WPC # VUNa % 0Nb 0  w@ 4, 0D@    m 0J2 0T| 0^ 0h. 0r 0| 0 0  1uU, 0d;U,U>B) DC2 Bu AM D3U*G< 0@v~vA AOc 0D) D/m BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2J$ y!     XUX   `   0   UeӀD D\(#$  0  3|xJones v. Jones - Concurring Opinion - Cantrell   ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   U2 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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd d-'C << G(((('dxd<  9p`(Arial = !  #d#%%   ++   YYY FILED+XSeptember11,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &$$Xd&#$$Xd#%%   ݛ        \RA'\\RA'\7_ dd7    ќ%ԛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE ̜L),';+'h|^`  `Lߛ%JULIAJONES,    )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      ) SumnerCircuit      ) No.14204CVS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019601CV00038SAMUELROBERTJONES,JR., )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )%@ OPINION@ CONCURRINGINPARTandDISSENTINGINPART % IhavepreparedthisseparateopinionbecauseIcannotconcurwiththeportionofthemajoritysopinionconcerningthehusbandsobligationtopayforthewifespostdivorcemedicalexpenses.Underthefactsofthiscase,itisneitherequitablenorfairtorequirethehusbandtopayforhisformerwife'spostdivorceelectivesurgery.Exceptforthispoint,Iconcurwithallotherportionsofthemajorityopinion. FollowingtheJune27,1995hearing,thetrialcourtannouncedfromthebenchthatthepartiesweredivorced.OnOctober17,1995,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdirectingMr.JonestopayMs.Joness$5,203.75billforatuballigationsheobtainedonJuly17,1995.Thetrialcourtobservedthatthisdecisionmightbe reversibleand improvidentbutexplainedthatitwas [d]uetothefactthat[Mr.Joneshad]...cancelled[Ms.Joness]...healthinsurancecoveragewithoutnoticetoher. Mr.Joneshasappealedfromthisdecisionarguingthatheshouldnotberequiredtopaythesemedicalbillsbecausetheywerenotmaritaldebts.HepointsoutthatthepartieswerenolongermarriedwhenthesurgerywasperformedandthathehadnolegalobligationtocontinuetoprovideMs.Joneswithmedicalinsuranceortonotifyherthatshehadbeenremovedfromhispolicy.IcannotagreewiththemajoritysdecisiontoaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontorequireMr.Jonestopayforhisformerwifeselectivesurgery. Themajorityrecognizesthatpartiesareordinarilynotliableforpostdivorcedebtsofaformerspouse.Nonetheless,theyreasonthatthe unusualcircumstancesofthiscaserequireadifferentresult,buttheyfailtoexplainpreciselywhatthese unusualcircumstancesare.Iseenothingunusualaboutthiscase. NeitherpartydisputesthattheJoneseswereeffectivelydivorcedonJune27,1995.SinceMs.Jonessdebtsforthetuballigationoccurredafterthisdate,theyareherseparatedebtsandcannotbeattributedtothemarriage.SeeMondelliv.Howard,780S.W.2d769,773(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(maritaldebtsarethoseincurredduringthemarriageforthejointbenefitofthepartiesorthosedirectlytraceabletotheacquisitionofmaritalproperty).Thus,inordertorequireMr.Jonestoberesponsibleforpayingthesemedicalbills,wemustholdeither(1)thatMr.JonescouldnotremoveMs.Jonesfromhisinsurancepolicywithoutspecificpermissionfromthetrialcourtor(2)thatMr.JoneshadsomesortofcontinuinglegalobligationtonotifyMs.Joneswhenheremovedherfromhisinsurancepolicy.Myresearchrevealsnoauthorityforeitherproposition. ThatMs.Jonesscheduledthiselectivesurgerybeforethedivorcehearingisoflittlerelevance.EventhoughthetrialcourtsdecisiontodeclarethepartiesdivorcedfollowingtheJune27,1995hearingmighthavebeena surprise,Ms.Joneswasincourtandwaswellawarethatthetrialcourthaddeclaredthepartiesdivorced.Sincehersurgerywaselective,shewouldhavebeenabletoinquireintothestatusofherinsurancecoveragebeforesheunderwenttheprocedure.Hadshedoneso,shecouldeasilyhavepostponedtheprocedureuntilsheobtainedinsurancecoverage. TherecordcontainsnoevidencethatMs.Jonesunderwentatuballigationtotreatamedicalconditionincurredduringthemarriage.Accordingly,therecordprovidesnolegalbasisforrequiringMr.Jonestopaythesemedicalbillsasadditionalsupport.SeeCranfordv.Cranford,772S.W.2d48,5152(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(wifeentitledtoincreaseinlongtermsupportinordertopayescalatingmedicalbillsfortreatmentofmultiplesclerosisdiagnosedpriortothepartiesseparation).Thus,IwouldreversethetrialcourtsorderinsofarasitordersMr.JonestopaythesemedicalbillsforMs.Jones.      ________________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE