDGES,à àà àœ€€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€)›Ìà àœDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff/Appellant.)›ÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€divorce€case,€the€œdefendant/counter„plaintiff›€œ/wife›€has€appealed€from€a€judgmentÏwhich€dismissed€the€complaint€of€the€œplaintiff/counter„defendant/husband,›€granted€a€divorceÏand€alimony€to€the€wife,€and€divided€the€marital€estate.ÌÌà àThe€wife€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€valuation€of€the€maritalÏproperty€„€specifically€the€valuation€of€the€partiesðð€real€property.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€distribution€of€the€maritalÏproperty.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€award€of€alimony€as€toÏnature,€amount€and€duration.ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.€€Whether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€an€additional€award€ofÏattorney€fees€and€costs€for€post„trial€motions€and€on€appeal.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€parties€were€married€on€December€19,€1958,€and€separated€in€1993.€€The€husbandÏis€now€56€and€the€wife€is€55.€€They€have€two€adult€children.€€Husband€has€been€employed€byÏDupont€Co.€œsince›€1960.€€His€1994€gross€earnings€were€œ$66,900.›€€After€raising€the€children,Ïthe€wife€was€variously€employed,€but€was€not€regularly€employed€at€the€time€of€trial.€€TheÏparties€owned€a€farm€of€38.96€acres€œon›€which€the€marital€residence€was€situated.ÌÌà àTo€the€wife€the€Trial€Judge€awarded€the€residence€and€adjacent€seven€acres€which€heÏvalued€at€$150,000.€€To€the€husband,€the€Trial€Judge€awarded€the€remainder€of€the€farm€whichÏhe€valued€at€$93,000.€€The€wifeððs€first€issue€challenges€these€evaluations€which€totalÏ$243,000.ÌÌà àAt€the€trial€the€wife€testified€that€the€entire€farm,€including€the€residence,€was€worthÏ$175,000.€€She€did€not€evaluate€the€separate€portions€of€the€farm.€€The€husband€testified€theÏhome€and€seven€acres€were€worth€$175,000€and€the€remainder€was€worth€$100,000.ÌÌà àThe€wife€relies€upon€an€interrogatory€propounded€to€the€husband€on€August€6,€1993Ïand€answered€under€oath€by€him€on€September€10,€œ1993,›€which€contained€the€followingÏinquiry€and€response:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àInterrogatory€No.€5:€œ€Please›€list€all€assets€.€.€.€specifying€.€.€.Ïpresent€fair€market€value.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àResponse:€œ€1.›€€Real€property:€house€and€38€acres€.€.€.€valueÏabout€$200,000.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€wife€also€relies€on€the€deposition€of€the€husband,€taken€on€October€12,€1993,Ïwhich€contains€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Now,€on€Item€No.€1€in€your€response€to€Interrogatory€No.Ï5,€you€have€listed€real€property€and€house€and€38€acres€ownedÏjointly€with€Ruby€Bridges,€value€about€200,000.€€Is€it€yourÏcontention€then€and€do€you€agree€that€the€property€has€a€fairÏmarket€value€of€$200,000?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€or€greater.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€If€you€believe€itððs€greater,€how€much€greater?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€I€would€guess€50,000€greater€or€50€to€100,€but€this€is€theÏappraised€value€based€on€a€refinancing,€so€I€canððt€argue€that.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€When€was€the€refinancing€performed?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€January€or€February€of€1993.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àà8 àQ.€€So€within€the€year?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€So€you€are€not€going€to€contest€a€$200,000€value€on€thatÏproperty?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€No.̛̜ÌÓÓà àAt€the€trial€on€May€24,€1995,€the€husband€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Can€your€property€be€cut€up€into€other€tracts?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir;€I€see€that€there€is€a€300€foot€frontage€here€that€isÏremaining€that€could€be€cut€into€a€150€foot€acreage€tract€frontageÏand€two€five€acre€tracts€that€could€be€made€here.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€In€taking€two€five€acre€tracts€down€here,€can€you€tell€me€inÏyour€opinion€what€they€should€sell€for?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Twenty„five€thousand€dollars€per€tract.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€How€much€per€acre?Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Five€thousand€dollars.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Could€that€50€foot€right€of€way€be€on€either€side€of€theÏhouse?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Thatððs€correct.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Again€in€your€opinion,€what€would€a€five€acre€tract€behindÏthe€house€sell€for?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€I€would€put€a€value€of€four€thousand€per€acre.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€So€thatððs€twenty€thousand€dollars?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Do€you€feel€that€the€remaining€property€thatððs€not€in€the€15Ïacres€or€the€seven€acres€your€wife€wanted€„„€what€do€you€thinkÏthat€could€be€sold€for?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Two€to€three€thousand€dollars€per€acre.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€If€we€sold€off€œ€the›€property€as€youððve€set€out„„I€have€toÏfigure€how€many€Iððve€got€left.€€Maybe€we€ought€to€mark€thatÏright€on€here.ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Thereððs€fifty€here€and€twenty€there€and€„„€thatððs€in€excess€ofÏa€hundred€four€thousand€dollars.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Let€me€ask€this€question.€€If€your€wife€maintained€the€sevenÏacres€and€the€home€place,€the€gazebo,€and€the€building€backÏhere„„thatððs€a€driveway?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Thatððs€a€drive,€yes.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€In€your€opinion,€what€would€that€be€worth?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€This€here?€€My€estimate€is€a€hundred€seventy„five€thousandÏœdollars.Ì›œÌ›œà8 à›œà8 à›œ.€.€.€.›ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Mr.€Bridges,€continuing€on€the€sheet€that€weððve€goneÏthrough,€we€got€through€the€SIP€account.€€We€now€have€theÏhouse€and€farm€in€Springfield,€Tennessee.ÌÌà8 àà8 àœYouððve›€already€testified,€I€think,€as€for€the€different€values.€€IfÏyou€did€everything€you€suggested€to€do,€what€would€be€theÏvalue€of€all€the€land€and€the€home€and€so€forth?ÌÌà8 àà8 àà0 àà àA.€€I€would€say€two€hundred€seventy„five€thousand€dollars.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€wife€argues€that€the€quoted€testimony€is€inconsistent€with€previous€responses€toÏinterrogatory€and€œthe€deposition›€should€not€be€considered€because€the€respondent/deponent€didÏnot€give€notice€of€his€changed€opinion€as€to€value.€€Such€a€contention€might€be€effective€inÏrespect€to€a€ð ðrequest€for€admissionðð€under€œT.R.C.P.›€Rule€36€which€contains€a€provisionÏentitled:€ð ðEffect€of€Admission.ðð€€The€general€rule€for€discovery,€Rule€26,€and€deposition,€RuleÏ27,€do€not€contain€an€ð ðEffect€of€Admissionðð€provision.€€Rule€26.05€states€a€rule€forÏsupplementation€of€responses€in€respect€to€certain€matters.€€ÌÌà àEven€if€the€failure€to€revise€a€response€should€justify€exclusion€of€testimony,€suchÏexclusion€was€waived€by€failure€to€œobject.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€36(a);€òòThompson€v.€Thompson,ÏóóTenn.€App.€1988,€749€S.W.2d€468.›ÌÌà àWhile€possibilities€of€profitable€use€of€property€may€be€a€circumstance€reflecting€uponÏits€value,€such€possibilities€are€not€the€measure€of€value.€€òòSee€Davidson€County€Board€ofÏEducation€v.€First€American€National€Bank,€óó202€Tenn.€9,€301€œS.W.2d›€905€(1957).ÌÌà àThe€nature€of€the€responses€and€testimony€in€the€present€case€do€not€justify€the€totalÏrejection€of€the€testimony,€but€relate€only€to€the€weight€to€be€given€to€the€testimony.€€The€TrialÏJudge€evidently€gave€some€weight€to€the€testimony€of€the€husband€as€to€value.€€His€judgmentÏin€respect€to€weight€is€not€readily€reviewable€by€an€appellate€œcourt.€€òòLeek€v.€Powell,€óóTenn.ÏApp.€1994,€884€S.W.2d€118.›ÌÌà àThe€wife€did€not€state€her€opinion€of€the€values€of€the€two€parts€of€the€farm,€sheÏtestified€only€as€to€the€value€of€the€œwhole›€farm.ÌÌà àAlthough€there€is€no€evidence€exactly€corresponding€to€the€value€fixed€by€the€TrialÏCourt,€the€value€of€land€must€be€determined€by€the€finder€of€fact€from€his€own€knowledge€andÏthe€opinion€of€witnesses€in€connection€with€proven€circumstances.€€òòGreen€v.€Arnold,€óó25€Tenn.ÏApp.€67,€150€œS.W.2d›€1075.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Judge€as€to€theÏvalue€of€the€farm€and€its€parts.ÌÌà àThe€second€issue€presented€by€the€wife€complains€of€the€division€of€the€marital€estate.€ÏThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àvi.€€Division€of€marital€property€should€be€equal€in€this€matter,Ïwith€the€husband€being€awarded€property€valued€at€$217,616Ïand€the€wife€being€awarded€property€valued€at€$211,874;€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àUsing€the€values€fixed€by€the€Trial€Court,€the€wife€received€property€worth€$189,874,Ïand€the€husband€was€ordered€to€pay€her€$12,000,€making€a€total€of€$201,874.ÌÌà àUsing€the€same€values,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€the€husband€property€worthÏ$219,619.80,€less€the€$12,000€to€be€paid€to€the€wife,€leaving€$207,619.80.ÌÌà àThis€division€is€not€exactly€equal,€but€this€is€a€49%„51%€division€which€isÏapproximately€equal.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€wife€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€evaluation€of€certainÏpersonal€property€in€making€its€distribution.ÌÌà àFirst,€the€Court€valued€a€ð ðSIP€Accountðð€(Savings€and€Investment€Plan€with€DupontÏœCo.)›€œat›€œ$93,000.›€€The€wife€insists€this€value€should€be€$93,465.30.€€The€husband€valued€theÏsame€account€at€$93,090€as€of€March€11,€1995,€two€months€before€trial.€€The€husband€testifiedÏat€trial€that€$946.80€had€been€added€to€the€account€and€that€some€interest€had€accrued€sinceÏMarch€11,€1995.€€He€also€testified€that€he€had€ð ðborrowedðð€$11,000€from€the€account€to€pay€hisÏattorney€on€an€unspecified€date.€€No€other€evidence€is€found€whereby€this€Court€couldÏconclude€that€the€value€of€the€account€was€some€amount€other€than€$93,000.ÌÌà àThe€wife€complains€that€the€Trial€Court€valued€a€tractor€and€tools€at€$11,000,€when€theÏhusband€testified€they€were€worth€$12,000.€€In€summary,€the€wife€argues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAccording€to€the€values€set€by€the€Court,€husband€received€aÏtotal€value€of€$219,619.80,€although€the€court€stated€the€value€toÏbe€$217,616.00.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€already€stated,€the€division€made€by€the€Trial€Court€is€equitable,€if€not€exactly€equal.€ÏAny€slight€inequality€is€not€sufficient€to€require€revision€by€this€Court.€€When€the€Trial€œCourt›Ïreferred€in€its€order€to€an€ð ðequal€divisionðð€the€intended€meaning€was€approximately,€rather€thanÏprecisely€equal.ÌÌà àThe€wifeððs€third€issue€complains€of€the€amount€of€alimony€awarded.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€Trial€Court€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àG.€€Husband€shall€pay€the€full€mortgage.€€The€wife€having€beenÏgranted€62%€of€the€real€property,€husband€may€consider€62%€ofÏthe€mortgage€payment,€whether€lump€sum€or€otherwise,€asÏalimony.€€This€alimony€obligation€shall€terminate€upon€theÏmortgage€being€paid.ÌÌà8 àà8 àH.€€Based€upon€the€marriage€of€36€years€and€wifeððs€medicalÏdifficulties,€which€are€a€factor€in€her€ability€to€have€gainfulÏemployment€in€the€future,€the€wife€should€have€alimony.€€BasedÏupon€the€wifeððs€age€and€health€conditions€and€otherÏcircumstances,€the€wife€is€not€œrehabilitatable›,€and€the€alimony€setÏforth€hereinafter,€unless€otherwise€qualified,€shall€continue€untilÏher€death€or€remarriage.ÌÌà8 àà8 àI.€€The€wife€has€income€of€$480.00€per€month€and€husband€hasÏnet€income€of€$4,000€per€month.€€Income€and€expenseÏstatements€of€both€parties€show€that€there€is€not€enough€moneyÏto€satisfy€the€needs€of€both€parties.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àà8 àJ.€€Husband€shall€pay€alimony€to€the€wife€in€the€amount€of€$650€perÏmonth€until€such€time€as€he€retires€from€his€employment€at€which€timeÏthe€alimony€figure€will€change€to€reflect€the€total€figure€received€fromÏretirement€and€alimony€will€equal€$650.̛̜ÌÓÓà àœAn›€order€for€òòpendente€liteóó€support€states€that€the€mortgage€payments€are€$1,158€perÏmonth.€€Sixty„two€percent€of€this€amount€œis›€œ$717.96,›€œwhich€combined€with€the€$650€monthlyÏalimony€will€total€$1,367.96€alimony€so€long€as€the€husband€is€paying€the€mortgage.›€€ÌÌà àThe€finding€that€the€wife€is€not€ð ðœrehabilitatable›ðð€is€not€a€finding€that€she€is€unable€toÏearn€any€income.€€The€word€œis›€not€defined€by€Websterððs€Third€New€International€Dictionary,Ïunabridged;€but€the€same€work€defines€the€word,€ð ðrehabilitationðð€as€ð ðthe€physical€restoration€ofÏa€sick€or€disabled€person€by€therapeutic€measures€and€re„education€to€participation€in€theÏactivities€of€a€normal€life€within€the€limitations€of€the€disability.ðð€€As€used€in€œT.C.A.›€SectionÏ36„5„101,€the€words€ð ðrehabilitated,ðð€and€ð ðrehabilitativeðð€refer€to€improvement€in€ability€for€selfÏsupport,€principally€by€therapy,€training€or€further€education.ÌÌà àThus,€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Judge€is€interpreted€to€mean,€the€ability€of€the€wife€toÏsupport€herself€cannot€be€improved€by€therapy,€training€or€further€education.€€A€consequenceÏof€this€finding€is€that€the€wifeððs€ability€to€support€herself€cannot€be€expected€to€improve.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€shows€that€the€wife€operates€a€frame€shop€from€which€she€derived€grossÏprofit€of€œ$7,713€per€year.›€€The€wife€admits€$482.26€per€month€net€income€and€claims€$1,893Ïexpenses,€producing€a€need€of€$1,410.74€per€month.ÌÌà àThe€husband€admits€$3,906€monthly€net€income€and€claims€expenses€of€$2,109€perÏmonth€plus€the€total€mortgage€payment€of€$1,158,€or€$3,267€per€month.€€The€$650€monthlyÏalimony€increases€his€expenses€to€$3,917€per€month.ÌÌà àEven€though€the€$650€per€month€alimony€is€not€equal€to€the€needs€of€the€wife,€itÏappears€that€the€husband€is€not€able€to€pay€more.ÌÌà àThe€wife€complains€of€the€provision€in€the€judgment€that€the€alimony€will€be€reducedÏby€any€amount€received€by€her€out€of€the€pension€to€be€received€by€the€husband€uponÏretirement.€€The€pension€was€found€to€be€part€of€the€marital€estate€and€divided€equally€betweenÏthe€parties.€€It€hardly€seems€just€to€permit€the€husband€to€satisfy€all€or€part€of€his€alimonyÏobligation€with€funds€which€have€been€awarded€to€his€wife.€€Unquestionably,€when€theÏhusband€ceases€to€receive€his€salary€and€begins€to€receive€a€pension,€his€ability€to€pay€alimonyÏmay€be€affected.€€Also,€when€the€wife€begins€to€receive€one„half€of€the€pension,€her€need€forÏalimony€may€be€affected.€€However,€it€is€doubtful€that€fair€provision€can€be€made€at€this€time€toÏaccommodate€the€uncertain€effect€of€these€developments.ÌÌà àSince€the€alimony€awarded€is€alimony€in€futuro,€it€is€subject€to€revision€at€any€time€forÏgood€cause.€€T.C.A.€ðð36„5„101(a)(5).€€Accordingly,€upon€the€retirement€of€the€husband€or€anyÍother€substantial€change€in€circumstance,€the€alimony€may€be€revised€upon€application€to€theÏTrial€Court.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€wife€requests€the€allowance€œof€additional›€counsel€fees€for€œpost„trial›€motionsÏand€this€appeal.€€The€allowance€of€fees€for€œpost„trial›€proceedings€rests€in€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€Trial€Judge.€€This€Court,€in€the€exercise€of€its€corresponding€discretion,€declines€toÏallow€fees€in€this€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€entered€by€the€Trial€Court€on€July€12,€1995,€is€modified€by€deletingÏtherefrom€the€quoted€paragraph€ð ðJðð€and€substituting€therefor€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àJ.€€Husband€is€hereby€ordered€to€pay€to€the€wife€the€amount€ofÏ$650€per€month€until€changed€for€good€cause€by€order€of€thisÏCourt.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àAs€modified,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÏagainst€the€husband.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€œCourt›€for€entry€of€an€order€inÏconformity€with€this€opinion€and€for€necessary€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àModified,€Affirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÓÓœÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE