WPCf # VU:a % 0(b w@4 ) 0l8 0D  0J 0T: 0^ 0h 0rT 0| 0B 0 1uX 0d U*1B)[DC AMv~ B^ D3{v 0@ AO 0D D/ BIHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- - DDDDDӀD 3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G !  #d#"  "   YYY FILED"XNovember20,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#"       "     Althoughtheoriginoftheruleofunforeseencircumstancesishardtotrace,itgoesbackatleastasfarasHicksv.Hicks,176S.W.2d371,26Tenn.App.Reports641(1943),wherethecourtreferredto newfactsandchangedconditionswhichwerenotdeterminedandcouldnotbeanticipatedbythedecree.Weshouldalsopointoutthatthecourtsusuallydonotdrawadistinctionbetweensituationswheretheinitialsupportobligationwassetbyagreementandthosewheretheinitialobligationwassetbythecourt.PtPtHHHV,(hh hd'0F  d))))'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . "      \RA'\7XXdd7    MARILYNKENNEDYHENDON,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019603CV00108VS.      )      ) WilliamsonCircuitٜL%&$;+'h|<`  `Lߛ      ) No.C9432ROBERTC.HENDON,JR.,  )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALEDFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFWILLIAMSONCOUNTYATFRANKLIN,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLECORNELIAA.CLARK,JUDGEMARLENEESKINDMOSESEisenstein,Moses&MossmanSuite500OneChurchStreetBuildingNashville,Tennessee37201 AttorneyforPlaintiff/AppelleeJAMESH.DRESCHERStokes&Bartholomew,P.A.424ChurchStreet,28thFloorNashville,Tennessee37219 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellant@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.LEWIS,J.  @ "OPINION "X  Inthispostdivorceproceeding,thetrialjudgemodifiedatemporaryawardofrehabilitativesupportbychangingittoalongtermaward.Thehusbandarguesonappealthattherehavebeennounforeseenchangesincircumstancessincethedivorce;thatthelowercourterredinnotconsideringthefactthatthewifewillinheritasubstantialestatefromherparents;andthatthecourterredinrelyingonthefactthatthehusbandscurrentwifehasasubstantialincome.WeϜaffirmthetrialcourt.@ I.   In1990theCircuitCourtofWilliamsonCountyorderedadivorceoftheseparties.Thecourtfoundasafactthatthewifewhohasamastersdegreeinspeechtherapy,butalsohasalonghistoryofmentalproblemscouldberehabilitatedandcouldreturntotheworkforceasafulltimeemployee.Consequently,thecourtorderedthehusband,aNashvillelawyer,topaythewife$1500permonthforsixtymonths,andthen$750permonthforthirtysixmonthsor,untilherdeathorremarriage,ifeitheroftheseeventsoccurredsooner.  OnMarch7,1995thewifefiledapetitionseekingachangeinthesupportawardtomakeit$1500permonthuntilherdeathorremarriage.Thepetitionassertedthatthewifescontinuingpsychologicalproblemspreventedherfromreturningfulltimetotheworkforce,andthatthehusbandsincomehadincreaseddramaticallysincethedivorce.Afterahearing,thetrialjudgefoundϜthat,basedonthewifescurrentstatus,fullrehabilitationwasnotfeasibleandthatthehusbandsincomehadincreasedto$175,000peryear(from$75,000atthetimeofthedivorce).Thecourtalsofoundthatthehusbandscurrentwifehasanincomeof$50,000peryear.Basedonthesefindings,thecourtmodifiedthesupportawardtoprovidepaymentstothewifeof$1150permonthuntilherdeathorremarriage.@ II.   ApostdivorceincreaseordecreaseinspousalsupportmaybeϜordered onlyuponashowingofasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstances.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1)(emphasisadded). Tobematerial,thechangeofcircumstancesmustbeshowntohavebeenunforeseeableatthetimethedecreewasentered.McCartyv.McCarty,863S.W.2d716,719(Tenn.App.1992). '   כ  Thehusbandarguesthatitwasentirelyforeseeableatthetimeoftheoriginaldivorcethatthewifecouldnotberehabilitated;thatitwasnotonlyforeseeablebutpredictable,becausethemedicalproofavailableatthattimestronglysuggestedthatshewouldneverbeabletoworkatall.Thus,thehusbandreasonsthattheonlychangeincircumstancesisforthebetter,sincethewifenowworksparttime.  Wethink,however,thatthehusbandcannothaveitbothwaysonthisissue.Attheoriginaldivorcehearinghearguedthatthewifewouldbeabletogobacktoworkfulltime,andthatconsequentlysheshouldbeawardedtemporary,rehabilitativesupportonly.Hewassuccessfulinpersuadingthecourttomakethatfinding.HenowarguesthatsinceproofthatthewifecouldnotbeϜrehabilitatedexistedattheoriginalhearing,hersubsequentinabilitytoreentertheworkplacefulltimeshouldbeconsideredentirelyforeseeable.  Wethinkthatanytimeacourtfindsasafactduringtheoriginaldivorcethatafuturecourseofeventsislikely,andthefindingturnsouttobeerroneous,amaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurred.Therefore,thecourtwasjustifiedinmodifyingtheprevioussupportorderinaccordancewiththechangedcircumstances.@ III.   Thehusbandalsoraisesseveralissuesconcerningthewifesneedsandhisabilitytopay.Thetrialjudgefoundthatthewifesregularmonthlyexpenseswere$2100,andthatsheearnedatotalof$951fromherworkandherinvestments.Thesefindingsareamplysupportedbytherecord,andthehusbanddoesnotseriouslycontestherneedforanadditional$1150permonth.  Thehusbanddoesarguethatthefactthathisincomehassubstantiallyincreasedisnotachangeofcircumstancesjustifyingamodificationofthesupportaward.Healsoarguesthatthetrialjudgeerredinbasingherdecisioninpartonthefactthatthehusbandscurrentwifeearnsapproximately$50,000peryear.  Wethink,however,thatinthiscasethesefactorsareirrelevanttothequestionofwhethertheperiodforwhichthehusbandisobligatedtopayspousalsupportshouldhavebeenextended.Althoughitisarguablethatthecourtincreasedtheawardfrom$750permonth(thefiguresetinthefinaldecreeafterthefirstsixtymonths)to$1150,theawardwasactuallyreducedtothelowerfigurefrom$1500permonth,whichhadbeenawardedonthebasisofthehusbandsϜincomeof$75,000peryear.Withoutconsideringanyincreaseinearningsorthecurrentwifesincome,therecorddoesnotreflectthatthehusbandislessabletopaytheloweramount.Thus,anyerrorinadmittingevidenceofthesecondwifesincomewouldbeharmless.SeeTenn.R.App.Proc.36(b).@ IV.   Thehusbandalsoassertsthatthetrialjudgeshouldhavetakenintoaccountthefactthatthewifewillinheritasizeableestateatthedeathofherparents.Hisofferofproofshowedthatthewifesparentswereelderlyandhadanestateofapproximately$1,300,000which,accordingtotheirmostrecentwills,wastobedividedamongtheirthreechildren.  Thetrialcourtrefusedtoconsiderthisevidence;insteadthecourtheldthatifandwhentheinheritanceoccurreditcouldbeconsideredasachangeofcircumstancesonwhichtobaseamodificationofthesupportaward.  Wethinkthecourtproperlyhandledthequestionoftheinheritance.Assumingthatthewifeiscertaintoinheritasizeableamountofmoneyfromherparents,thetimingofthereceiptofthebequestistoouncertaintomeritconsideration.Instead,leavingthequestionopenforconsiderationwhenithappensisamorepracticalandpreferredtreatment.@ V.   Thewifehasaskedthiscourttoorderthehusbandtopaytheattorneyfeessheincurredrespondingtohisappeal.Thegrantofattorneyfeesindivorcecasesiswithinthediscretionofthetrialjudge.Brownv.Brown,913S.W.2d163(Tenn.App.1994);Sealv.Seal,802S.W.2d617(Tenn.App.1990);Lancasterv.Lancaster,671S.W.2d501(Tenn.App.1984).Suchanawardisonlyconsideredappropriate,however,whenthespousedoesnothavesufficientfundstopayhisorherownlegalexpenses,Houghlandv.Houghland,844S.W.2d619(Tenn.App.1992)orwhenpaymentofthoseexpenseswouldrequiredepletionoftheobligeespousesresources.Harwellv.Harwell,612S.W.2d182(Tenn.App.1980).  Inthepresentcase,thewifedoeshavesufficientfinancialassetsfromwhichshecouldpayherattorney,buttheincomefromthoseassetsisoneofthreecomponentsofsupportshereliesupontomeethermonthlyexpenses.Itthusseemsequitabletoustohavethehusbandpaythewifesattorneyfeesfromhisvastlygreaterincome,ratherthanhavethewifepayandconsequentlybecompelledtoreducestillfurtherhermodeststandardofliving.@ VI.   ThejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofWilliamsonCountytofixtheamountthehusbandmustpayforthewifesattorneyfeesonappeal,andforanyfurtherproceedingsthatmaybecomenecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtothehusband.      ________________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE