ÿWPC– …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4ÍáU :ð 0l* 0D– Ú w@â 0J" 0Tl 0^À 0h 0r† 0|ø 0†t 0ú 1uŠ U,ÿ 0d+U,B)»DCä AM' BtU*‘ D3»#îO 0@`v~ vÓ AOñÆ@ 0D D/J By˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡Gav x°°3|x <þ6X9`("Courier NewTT((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ù Dú Dû Uü Dý Dþ Uÿ   Ó€ 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% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial(((('ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌApril€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝArticle€1€section€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€providesÏð ð[t]hat€no€retrospective€law,€or€law€impairing€the€obligations€ofÏcontracts,€shall€be€made.ððÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚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  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€.jXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑRETHA›€LAMAR€HUSSEY,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)€€à àÔ€¼ÔAppeal€No.Ìà àà àÔ€XÔ)€€à àÔ€¼Ô01„A„01„9504„PB„00181ÌÔ€XÔv.à àà à)€€à àÌà àà à)€€à àDavidson€ProbateÌGEORGE€WILLIAM€HUSSEY,à à)à àNo.€€85D„1084ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'+&;+'h|G9` ç `€€Lß›à àà à)à àà àÌà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PROBATE€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€XÔROSEMARY€E.€PHILLIPSÌFirst€American€CenterÌSuite€2395Ì315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37238Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌMACLIN€P.€DAVIS,€JR.ÌDARWIN€A.€HINDMAN,€IIIÌ1700€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœ›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓòòÔ€°ÔœÌÓÓOÔ€¼Ô›€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€XÔà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€defendant,€George€William€HusseyÏ("Husband"),€from€the€trial€court's€judgment€denying€his€petitionÏto€terminate€and/or€reduce€the€alimony€which€the€trial€court€hadÏpreviously€ordered€him€to€pay€to€plaintiff,€Retha€Lamar€HusseyÏ("Wife").ÌÌà àThe€Probate€Court€of€Davidson€County€entered€a€Final€DecreeÏof€Divorce€on€17€October€1985.€€The€decree€incorporated€and€made€aÏpart€of€the€decree€a€Property€Settlement€Agreement€("PSA")€enteredÏinto€by€the€parties.€€The€PSA€required€Husband€to€pay€Wife€alimonyÏin€futuro€of€$25,000.00€on€31€October€1988€and€every€succeedingÏthird€year€until€Wife's€remarriage€or€either€parties'€death.€€TheÏpurpose€of€the€payment€was€to€enable€Wife€to€purchase€anÏautomobile€every€three€years.€€The€PSA€also€required€Husband€toÏpay€additional€alimony€in€futuro€of€$1,442.30€on€Friday€of€eachÏweek,€$10,000.00€on€31€July€of€each€year,€and€$62.00€per€month€forÍmedical€insurance€premiums.€€Neither€the€PSA€nor€the€decreeÏprovided€that€these€last€three€payments€would€discontinue€uponÏWife's€remarriage.€€The€agreement€expressly€provided€that€HusbandÏwould€deduct€the€weekly,€monthly,€and€yearly€payments€for€federalÏincome€tax€purposes€and€that€Wife€would€report€these€payments€asÏincome.€€As€to€the€weekly€and€yearly€payments,€the€PSA€providedÏthat€if€Husband's€"income€is€at€any€time€reduced€below€his€1985Ïincome,€then...Husband€shall€have€a€right€to€petition€the€CourtÏfor€a€reduction€in€alimony€payments."€€In€order€to€secure€theÏalimony€payments,€the€court€allowed€Wife€to€maintain€a€lifeÏinsurance€policy€on€Husbandððs€life.ÌÌà àWife€agreed€to€forego€any€marital€interest€in€fifteenÏseparate€pieces€of€real€property,€many€of€which€were€improved€byÏmotels€or€hotels€and€one€of€which€included€an€office€building.€ÏWife€also€agreed€to€transfer€to€Husband,€in€exchange€for€receivingÏalimony,€all€accounts€receivable,€all€stock€in€Maple€Manor€Motel,Ïall€stock€in€Hussey€and€Jones€Construction€Company,€and€variousÏleasehold€interests€in€motels€and€outdoor€advertising.€€InÏaddition,€Wife€transferred€her€interest€in€eighteen€separate€bankÏaccounts€to€Husband.€ÌÌà àIn€August€1994€Husband€filed€a€petition€seeking€toÏterminate€or€reduce€his€alimony€in€futuro€payments€because€thereÏwere€substantial€and€material€changes€in€his€circumstances€sinceÏ17€October€1985€and€because€Wife€had€remarried€and€lived€with€herÍnew€husband€who€contributed€to€her€support.€€He€also€argued€thatÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(a)(2)(B),€effective€9ÏMay€1994,€provided€that€alimony€in€futuro€would€terminateÏautomatically€upon€the€remarriage€of€the€recipient€of€the€alimony.€ÏThus,€Husband€asked€the€court€to€hold€that€his€obligation€to€payÏalimony€in€futuro€terminated€upon€Wife's€remarriage€in€June€1993Ïand€to€award€him€the€amount€of€all€payments€made€to€Wife€since€herÏremarriage€except€for€payments€of€alimony€arrears€made€through€aÏbankruptcy€proceeding.€ÌÌà àWife€answered€and€filed€a€counter„petition€in€which€sheÏasked€the€court€to€hold€Husband€in€contempt€of€court€for€failingÏto€make€the€$25,000.00€payment.€ÌÌà àOn€the€date€of€the€hearing€on€Husband's€petition€toÏterminate€or€reduce€his€alimony,€Husband€was€engaged€in€the€realÏestate€and€motel€business,€leased€an€office€building,€and€owned€aÏmotel€and€condominium€in€Steamboat€Springs,€Colorado.€€This€is€theÏsame€business€that€Husband€was€in€on€the€date€the€parties€enteredÏinto€the€PSA.€€At€the€hearing,€Husband€introduced€evidenceÏconcerning€his€net€worth€and€income€in€1985,€the€year€of€theÏoriginal€decree,€and€in€1993,€the€year€before€Husband€filed€theÏpetition.€€The€evidence€established€that€Husband's€taxable€incomeÏin€1985€was€in€excess€$358,000.00€and€his€net€worth€wasÏ$10,377,251.00.€€There€was€no€countervailing€evidence€with€respectÏto€Husband's€income€or€net€worth€in€1985.€€In€addition,€HusbandÍhad€taxable€income€of€$376,390.00€in€1984€and€$247,837.00€in€1986.€ÏIn€1987,€he€lost€some€$3,000,000.00€in€the€stock€market.€€In€1993,ÏHusband€lost€$512,282.00€and€had€a€negative€average€monthly€cashÏflow€of€„$3,807.50.€€Husband€also€introduced€evidence€showing€thatÏhis€net€worth€in€1994€was€Ô&  Ô„$2,496,470.00.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àWife€testified€that€she€was€remarried€on€14€June€1993.€ÏWhen€she€remarried,€she€sold€her€condominium€and€paid€off€aÏmortgage€of€$45,000.00.€€Her€monthly€mortgage€payment€had€beenÏ$541.00.€€At€present,€Wife's€new€husband€pays€rent€of€$725.00€perÏmonth€for€the€couple's€apartment.€€Wife€also€testified€that€herÏhusband€and€his€company€have€paid€for€her€and€her€husband€to€takeÏtrips.€€At€trial,€Wife€admitted€that€she€spends€approximately€halfÏof€her€time€on€those€trips€and€that€"we're€gone€constantly."€€SheÏalso€testified€that€she€pays€for€groceries€and€utilities€at€theirÏapartment€when€they€are€not€on€the€trips.ÌÌà àIn€September€1994,€the€trial€court€denied€Husband's€motionÏto€terminate€the€alimony€payments€œand€ordered€Husband€to€continueÏmaking€the€payments€of€weekly€alimony€to€Wife€until€furtherÏorders.€€This€order€was€without€prejudice€to€Husband's€right€to€beÏreimbursed€for€such€payments.€€The€trial€court€took€all€otherÏmatters€under€advisement.€€Subsequently,€the€court€entered€anÏorder€making€the€Attorney€General€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€aÏparty€in€order€to€address€the€constitutionality€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€36„5„101(a)(2)(B).ÌÌà àOn€7€December€1994,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏdenying€Husband's€petition€to€terminate€the€alimony€in€futuroÏafter€finding€that€"the€parties€clearly€intended€by€the€plainÏterms€of€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€that€the€alimony€inÏfuturo€was€to€be€payable€after€the€wife€remarried"€and€thatÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(a)(2)(B)€"cannot€beÏapplied€retroactively€as€it€is€in€violation€of€Article€1,€SectionÏ20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution."€€The€trial€court€also€held€thatÏthere€had€not€been€"a€material€or€substantial€change€inÏ[Husband's]€financial€condition."ÌÌà àHusband€then€moved€to€amend€the€findings€and€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.€€Husband's€motion€included€two€arguments.€ÏFirst,€he€contended€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(a)(2)(B)€required€the€termination€of€his€obligation€to€payÏalimony€in€futuro€as€of€9€May€1994,€the€date€the€statute€becameÏlaw.€€Second,€he€argued€that€there€had€been€material€andÏsubstantial€changes€in€circumstances€in€that€his€income€hadÏdecreased€substantially€below€his€1985€income€and€that€Wife€hadÏremarried€and€lived€with€her€new€husband€who€contributed€to€herÏsupport.€€Husband€also€asked€the€court€to€hold€that€he€was€not€inÏcontempt€and€that€Wife€was€not€entitled€to€the€default€remedy€setÏforth€in€paragraph€five€of€the€decree.€€In€addition,€he€asked€theÏcourt€to€dismiss€Wife's€counter„petition.ÌÌà àThereafter,€the€court€vacated€the€7€December€order€andÏentered€a€new€order.€€The€court€held€that€it€could€not€applyÏsection€€36„5„101(a)(2)(B)€to€the€instant€case€without€violatingÏarticle€1€section€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€courtÏfound€that€the€parties€had€intended€that€Husband€would€pay€theÏalimony€€until€Husband€or€Wife€died,€whichever€occurred€first,€andÏthat€the€PSA€retained€its€contractual€nature€and€was,€therefore,Ïnot€subject€to€modification.€€The€court€then€concluded€that€evenÏif€the€alimony€was€subject€to€modification€there€had€not€been€aÏmaterial€or€substantial€change€in€Husband's€financial€condition.€ÏThe€court€subsequently€amended€its€judgment€to€hold€that€HusbandÏwas€not€in€contempt€of€court,€that€Wife€was€not€entitled€to€theÏdefault€remedy€in€paragraph€five€of€the€decree,€and€that€HusbandÏwas€not€required€to€purchase€Wife€an€automobile.€€In€all€otherÏrespects€the€January€1994€order€remained€in€effect.€€HusbandÏappealed€from€the€courtððs€order,€as€amended,€and€assigned€severalÏissues.ÌÌà àThe€record€shows€that€the€trial€court€questioned€theÏcredibility€of€Husband's€testimony€regarding€the€currentÏvaluations€of€his€property.€€Husband's€1985€financial€statementÏlisted€the€market€value€of€the€Hallmark€Inn€IV,€the€Hallmark€InnÏV,€the€Congress€Inn,€the€Hallmark€Scottish€Inn€I,€and€the€GatewayÍOffice€Building€in€excess€of€$11,600,000.00.€€The€1985€financialÏstatement€also€listed€the€value€of€Husband's€farm€and€home€asÏ$540,000.00.€€Husband€currently€owns€all€of€these€same€assets,Ïbut,€at€the€instant€hearing,€Husband€insisted€that€the€marketÏvalue€of€all€his€holdings€was€only€$6,250,000.00€plus€$399,000.00Ïhe€had€in€cash.€€Ironically,€Husband's€new€net€worth€not€onlyÏincludes€the€above€assets,€but€also€a€motel€in€Steamboat€Springs,ÏColorado€that€has€a€restaurant,€two€shops,€twenty„four€condos,Ïtwenty„three€motel€rooms,€and€a€sports€bar.€€He€is€adding€threeÏnew€rooms€and€the€rooms€rent€for€between€$125.00€and€$345.00€perÏnight.€€Husband€also€had€a€commission€of€$142,500.00€due€him€forÏthe€sale€of€a€motel€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€Further,€HusbandÏfiled€Chapter€11€bankruptcy€which€reduced€the€debt€from€the€motelsÏand€substantially€reduced€the€interest€rate€on€the€debt.€€In€1994,ÏHusband€had€over€one„half€million€dollars€available€to€him€fromÏhis€sole€proprietorship.€€The€capital€expenditures€planned€byÏHusband€and€the€money€set€aside€for€his€hotels€in€1994€wereÏseveral€hundred€thousand€dollars.€€ÌÌà àHusband's€first€issue€is€"[w]hether€the€Probate€Court€erredÏin€holding€that€T.C.A.€36„5„101(a)(2)(B)€(which€provides€thatÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó€will€terminate€automatically€and€unconditionallyÏupon€the€remarriage€of€the€recipient)€did€not€terminateÏ[Husband's]€obligation€to€pay€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€even€though€[Wife]Ïremarried€in€June,€1993."ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€refused€to€terminate€Husband's€alimonyÏobligation€and€held€that€the€portion€of€the€PSA€providing€forÏalimony€in€futuro€"retained€its€contractual€nature"€and€that€theÏstatute€"cannot€be€applied€to€the€alimony€at€issue€withoutÏviolating€Article€1,€Section€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution."ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(a)(2)(B)Ïprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€€"In€all€cases€where€aÏperson€is€receiving€alimony€in€futuro...and€that€person€remarries,Ïthe€alimony€in€futuro...will€terminate€automatically€and€uncon„ditionally€upon€the€remarriage€of€the€recipient."€€According€toÏthe€rules€of€statutory€construction,€a€court€is€to€apply€a€statuteÏprospectively€"unless€the€legislature€clearly€indicates€to€theÏcontrary."€€ò òòòShell€v.€Stateó óóó,€893€S.W.2d€416,€419€(Tenn.Ï1995)(citing€ò òòòWoods€v.€TRW,€Inc.ó óóó,€557€S.W.2d€274,€275€(Tenn.Ï1977)).€€The€statute€at€issue€in€the€instant€case€does€not€clearlyÏdirect€the€courts€to€apply€it€retroactively.ÌÌà àIt€is€Husband's€contention€that€his€obligation€to€payÏalimony€in€futuro€terminated€in€June€1993€because€that€is€whenÏWife€remarried.€€Husband€concedes€that€retrospective€laws€thatÏtake€away€a€right€that€vested€before€the€General€Assembly€enactedÏthe€laws€are€unconstitutional.€€ò òòòMorris€v.€Grossó óóó,€572€S.W.2d€902,Ï907€(Tenn.€1978)(holding€that€retrospective€laws€are€"those€whichÏtake€away€or€impair€vested€rights€acquired€under€existing€laws€orÏcreate€a€new€obligation,€impose€a€new€duty,€or€attach€a€newÍdisability€in€respect€of€transactions€or€considerations€alreadyÏpassed").€€Also,€Husband€concedes€that,€if€Wife€had€a€vestedÏunconditional€right€to€receive€alimony€in€futuro€prior€to€theÏenactment€of€the€statute,€it€would€be€unconstitutional€to€applyÏthe€statute€to€Wife's€right€to€receive€alimony€in€futuro.Ìà àÌà àWife€argues€that€Husband's€agreement€to€pay€alimony€untilÏeither€parties'€death€in€exchange€for€Wife€foregoing€any€interestÏin€the€parties'€marital€property€did€in€fact€vest€in€her€the€rightÏto€receive€the€alimony€in€futuro.€€Further,€she€asserts€that€theÏalimony€represented€her€share€of€the€marital€property.€€Thus,€theÏportion€of€the€PSA€regarding€alimony€maintained€its€contractualÏnature€and€did€not€merge€into€the€decree.€€She€relies€on€ò òòòMcCartyÏv.€McCartyó óóó,€863€S.W.2d€716€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€ò òòòHays€v.€Haysó óóó,€709ÏS.W.2d€625€(Tenn.€App.€1986);€and€ò òòòSeal€v.€Sealó óóó,€802€S.W.2d€617Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990)€for€the€proposition€"that€a€statute€cannot€beÏapplied€retroactively€to€a€pre„statute€divorce€so€as€to€permitÏtermination€of€any€alimony€payments€by€a€former€husband€to€aÏformer€wife€under€a€prior€agreement."€€ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòMorrisó óóó,€the€court€stated€that€"[t]he€words€(vestedÏrights)€are€used€as€implying€interests€which€it€is€proper€for€theÏstate€to€recognize€and€protect€and€of€which€the€individual€couldÏnot€be€deprived€arbitrarily€without€injustice."€€ò òòòMorrisó óóó,€572ÏS.W.2d€at€905€(citing€16€Am.€Jur€2d€òòConst.€Law€óóðð€421€(1964)).€ÏHere,€the€application€of€the€statute€would€arbitrarily€depriveÍWife€of€her€right€to€receive€the€alimony€payments.€€TheÏlegislature€cannot,€by€fiat,€terminate€alimony€upon€the€remarriageÏof€a€party€when€the€parties€did€not€intend€that€the€alimonyÏobligation€would€terminate€upon€remarriage.ÌÌà àThe€determinative€issue€before€us€is€"whether€the€provisionÏin€the€agreement€for€the€making€of€[alimony]€payments€retained€itsÏcontractual€nature€because€it€constitutes€the€division€of€maritalÏproperty,€or€lost€its€contractual€nature€because€it€constitutesÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó€which€the€court€has€the€continuing€statutoryÏpower€to€modify€upon€a€showing€of€changed€circumstances."€€òòò òTownerÏv.€Towner,ó óóó€858€S.W.2d€888,€890€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€ò òòòTowner,ó óóó€theÏcourt€found€that€a€wife's€waiver€of€any€interest€in€her€formerÏhusband's€military€pension€in€exchange€for€alimony€payments€didÏsurvive€the€merger€of€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€into€theÏFinal€Divorce€Decree€because€the€payment€represented€the€wife'sÏshare€of€the€marital€property.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€891„92.ÌÌà àThe€parties€in€this€case€entered€into€a€written€PSAÏcovering€the€alimony,€division€of€the€marital€property,€and€theÏcosts€of€litigation.€€A€PSA€will€merge€into€the€decree€to€theÏextent€that€it€represents€a€duty€imposed€by€statute€or€judicialÏrule€at€the€time€the€decree€is€entered.€€ò òòòBlackburn€v.ÏBlackburnó óóó,€526€S.W.2d€463,€465€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€the€extent€thatÏthe€agreement€goes€beyond€the€duties€imposed€by€law,€the€agreementÏretains€its€contractual€nature.€€That€is,€the€contractualÍobligations€which€are€beyond€the€duties€imposed€by€law€survive€asÏcontracts.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€entry€of€the€original€divorce€decree,Ïthe€parties'€marital€estate€had€a€value€of€more€thanÏ$14,000,000.00.€€Wife€received€a€lump€sum€award€of€$100,000.00.€ÏThe€remainder€of€the€property€was€vested€in€Husband.€€Courts€areÏto€construe€›€divorce€decrees€incorporating€property€settlements€asÏthey€would€€any€other€written€instrument.€€ò òòòHale€v.€Haleó óóó,€838ÏS.W.2d€206,€208„09€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€Courts€are€to€interpretÏcontracts€by€ascertaining€"the€intention€of€the€parties"€and€byÏgiving€"effect€to€that€intention,€consistent€with€legalÏprinciples."€€ò òòòBob€Pearsall€Motors,€Inc.€v.€Regal€Chrysler„Plymouth,€Inc.ó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€578,€580€(Tenn.€1975).€€"InÏconstruing€contracts€the€words€expressing€the€parties'€intentionsÏshould€be€given€their€usual,€natural€and€ordinary€meaning."€Ïò òòòTaylor€v.€White€Stores,€Inc.ó óóó,€707€S.W.2d€514,€516€(Tenn.€App.Ï1985).ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion,€that€taking€the€entire€PSA€intoÏconsideration,€it€was€the€intention€of€the€parties€that€theÏalimony€obligation€would€not€terminate€upon€the€remarriage€ofÏWife.€€The€plain€language€of€the€PSA€shows€that€the€partiesÏcontemplated€that€upon€remarriage€the€$25,000.00€payment€everyÏthree€years€would€terminate.€€While€the€parties€could€have€soÏprovided,€nothing€in€the€PSA€shows€an€intention€that€Wife's€rightÍto€the€yearly,€weekly,€and€monthly€alimony€payments€wouldÏterminate,€except€upon€her€death€or€Husband's€death.ÌÌà àMoreover,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€it€is€clear€that€theÏparties€bargained€for€and€agreed€that€Wife€would€forego€anyÏinterest€in€Husband's€properties€in€exchange€for€a€lifelong€streamÏof€income€secured€by€a€one€million€dollar€life€insurance€policyÏthat€Wife€was€to€maintain€on€Husband's€life.€€Here,€Wife,€underÏthe€terms€of€the€PSA,€accepted€a€one€time€cash€payment€ofÏ$100,000.00,€a€yearly€payment€of€$10,000.00,€a€payment€ofÏ$25,000.00€every€three€years,€a€weekly€payment€of€$1,442.30,€and€aÏmonthly€payment€of€$62.00.€€In€exchange€for€these€payments,€WifeÏgave€up€her€interest€in€the€parties'€marital€residence,€inÏfourteen€separate€parcels€of€real€property,€most€of€which€wereÏimproved€by€motels€and/or€office€buildings,€and€in€eighteenÏseparate€bank€accounts.€€The€PSA€also€provided€that€the€agreementÏwas€the€"final€settlement€of€all€property€rights€of€the€partiesÏand€a€discharge€from€all€claims€arising€out€of€their€maritalÏrelationship,€including€but€not€limited€to€alimony,€dower,Ïcurtsey,€statutory€allowance,€homestead€rights,€right€to€takeÏagainst€the€will€of€the€other,€inheritance,€descent€orÏdistribution,€or€right€to€act€as€administrator€or€executor€of€theÏother's€estate,€except€those€claims€preserved€in€this€Agreement."ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€parties€intended€that€the€award€of€alimonyÏwould,€in€effect,€be€a€division€of€the€marital€estate.€€InÍexchange€for€the€payment€of€alimony€for€her€lifetime€or€Husband'sÏlifetime.€€We€believe€that€a€plain€reading€of€the€PSA€reveals€onÏits€face€that€the€payments€made€to€Wife€represent€her€share€of€theÏmarital€property.€€This€state€recognizes€that€contracts€mayÏinclude€implied€obligations€from€the€nature€of€the€agreement.€Ïò òòòMoore€v.€Mooreóóó ó,€603€S.W.2d€736€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€The€terms€ofÏthe€PSA,€which€are€in€excess€of€the€parties'€obligations€underÏTennessee€law,€maintained€their€contractual€nature.€€BecauseÏarticle€1€section€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€prevents€theÏapplication€of€a€law€which€impairs€a€contract€right,€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€36„5„101(a)(2)(B)€does€not€œaffect›€the€termsÏof€the€parties'€PSA€executed€in€1985.ÌÌà àFurther,€œwe€hold›€that€the€probate€court€did€not€err€inÏholding€that€there€had€not€been€a€substantial€material€change€ofÏcircumstances€which€would€entitle€Husband€to€have€his€alimonyÏobligation€modified.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(d)(1)€providesÏvarious€factors€which€the€court€should€consider€in€modifyingÏsupport€and€maintenance.€€ò òòòJones€v.€Jonesó óóó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€353Ï(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€In€reviewing€the€factors€set€forth€in€theÏstatute,€it€is€clear€that€Husband€has€not€carried€his€burden€ofÏproving€that€a€change€of€circumstances€exists.€€Currently,€he€hasÏsignificant€earning€capacity€as€compared€with€Wife.€€The€durationÏof€the€parties'€marriage€was€twenty„five€years,€and€Wife€hasÍnumerous€physical€ailments€which€would€prevent€or€limit€her€fromÏsupporting€herself.€ÌÌà àœHusband›€has€shown€that€Wife€is€living€with€a€third€party.€ÏOnce€this€is€shown,€ð ðit€is€incumbent€upon€[Wife]€to€then€show€byÏthe€greater€weight€or€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that...€sheÏneeds€the€amount€of€support€previously€awarded.ðð€€ò òòòAzbill€v.ÏAzbilló óóó,€661€S.W.2d€682,€687€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€We€think€theÏrecord€establishes€that€Wife€has€shown€that€she€has€a€need€for€theÏalimony€payments€to€continue.€ÌÌà àWife€is€presently€53€years€old.€€She€is€not€employed€norÏwas€she€employed€during€the€marriage.€€Her€sole€income€is€theÏalimony.€€The€evidence€established€€that€she€received€no€supportÏfrom€her€present€husband€except€for€apartment€rent.€€Her€presentÏhusband€pays€his€former€wife€one„half€of€his€gross€income,€herÏmortgage€payment€of€$479.00€per€month,€one„half€of€all€housingÏamenities€which€are€approximately€$400.00€to€$500.00€per€year,Ïone„half€of€his€former€wife's€health€insurance,€one„half€of€allÏmedical€bills€not€covered€by€insurance€which€are€approximatelyÏ$225.00€per€month,€and€one„half€of€the€house€insurance€of€$800.00Ïper€year.€€Wife€suffers€from€crippling€arthritis€in€her€right€handÏand€right€foot€and€has€high€blood€pressure€which€is€at€strokeÏlevel.€€Finally,€she€has€a€monthly€obligation€to€the€InternalÏRevenue€Service€of€$4,600.00.ÌÌà àWhile€there€has€been€a€substantial€decrease€in€Husband'sÏincome,€there€has€not€been€a€material€or€substantial€change€inÏcircumstances€to€merit€a€reduction€in€alimony€in€futuro.ÌÌà àWe€have€also€considered€Wife's€request€that€Husband€pay€herÏattorney's€fees€as€a€result€of€this€appeal€and€find€her€request€toÏbe€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€things€affirmed,Ïand€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€necessaryÏproceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€theÏplaintiff/appellee€and€one„half€to€the€defendant/appellant.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ