ÿWPC† ,l:°-ǽžpÌô†üË4À{÷až$Ë3è4êŸ L.ÏA0oÊé ]eâKOß¼óÞ§Þt_‚N·ˆå8a>3uàÓ¦Êz_Ýä[œí[NMS[TúC¢^Ë0Òªgõ™&"Õ¶W`z_âÄŸþ ÓUUDìçPŒº !BqúgiC»uâZúNÜ&>Y,zö”Z¹ )Ž’ÿ_-Lt¦êÈØ¡Îq ¢:Ta‰Ñ÷…)7× Šáð=‘J8ŒòD¯2“4Þ Ñg )ªý”Ö Žˆü7ÕZøû§U÷¯º«-¿tP@ÛŸá9ºJ…Cž§ÅÇŽkÀÔ<»öÒGÚm0ëù‹õûCÿ𣾂 áµÖ©:›Û¸§ý€>ņ¢ð¼l,ù‘Ù¾.?³ñºmé»é6—ŸbŠ##‡¥Um”=cl”jÏGhï2hÉÞ=»vág^ËX ÍrÒ˜-¿Tëû‘]G‘¸ùO°ƒ\¹yoy™ù¹TWH³èÑ•ŒðÚŠ>‘]/džÈ‚îEœpœ·jÿ­hª\OøÃþo¿•†ÒT‡¬Ï+3ˆyF,žÊ­² ¶íK‡yu*(qsŒ…uÌFòD®ƒ£ÙŽìc`b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz z‘ Æ ÆÑÆ—Æ] 0D#NgiÙEZUN\³ªªª]]]]]ssssssssssssssb{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ 0냃ƒƒ Bnn 0¤‹ D3/ D-b 0K ASÚÆ- 0¤ó 0D— A«Û˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¯Ša-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-,m¥ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ pÝ ƒR^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSection€36„5„101(a)(5)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€states:Ð e ÐÌà8  àAny€Order€for€child€support€shall€be€a€judgment€entitled€to€be€enforced€as€any€other€judgment€of€aÐ íˆ ÐCourt€of€this€state€.€.€.€.€€Such€Judgment€shall€not€be€subject€to€modification€as€to€any€time€period€orÐ ±L Ðany€amount€due€prior€to€the€date€that€an€action€for€modification€is€filed€.€.€.€.€€ÐuÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(5)€(2001).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€held€that€Wife€ð ðhas€reduced€her€lifestyle€and€does€not€have€standard€living€[sic]€previouslyÐ ° Ðenjoyed€during€the€marriage€and€should€not€be€in€a€worse€position€after€the€divorce€.€.€.€.ðð€€Deposition€testimony€indicatedÐ tÄ Ðthat€Wifeððs€income€had€remained€at€approximately€$28,000€per€year,€the€amount€she€earned€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€ ÏÝ ƒR^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€noted€that€Husband€testified€that€he€hurriedly€entered€into€the€divorce€agreement€ð ðso€he€couldÐ ° Ðmove€on,ðð€and€observed:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€[F]rom€that€time€forth€he€has€pretty€much€been€on€a€mission€to€reduce€this€alimony.€€Thatððs€veryÐ üL Ðevident.€€By€his€own€testimony€heððs€paid€other€bills€instead€of€paying€the€alimony.€€He€readilyÐ À Ðadmitted€that.€€And€he€also€stated€for€the€record€that€he€is€current€with€everything€but€his€child€supportÐ „Ô Ðand€alimony€payment.€€And€he€stated,€evidently€in€the€discovery€and€Iððve€got€it€written€down€here€andÐ H ˜ Ðunderlined,€that€he€will€not€pay€the€child€support€and€alimony.Ð \Ð Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€à0 ` à€.€.€.€.€ÐÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8  àHeððs€had€the€wherewithal€to€pay€the€alimony.€€Based€on€the€statements,€he€has€refused.€€The€CourtÐ ” ä  Ðfeels€this€is€willful.€€Heððll€be€taken€into€custody€until€he€complies€with€this€order.ÐX ¨ Ð Ð  ÐÌ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ©Ý ƒR^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€does€not€indicate€the€birth€date€of€the€couplesðð€daughter€or€the€date€she€reached€majority.€€The€trialÐ ° Ðjudge,€however,€granted€the€petition€to€reduce€child€support€ð ðdue€to€the€fact€that€the€child€has€emancipated€as€of€theÐ tÄ Ðgraduation€date.ðð Ñ e Ñ - ù-(|G2^$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî-ò»»Ô d(|3‰N$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰N$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼F»»»ÔÑ8€¡XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ïOÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îG¬î»¼FÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼F»îîG¬#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€3,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¡X»¼FÔÌò òÔ#†¼F»XX¡#ÔANGELA€D.€Ô_ÔSIEFKERÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€òòóóGARY€C.€Ô_ÔSIEFKERÔ_ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼FÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98D„3861€à0 @ àà0 @ àà0 @ à€€€€€€€Mà0 @ àuriel€Robinson,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01458„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€1,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÓ  ÓÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌThis€is€a€post„divorce€case€regarding€alimony€and€child€support.€The€husband€was€ordered€to€payÐ xÈ  Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó,€and€child€support€for€the€partiesðð€minor€child.€€Later,€the€husband€was€terminatedÐ d´ Ðfrom€his€job,€and€his€income€dropped€substantially.€€The€husband€fell€behind€in€his€supportÐ P  Ðpayments.€€Consequently,€he€sought€a€reduction€in€alimony€and€child€support.€€Noting€that€theÐ <Œ Ðhusband€retained€substantial€assets,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€husband€was€able€to€fulfill€hisÐ (x Ðobligations,€denied€his€request€for€reduction€in€alimony,€ordered€him€to€pay€his€arrearage€in€alimonyÐ d Ðand€child€support,€and€awarded€the€wife€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees.€€Child€support€was€terminatedÐ P Ðbecause€the€minor€child€had€graduated€from€high€school€by€the€time€of€the€trial.€€The€husband€nowÐ ì< Ðappeals.€€We€affirm,€finding€no€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€in€view€of€the€termination€of€theÐ Ø( Ðhusbandððs€child€support€obligation,€the€wifeððs€continued€need€for€alimony,€and€the€husbandððsÐ Ä Ðretention€of€significant€assets.€ò òó óÐ ° ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÓ% ÓÌòòÔ#†¼F»àX¡¹#ÔÔ‡X¡X.¼FÔHolly€K.€Ô_ÔLillardÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,€óóand€òòAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌD.€Scott€Parsley,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant€Gary€C.€Ô_ÔSiefkerÔ_Ô.Ð $"t! ÐÌPhillip€Robinson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee€Angela€D.€Ô_ÔSiefkerÔ_Ô.Ð ü#L# ÐÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÔ#†¼F»XX¡º #ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼FÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌÓ ÓòòóóÔ#†¼F»XX¡Q #ÔÔ€X¡X»¼FÔÓ Óà  àOn€July€9,€1999,€Plaintiff/Appellee€Angela€D.€Ô_ÔSiefkerÔ_Ô€(ð ðWifeðð)€was€granted€a€divorce€fromÐ ¬'ü"' ÐDefendant/Appellant€Gary€C.€Ô_ÔSiefkerÔ_Ô€(ð ðHusbandðð),€€ending€a€twenty„three€year€marriage.€€TheÐ ˜(è#( Ðparties€had€two€children,€the€older€of€which€had€reached€majority€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€AmongÐ „)Ô$) Ðother€obligations€relating€to€the€divorce€decree,€Husband€was€ordered€to€pay€Wife€$2,000€per€monthÐ p*À%* Ðâ âalimony€òòin€futuroóó,€as€well€as€$1,782€per€month€in€child€support€for€the€partiesðð€minor€child.€€€Ð \+¬&+ýÿ ÐÔ_Ôà  àAt€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Husband€was€employed€as€a€sales€manager€at€a€car€dealership.€Ð ° Ðâ âIn€this€capacity,€he€earned€$168,580€in€1999,€and€$138,474€in€2000.€€On€February€2,€2001,€HusbandÐ œì Ðwas€terminated€from€his€job€for€ð ðmismanagement€of€inventory.ðð€€After€a€time,€Husband€foundÐ ˆØ Ðemployment€as€a€new€truck€salesman€at€a€Chevrolet€dealership.€€Husband€testified€that€he€hoped€toÐ tÄ Ðearn€$50,000€in€his€first€year€at€the€dealership.€€ò òó óHusband€made€his€monthly€support€payments€in€aÐ `° Ðtimely€manner€until€December€2000.€€From€January€through€May,€2001,€Husband€paid€$8960€of€theÐ L œ Ð$18,910€in€support€that€he€owed€for€that€period.€€Husband€did€not€designate€the€money€sent€to€WifeÐ 8 ˆ Ðduring€this€period€as€alimony€or€child€support€payments.€Ð $ t Ðà  àOn€October€30,€2000,€Husband€filed€a€petition€to€reduce€his€alimony€on€the€basis€of€aÐ ü L  Ðsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.€€On€April€3,€2001,€Husband€amended€his€petitionÐ è 8  Ðto€seek€a€reduction€in€both€alimony€and€child€support,€again,€based€on€a€substantial€and€materialÐ Ô$  Ðchange€in€circumstances.€Ð À  Ðà  àOn€June€14,€2001,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€Husbandððs€petition€to€reduce€his€childÐ ˜è  Ðsupport€and€alimony€payments.€€ò òó óÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔAt€the€hearing,€the€evidence€showed€that€Husband€owned€a€race€carÐ „Ô  Ðworth€$23,000,€a€motorcycle€valued€at€$14,000,€and€over€$47,000€in€his€401(k)€Plan.€€The€testimonyÐ pÀ Ðalso€showed€that€Husband€received€a€$14,000€tax€refund€on€April€3,€2001,€a€time€when€he€was€inÐ \¬ Ðsupport€arrears.€€Wifeððs€income€remained€approximately€the€same€as€it€was€at€the€time€the€partiesÐ H˜ Ðdivorced.€€Additionally,€Wife€moved€from€the€family€home€into€an€apartment,€reducing€her€monthlyÐ 4„ Ðhousing€obligation€by€$200.€€Although€she€realized€a€$37,000€gain€on€the€sale€of€the€home,€WifeÐ  p Ðtestified€that€she€used€the€money€to€move€and€to€pay€monthly€expenses.Ô#†X¡XXX¡#ÔÐ  \ Ðà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€Husbandððs€child€support€payments€were€terminated€becauseÐ ä4 Ðthe€partiesðð€minor€child€had€graduated€from€high€school.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Regarding€the€alimony,€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðfound€that€Wife€had€a€continued€need€for€the€alimony׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€that€Husband€was€able€to€fulfill€hisÐ ¼  Ðfinancial€obligations,€considering€his€substantial€assets€and€the€fact€that€his€earning€capacityÐ ¨ø Ðremained€significantly€greater€than€Wifeððs€earning€capacity.€€The€trial€court€denied€HusbandððsÐ ”ä Ðpetition€to€reduce€his€monthly€alimony€payments.€€In€view€of€Husbandððs€available€assets,€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourt€declined€Wifeððs€request€for€a€finding€that€he€was€voluntarily€underemployed,€concluding€thatÐ l¼ Ðsuch€a€finding€was€not€necessary.€€To€determine€the€amount€of€Husbandððs€arrearage,€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðallocated€the€$8,960€Husband€paid€from€January€through€May,€2001,€to€child€support.€€The€childÐ D!” Ðsupport€due€during€that€period€of€time€was€$8,910.€€The€$50€overage€was€then€applied€to€the€alimonyÐ 0"€  Ðarrearage.€€The€alimony€due€during€January€through€May,€2001,€totaled€$10,000,€leaving€a€totalÐ #l! Ðarrearage€in€alimony€of€$9,950.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€the€$9950€in€alimonyÐ $X" Ðarrearage,€as€well€as€$2500€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€trial€judge€noted€that€Husbandððs€assets€could€beÐ ô$D # Ðsold€to€pay€the€arrearage,€and€ordered€that€the€race€car€be€sold€and€the€proceeds€applied€to€theÐ ° Ðarrearage.€€Any€remaining€arrearage€was€ordered€to€be€paid€off€at€a€rate€of€$200€per€month€inÐ œì Ðaddition€to€the€regular€monthly€alimony€obligation.€€In€light€of€Husbandððs€testimony€that€he€paid€allÐ ˆØ Ðof€his€other€bills€before€making€his€alimony€and€child€support€payments,€and€that€he€was€current€onÐ tÄ Ðall€his€other€obligations€and€had€not€liquidated€any€major€assets,€the€trial€court€held€Husband€to€beÐ `° Ðin€civil€contempt€of€the€trial€courtððs€orders,€and€ordered€him€incarcerated€until€he€purged€himself.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РL œ ÐHusband€now€appeals.€ò òó ó€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€reduce€his€monthlyÐ  ` Ðalimony€support€obligation€and€in€holding€him€in€contempt€of€court.€€Husband€contends€that€theÐ ü L  Ðdramatic€reduction€in€his€income€resulted€in€a€decreased€ability€to€pay€his€obligations,€and€thatÐ è 8  ÐWifeððs€need€for€the€alimony€had€decreased.€€Regarding€child€support,€Husband€asserts€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðfindings€of€the€trial€court€require€additional€clarification€to€determine€the€date€on€which€theÐ À  Ðtermination€of€child€support€took€effect,€and€that€the€modification€should€reduce€any€arrearage.€Ð ¬ü  ÐHusband€argues€that€a€modification€in€both€alimony€and€child€support€should€have€been€grantedÐ ˜è  Ðretroactive€to€the€date€of€his€October€2000€petition€to€modify.€€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àWife€asserts€that€Husbandððs€decrease€in€income€is€his€own€fault€and€that€he€ð ðset€upon€aÐ \¬ Ðcourse€of€conduct€to€renege€on€his€support€agreement€.€.€.€.ðð€€Wife€notes€that€Husband€has€assets€heÐ H˜ Ðcan€liquidate€to€fulfill€his€obligations,€and€that€the€termination€of€his€child€support€obligation€makesÐ 4„ Ðhim€further€able€to€meet€his€alimony€payments.€€Wife€maintains€that€she€has€a€continued€need€forÐ  p Ðsupport,€citing€her€reduced€standard€of€living€as€well€as€her€salary,€which€has€remained€essentiallyÐ  \ Ðunchanged€since€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€With€regard€to€the€child€support€determination,€WifeÐ øH Ðargues€that€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€were€clear,€and€that€the€trial€court€properly€awarded€full€childÐ ä4 Ðsupport€payments€up€to€the€time€the€remaining€minor€child€graduated€from€high€school.Ð Ð  Ðà  àBecause€this€case€was€tried€without€a€jury,€the€standard€of€review€is€de€novo,€with€aÐ ¨ø Ðpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€the€trial€court,€unless€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðshows€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòò òSee€Wright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€de€novo,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòBurlewÐ l¼ Ðv.€Burlewóóó ó,€40€S.W.3d€465,€470€(Tenn.€2001).€€ò òó óÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔModification€of€an€alimony€award€is€factually€driven,Ð X ¨ ÐÑïOÑâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  Ñcalling€for€a€careful€balance€of€many€factors.€€òòò òBogan€v.€Boganóóó ó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001)Ð e Ð(citations€omitted).€€The€trial€court€is€given€wide€latitude,€and€its€decision€will€not€be€disturbedÐ Qì Ðunless€it€is€ð ðnot€supported€by€the€evidence€or€is€contrary€to€the€public€policies€reflected€in€theÐ =Ø Ðapplicable€statutes.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€Therefore,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€itÐ )Ä Ðevidences€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€A€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€when€it€reaches€a€decisionÐ ° Ðagainst€logic€that€causes€a€harm€to€the€complaining€party€or€when€the€trial€court€applies€an€incorrectÐ  œ Ðlegal€standard.€€ò òòòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóóó ó,€72€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòò òState€v.€Shirleyó óóó,€6Ð í ˆ ÐS.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)).€€Ô#†X¡XXX¡>-#Ôò òó óÐ Ù t Ðà  àHusband€first€argues€that€his€current€financial€situation€warrants€a€decrease€in€his€alimonyÐ ± L  Ðobligation.€€In€order€to€modify€an€alimony€obligation,€a€substantial€and€material€change€inÐ  8  Ðcircumstances,€unforeseen€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€decree,€must€occur.€€ò òòòWatters€v.€Wattersóóó ó,€22Ð ‰$  ÐS.W.3d€817,€821€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€A€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€is€oneÐ u  Ðthat€significantly€affects€either€the€obligorððs€ability€to€make€the€payments€or€the€obligeeððs€need€forÐ aü  Ðsupport.€€ò òòòSee€Bowman€v.€Bowmanóóó ó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€568€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€The€party€seekingÐ Mè  Ðthe€reduction€in€payments€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€changed€circumstances.€€ò òòòSeal€v.€Sealóóó ó,€802Ð 9Ô  ÐS.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€A€significant€decrease€in€income€may€not€constitute€aÐ %À Ðsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€if€the€obligor€owns€assets€that€can€be€liquidated€andÐ ¬ Ðthe€obligeeððs€need€for€the€payments€has€not€diminished.€€ò òòòSee€Bowmanóóó ó,€836€S.W.2d€at€569.€€OnceÐ ý˜ Ða€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€has€occurred,€the€trial€court€must€consider€theÐ é„ Ðfactors€enumerated€in€section€36„5„101(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€to€determine€theÐ Õp Ðmodification€to€be€made.€€ò òòòSee€Bogan€v.€Boganóóó ó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€732€(Tenn.€2001).€€While€the€trialÐ Á\ Ðcourt€has€wide€discretion€in€modifying€alimony€obligations,€the€two€primary€considerations€are€theÐ ­H Ðpayor€spouseððs€ability€to€pay€and€the€payee€spouseððs€continued€need€for€the€money.€€òòò òCranford€v.Ð ™4 ÐCranfordó óóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).Ð …  Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€change€in€his€financial€circumstances€is€substantial€andÐ ]ø Ðmaterial,€and€warrants€a€downward€modification€of€his€alimony€obligation.€€Wife€claims€thatÐ Iä ÐHusband€is€unable€to€support€his€contention€that€his€income€has€decreased€to€an€estimated€$50,000Ð 5Ð Ðper€year,€and€asserts€that€he€is€voluntarily€underemployed.€€The€trial€court€specifically€declined€toÐ !¼ Ðfind€that€Husband€was€voluntarily€underemployed,€but€found€that€Husband€had€the€financialÐ  ¨ Ðð ðwherewithalðð€to€make€the€alimony€payments€because€he€was€employed€in€his€business€field€and€hadÐ ù ” Ðassets€that€could€be€liquidated€in€order€to€fulfill€his€obligations.€€Ð å!€  Ðà  àHusband€estimated€his€income€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€to€be€approximately€$50,000€perÐ ½#X" Ðyear,€a€significant€decrease€from€his€prior€income€level,€which€ranged€from€approximately€$138,000Ð ©$D # Ðto€$168,000.€€The€record€contains€no€evidence€to€contradict€Husbandððs€assertion.€This€proof,Ð •%0!$ Ðhowever,€must€be€weighed€against€the€fact€that€Wife,€without€question,€has€a€continued€need€for€theÐ &"% Ðalimony,€still€making€significantly€less€than€Husbandððs€reduced€income.€€Moreover,€Husbandððs€childÐ m'#& Ðsupport€obligation€has€terminated€because€the€partiesðð€minor€child€graduated€from€high€school.€€MostÐ Y(ô#' Ðimportantly,€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€Husband€retained€substantial€assets€that€were€untouched,Ð E)à$( Ðincluding€a€race€car€worth€approximately€$23,000,€a€motorcycle€worth€approximately€$14,000,€aÐ 1*Ì%) Ð401(k)€Plan€of€approximately€$47,000,€and€a€bank€account€of€approximately€$6,600.€€The€trial€courtÐ +¸&* Ðconsidered€Husbandððs€testimony€that€while€he€fell€behind€in€his€support€payments,€he€kept€all€hisÐ  ,¤'+ Ðother€obligations€current.€€Viewing€the€evidence€presented€to€the€trial€court,€we€cannot€conclude€thatÐ e Ðthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€declining€to€modify€Husbandððs€monthly€alimony€obligation.€Ð Qì ÐWe€also€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Husband€was€in€contempt€of€the€order€to€pay€alimony,Ð =Ø Ðconsidering€Husbandððs€testimony€that€he€kept€all€of€his€other€obligations€current€and€did€notÐ )Ä Ðliquidate€assets€such€as€his€race€car€and€motorcycle,€while€he€fell€behind€in€his€support€payments.€Ð ° Ðà  àHusband€next€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€with€regard€to€the€child€support€modificationÐ  œ Ðwas€confusing.€€Husband€also€indicates€in€his€brief€that€the€trial€court€should€have€decreased€hisÐ í ˆ Ðchild€support€payment€either€for€the€period€from€October€30,€2000,€when€he€filed€his€complaint€forÐ Ù t Ðreduction€in€alimony,€or€in€the€alternative,€from€April€3,€2001,€when€he€amended€his€complaint€toÐ Å ` Ðinclude€a€reduction€in€child€support€obligations.€€Ð ± L  Ðà  àUnder€Tennessee€law,€a€petitioner€is€only€entitled€to€a€retroactive€modification€in€childÐ ‰$  Ðsupport€after€the€date€of€filing€for€the€modification.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€36„5„101(a)(5)€(2001)׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×;Ð u  Ðòòò òsee€also€Rutledge€v.€Barrettó óóó,€802€S.W.2d€604,€606€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð aü  Ðà  àHusbandððs€petition€for€modification€in€child€support€was€filed€on€April€3,€2001.€€At€that€time,Ð 9Ô  Ðthere€were€two€monthly€child€support€payments€due€before€the€minor€child€graduated€from€highÐ %À Ðschool€and€his€obligation€to€make€those€payments€ended.€€In€view€of€the€factors€discussed€above€inÐ ¬ Ðconnection€with€Husbandððs€petition€to€decrease€his€alimony€payments,€we€decline€to€reduce€orÐ ý˜ Ðterminate€the€child€support€payments€prior€to€the€trial€courtððs€hearing€on€Husbandððs€petition,€whichÐ é„ Ðtook€place€shortly€after€the€child€graduated€from€high€school.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€to€terminateÐ Õp Ðthe€child€support€payments€as€of€the€date€of€the€childððs€graduation€from€high€school€ò òó óis€thereforeÐ Á\ Ðaffirmed.€Ð ­H Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Gary€C.€Siefker,Ð …  Ðand€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð q  ÐÓ ÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 5Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€K.€LILLARD,€JUDGE