ÿWPC* OÍÚçé9Åjz¬}½ð)¦kŽ|zò8ƒÉïÏ.3¦¿d°¸Ö’¤l®JãNp¡%wÚ¼U‡á ÍÁ“ÖsòWÅA1%èäG·]ø”JZ9Qø‹åܘs˜§Ãz}5h(cÔçèWñplÛean R´C£€¾Ù.#íÜmq^:âúJdA÷Q.Λ¢€FUû…Q•l¦&ÞÔ_Kèû¿ÏÀùà¡ðôzå8Š+!%H°‘Ö.*jx¬` `€€@E Ü` 8ttxPØÌð  tßñàñÌó óÌTOMMY€EUGENE€STOCKMAN,à  à)Ð ê: Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPetitioner/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð  Z Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01A01„9801„CH„00026Ð  j Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð * z Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àWilliamson€County€ChanceryÐ :Š  ЀDORIS€LORAINE€STOCKMANà  à)à  àNo.€€23065Ð Jš  Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àRespondent/Appellee.à  à)Ð jº  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†X†LX¼¼\G#ÔÔ‡»Ü»XX†LÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ªú ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURTÌFOR€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL€PRESIDING€ÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓGEORGE€M.€ALLENÌWISCHHOF€&€ALLENÌGLANCY€SQUARE,€SUITE€207Ì110€GLANCY€STREETÌGOODLETTSVILLE,€TN€37072ÌÌÔ#†X†LX»»ÜC#ÔÔ‡¼\¼XX†LÔATTORNEY€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANTÐ Ê($" ÐÌDENISE€ANDREÌ415€BRIDGE€STREETÌP.O.€BOX€1022ÌFRANKLIN,€TN€37065ÌÌATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌÌà@33%êàò òAFFIRMED€&€REMANDEDó óˆÐ j3º., ÐÌà Ø àÌà Ø àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌCANTRELL,€J.ÌñÖñÑ&³ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ7€Ü»»dXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ&³ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ#€º€»ÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñÖñCAIN,€J.Ð Ø:(639 ÐÑ&³ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ7€Ü»»dXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÖñÑ&³Ñâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑ8€?I»»dXXdì8ÑÑ€ Ñâ âÑ  ÑñÖñÔ_ÔÓÓÓ  ÓÔ#†X†LX¼¼\O#ÔÔ‡ ´€ XX†LÔò òOPINIONó óÔ#†X†LX  ´€Q #ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼\¼XX†LÔà  àIn€this€appeal,€Tommy€Eugene€Stockman€("Husband")€seeks€to€beÐ $t Ðrelieved€from€his€obligation€to€pay€rehabilitative€alimony€to€his€former€wife,€DorisÏLoraine€Stockman€("Wife").€In€support€of€his€request,€Husband€asserts€that€ÏWifeððs€cohabitation€with€another€man€terminates€his€obligation,€that€Wife€has€noÏneed€for€the€rehabilitative€alimony,€and€that€€Wife€has€made€no€efforts€atÏrehabilitation.€€Under€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement,€which€was€incorporatedÏinto€the€final€order€of€divorce,€Husband€agreed€and€was€ordered€to€payÏrehabilitative€alimony€in€the€amount€of€$1,000.00€per€month€for€120€months€orÏuntil€Wifeððs€death€or€remarriage.€€He€made€the€first€30€alimony€payments,€andÏthen€brought€this€action€maintaining€that€his€obligation€should€be€terminated.€ÏAfter€an€October€7,€1997€trial,€the€trial€court€denied€Husbandððs€petition.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WeÐ d´ Ðaffirm.€Ìà  àThe€parties€were€divorced€on€April€13,€1995,€on€the€ground€ofÏirreconcilable€differences.€€At€that€time,€Husband€was€earning€approximatelyÏ$60,000€annually.€€Wife,€then€57€years€old,€€suffered€from€two€chronic€healthÏproblems,€a€degenerative€bladder€condition€and€fibromylasia,€a€condition€whichÏaffected€her€muscles€and€tendons€and€rendered€her€unable€to€stand€for€longÏperiods€of€time.€€She€had€a€high€school€education€and€had€worked€as€a€secretaryÏand€bookkeeper€for€35€years.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€she€earnedÏapproximately€$21,759€per€year.Ìà  àFrom€June€to€December€1995,€Wife€co„owned€a€jewelry€business€withÏher€daughter€while€maintaining€her€employment€as€a€secretary/bookkeeper.€ÏSometime€between€July€and€December€1996,€however,€Wife€lost€€the€latter€jobÐ ä541. Ðwhen€her€employer€went€out€of€business.€€She€received€unemploymentÏcompensation€for€approximately€six€months€while€she€sought€another€job.€ÏDuring€that€time,€she€purchased€a€home€computer€and€computer€manuals€toÏupgrade€her€skills.€€Wife€eventually€accepted€employment€in€a€retail€store.€€ÏBecause€she€was€unable€to€stand€on€her€feet€for€hours€at€a€time€due€to€herÏillnesses,€she€was€forced€to€quit€that€job€after€one€week.€€Since€June€1997,€WifeÏhas€worked€at€Barnes€Plumbing€at€a€yearly€salary€of€$23,400.€€Her€job€providesÏno€benefits.Ìà  àSince€the€divorce,€Wife€has€entered€into€a€relationship€with€anotherÏman.€€The€two€possess€a€joint€checking€account,€jointly€purchased€a€residence€inÏMay€1996,€and€were€living€together€at€the€time€of€the€trial€herein.Ìà@¦¦-êàI.ˆÌà  àHusband€first€maintains€that€his€obligation€to€pay€alimony€must€ceaseÏbecause€cohabitation€is€tantamount€to€remarriage,€an€act€which€would€haveÏterminated€Wife's€alimony€under€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement.€€Neither€theÏMarital€Dissolution€Agreement€nor€the€final€decree€appears€in€the€record€onÏappeal.€€However,€both€parties€agree,€and€the€Statement€of€the€EvidenceÏprovides,€that€the€agreement€provided€for€Husband€to€pay€ð ðrehabilitativeÏalimonyðð€of€$1,000€per€month€for€120€months,€beginning€May€1,€1995,€andÏending€upon€payment€in€full€or€Wifeððs€death€or€remarriage.Ìà  àWe€reject€Husbandððs€assertion€that€cohabitation€is€equivalent€toÏremarriage€for€purposes€of€terminating€the€alimony€under€the€agreement.€€TheÏlanguage€used€by€parties€to€an€agreement€must€be€given€its€usual€and€ordinaryÏmeaning€when€interpreting€a€contract.€òòSee€Bob€Pearsall€Motors,€Inc.€v.€RegalÐ ì5<1. ÐChrysler„Plymouth,€Inc.óó,€521€S.W.2d€578,€580€(Tenn.€1975).€€Remarriage€meansÐ 8`30 Ðanother€marriage,€nothing€less.€€The€law€gives€unique€status€and€effect€toÏmarriage€and€does€not€apply€the€same€benefits€and€burdens€to€other€types€ofÏrelationships.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Tyler€v.€Tyleróó,€671€S.W.2d€492,€494€(Tenn.€App.€1984);Ð øH ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)€(1996).€€This€Court€cannot€and€will€not€insertÏan€additional€condition€for€termination€which€the€parties€did€not€contemplate€atÏthe€time€of€the€agreement.€€Cohabitation€is€not€tantamount€to€marriage,€and€theÏMarital€Dissolution€Agreement€dictates€only€that€remarriage€or€death€willÏterminate€the€support€agreement.€€Therefore,€Husbandððs€first€argument€must€fail.€ÌÒž€ÒÓ  ÓII.ÌÓÐÓà " àHusband€next€maintains€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3)€(Supp.Ï1998)€justifies€termination€of€the€rehabilitative€spousal€support.€€That€statutoryÏprovision€creates€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€recipient€of€ð ðalimony€inÏfuturoðð€who€lives€with€a€third€person€is€either€receiving€support€from€the€thirdÏperson€or€is€contributing€to€the€third€personððs€support€and€no€longer€needs€theÏpreviously€awarded€alimony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3).€€€Once€theÏpresumption€arises,€the€alimony€recipient€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€aÏneed€for€the€previously€awarded€alimony,€notwithstanding€the€cohabitation.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рð&@"  ÐòòAzbill€v.€Azbillóó,€661€S.W.2d€682,€686€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€Ð )d$" Ðà " àHusband€further€argues€that€Wife€garners€significant€financial€benefitÏfrom€cohabitating€with€another€man,€giving€evidentiary€support€to€the€legalÏpresumption€that€Wife€no€longer€requires€the€amount€of€support€previouslyÏawarded.€€Wife€responds€that€the€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€spouseÏcohabiting€with€a€third€party€no€longer€needs€alimony€applies€only€to€alimonyÐ È3/, Ðòòin€futuro.óóÐ ° Ðà " à€By€its€terms,€the€statutory€presumption€applies€ð ðwhere€a€person€isÏreceiving€alimony€in€futuro.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3).€Ô‡¼}»»¼?IÔIn€òòIsbell€v.Ð øH ÐIsbellóó,€816€S.W.2d€735€(Tenn.€1991),€the€Supreme€Court€determined€that€theÐ  l Ðpresumption€created€in€subsection€(a)(3)€was€applicable€only€to€long„term,Ïpermanent€alimony€and€not€to€temporary€rehabilitative€support,€which€at€thatÏpoint€in€time€was€a€judicially„created€type€of€alimony.€òòId.óó€at€738.Ð d´  Ðà " àIn€1993,€the€General€Assembly€amended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ô#†¼?I»»¼} #Ô36„5„101Ð |Ì Ðto€provide€as€follows:€ð ðRehabilitative€support€and€maintenance€is€a€separateÏclass€of€spousal€support€as€distinguished€from€alimony€in€solido€and€periodic€[òòinÐ Ä Ðfuturoóó]€alimony.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€1993€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€243.€€Because€this€provisionÐ è8 Ðspecifically€differentiates€€rehabilitative€support€from€the€other€two€kinds€ofÏsupport,€the€legislature€cannot€be€presumed€to€have€intended€that€the€termÏð ðalimony€òòin€futuroóóðð€include€rehabilitative€support.Ð T ¤ Ðà " àInòò€Rust€v.€Gerbmanóó,€No.€01„A„01„9608„CH„00361,€1997€WL€266844Ð x"È Ðat€*4€€(Tenn.€App.€May€21,€1997)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€thisÏcourt€rejected€the€argument€that€subsection€(a)(3)€applies€to€rehabilitativeÏalimony.€€The€court€noted€that€the€statute€itself€refers€specifically€to€alimony€òòinÐ ä(4$" Ðfuturoóó,€not€to€rehabilitative€alimony,€ð ðand€that€the€two€forms€of€modifiableÐ +X&$ Ðalimony€are€based€on€opposite€findings€as€to€the€possibility€of€the€obligee€spouseÏbecoming€capable€of€providing€his€or€her€own€support.ððòò€Rust€v.€Gerbman,óó€Ô_Ô1997Ð P/ *( ÐWL€266844€at€*€5.€Thus,€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð36„5„101(a)(3)€does€not€apply€toÏrehabilitative€support.Ìà " àAs€implied€inòò€Gerbmanóó,€because€of€the€1993€amendment,€the€questionÐ øH Ðfor€this€court€is€no€longer€whether€the€award€is€more€like€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€orÐ  l Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó.€The€only€question€is€whether€the€instant€award€is,€in€fact,Ð @  Ðrehabilitative€support€and€maintenance.€Ìà " àCorrectly€categorizing€the€type€of€alimony€awarded€in€a€particularÏsituation€may€be€challenging.€€òòSee€Rust€v.€Gerbmanóó,€€1997€WL€266844€at€*4.€Ð ¬ü ÐPrior€to€the€statutory€establishment€of€rehabilitative€support€as€a€separateÏclassification€of€alimony,€our€courts€generally€considered€duration€andÏdefiniteness€when€seeking€to€classify€a€particular€award,€usually€for€the€purposeÏof€determining€its€modifiability.€€However,€in€òòTowner€v.€Towneróó,€855€S.W.2dÐ <Œ Ð888€(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€purpose€of€the€award,€ratherÏÔ_ÔthañÔñtñÔññÕñnñÕñÔ_Ô€its€contingencies€or€method€of€payment,€was€the€determinative€factor.€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòSelf€v.€Selfóó,€861€S.W.2d€360€(Tenn.€1993),€€the€Court€stated:Ð ¨"ø ÐÔ‡¼?I»»¼?IÔÓÓà8 " àMrs.€Self€insists,€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€held,€that€sinceÐ Ì$  Ðthe€decree€provides€that€the€payments€will€terminate€uponÏMrs.€Selfððs€death€or€remarriage,€the€uncertainty€of€theÏduration€of€the€payments€prevents€the€award€from€beingÏcharacterized€as€òòin€solidoóó.€This€argument€gives€credence€toÐ )d$" Ðform€rather€than€substance.€Even€though€some€priorÏdecisions€have€distinguished€awards€as€òòin€solidoóó€oròò€in€futuroóóÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðby€the€definiteness€of€the€term€of€the€award,€that€distinctionÏactually€reflects€the€essential€purpose€of€eachÏawardð!ðrehabilitative€support€is€designed€to€accomplish€aÏstated€result€within€a€limited€time,€while€òòin€futuroóó€supportÐ €/Ð*( Ðcontinues€the€support€that€was€incident€to€the€marriageÏrelationship.Ð " Ð " Ð  ÐÔ#†¼?I»»¼?I£,#Ôà " àà Ú àÌÓÓòòSelf,€óó861€S.W.2d€at€361„362.Ð È3/, Ðà " àÔ‡¼}»»¼?IÔLike€the€two€other€types€of€alimony,€the€distinguishing€Ô#†¼?I»»¼}³0#ÔcharacteristicÐ ì5<1. Ðof€rehabilitative€alimony€€is€its€purpose,€which€is€ð ðto€provide€a€temporary€incomeÐ 8`30 ÐÔ_Ôduring€a€period€of€adjustment€and€effort€of€the€dependent€spouse€to€becomeÏpartially€or€totally€self„sufficient."€€€òòLoria€v.€Loriaóó,€952€S.W.2d€836,€838€(Tenn.Ð Ô$ ÐApp.€1997).€€In€other€words,€rehabilitative€alimony€is€intended€to€enhance€anÏindividual's€capacity€to€function€independently€and€achieve€economic€security.€ÏòòSee€Smith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,€160€(Tenn.€App.€1995).òòÐ @  Ðóóà " àHere,€the€parties€in€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€€and€the€trialÐ d´  Ðcourt,€by€incorporating€that€agreement,€identified€the€support€as€rehabilitative.ÏHusbandððs€petition€for€modification€made€the€same€characterization.€The€support€Ïwas€set€for€a€specific€duration.€The€record€herein€does€not€include€the€finalÏdecree€or€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement.€However,€the€Statement€ofÏEvidence€provides,€ð ðat€the€time€of€the€entry€of€the€final€decree€of€divorce,€andÏas€noted€in€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement,€there€was€a€disparity€in€theÏððearning€capacityðð€of€the€Parties€and€a€need€for€rehabilitative€alimony€by€theÏRespondent.ðð€We€are€unable€to€review€any€further€findings€by€the€trial€court€orÏany€further€statements€of€intention€by€the€parties€regarding€the€initial€award€ofÏalimony.€However,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€before€us€to€indicate€that€theÏpurpose€of€the€rehabilitative€alimony€award€was€other€than€to€enhance€WifeððsÏability€to€become€economically€self„sufficient.€€At€the€time€of€divorce,€Wife€wasÏ57€years€old€and€had€been€employed€for€35€years,€and€the€parties€apparentlyÏagreed€that€ten€years€of€support€would€give€her€the€opportunity€to€becomeÏindependent€of€Husbandððs€support€as€she€approached€retirement.Ô‡¼}»»¼?IÔÐ €/Ð*( Ðà " àÔ#†¼?I»»¼}€8#ÔThe€law€professes€a€distinct€preference€for€rehabilitative€alimonyÐ ¤1ô,* Ðð ðwhenever€possible,ðð€and€it€is€the€type€of€support€to€be€awarded€unless€the€trialÏcourt€finds€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(d)(1).€ÏThis€record€contains€no€such€findings.€€These€circumstances€convince€us€that€theÐ 8`30 Ðalimony€is€rehabilitative.€Therefore,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(a)(3)ððsÏrebuttable€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€award€of€rehabilitative€alimonyÏherein€and,€therefore,€does€not€shift€the€evidentiary€burden€to€Wife€to€prove€sheÏstill€needs€the€support.à Ú àÐ °730 ÐÓ  ÓÐ Ð9 52 ÐIII.ÌÓ;Óà " àNotwithstanding€the€non„applicability€of€the€statutory€presumptionÏarising€from€cohabitation,€we€must€consider€Husbandððs€assertion€that€the€evidenceÏregarding€the€economic€impact€of€his€former€wifeððs€cohabitation€demonstratesÏthat€she€no€longer€needs€the€spousal€support€she€receives€from€him.Ìà " àœIt€is€now€clear€that€an›€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€remainsÏmodifiable€œby€the€courts.€›€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ36„5„101(d),€in›€pertinent€part,Ïœprovides:›ÌÓÓà8 " àà8@" " Ð " Ð àà8 @" àAn€award€of€rehabilitative,€temporary€support€andÏmaintenance€shall€remain€in€the€courtððs€control€for€theÏduration€of€such€award,€and€may€be€increased,€decreased,Ïterminated,€or€extended,€or€otherwise€modified€upon€aÏshowing€of€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.€ÏÐ " Ð " Ð  ÐÓÓœ›œ›œ›à " àThus,€the€courts€retain€authority€during€the€period€of€rehabilitation€toÏmodify€the€award€as€changing€circumstances€may€require.€€òòSee€œSelf€v.€Self,óó€861Ð 0€ ÐS.W.2d€at€363;€òòLoria›€v.€Loriaóó,€952€S.W.2d€at€838;òòÔ‡¼ƒÂ¼¼¼l6Ô€see€also€Wiseman€v.€Wisemanóó,Ð P   ÐNo.€03A01„9612„CV„00392,€1997€WL€418495€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.,€July€28,€1997)Ï(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€denied);€òòÔ#†¼l6¼¼¼ƒÂ®?#ÔSommerville€v.€Sommervilleóó,€No.€01„A„Ð È$  Ð01„9502„CV„00070,€1995€WL€498943€at€*€€1€(Tenn.€App.,€August€23,€1995)€(noÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€Ìœ›à " àBecause€support€decisions€are€factually€driven€and€involve€consideringÐ T+¤&$ Ðand€balancing€numerous€factors,€we€give€wide€latitude€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion.€€òòSee€Cranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€WeÐ ”/ä*( Ðreview€a€trial€courtððs€decision€according€to€the€familiar€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d)Ïstandard,€and€we€will€uphold€the€trial€courtððs€decision€unless€it€is€based€on€anÏimproper€application€of€the€law€or€is€against€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏòòSee€id.óó;€òòLuna€v.€Lunaóó,€718€S.W.2d€673,€675€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€Ordinarily€ourÐ 8d30 Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€court's€factual€findings€areÐ ° Ðcorrect.€€See€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d).€€However,€the€trial€court's€failure€to€makeÏfindings€of€fact€leaves€nothing€to€which€the€presumption€of€correctness€can€attach.€ÏAccordingly,€in€this€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€ofÐ  ` Ðcorrectness.€€òòSee€Goodman€v.€Memphis€Park€Comm'nóó,€851€S.W.2d€165,€166Ð 0 € Ð(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòKelly€v.€Kellyóó,€679€S.W.2d€458,€460€(Tenn.€App.€1984).Ð P   Ðà " àÔ‡¼ƒÂ¼¼¼l6Ô€By€statute,€increases,€decreases,€terminations,€extensions€or€otherÐ pÀ  Ðmodifications€of€rehabilitative€alimony€may€be€granted€only€upon€a€showing€ofÏsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†¼l6¼¼¼ƒÂF#ÔÔ‡¼ƒÂ¼¼¼l6Ô€Ô#†¼l6¼¼¼ƒÂŒG#ÔòòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„Ð È Ð101(d);€òòBrewer€v.€Breweróó,€869€S.W.2d€928,€935€(Tenn..€App.€1993);€òòCranfordóó,Ð d Ð772€S.W.2d€at€50.€€In€order€to€be€material,€a€change€in€circumstances€must€haveÏbeen€unforeseeable€at€the€time€of€the€decree.€€òòSee€McCarty€v.€McCartyóó,€863Ð T¤ ÐS.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.€€App.€1992);€òòElliot€v.€Elliotóó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€90€(Tenn.€Ð tÄ ÐApp.€1991).€ÓQ.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°,X°4ì“XQÓœñÊñ€The€party€seeking€the€modification€bears€the€burden€of€proving€theÏmodification€is€warranted.׃'ð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeal€v.€Sealóó,€802€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€App.1993).Ð ´" ÐñÊññËñ›ÌñËñ›à ö àBecause€support€can€be€ordered€in€the€first€place€only€where€one€spouse€isÏeconomically€disadvantaged€relative€to€the€other€spouse,€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„¼5„101(d)(1),€the€material€change€of€circumstances€analysis€should€include,€€at€aÏminimum,€consideration€of€whether€there€has€been€significant€change€in€theÏeconomic€disparity€between€the€parties.€Ð T-¤(& Ðà ö àThe€only€evidence€in€the€record€relevant€to€the€partiesðð€economic€situationsÏis€the€following:€Wifeððs€income€from€employment€was€$21,750€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce€and€was€$23,400€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€on€modification,€but€herÏcurrent€employment€did€not€provide€benefits€such€as€health€insurance.€€It€isÏunclear€from€the€record€whether€the€effect€of€the€lack€of€benefits€was,€in€actuality,Ïa€net€reduction€in€salary.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€any€event,€a€modest€increase€in€salary€cannot€be€saidÐ P   Ðto€be€unanticipated€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€òòSee€Norvell€v.€Norvellóó,€805€S.W.2dÐ pÀ  Ð772,€775€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Further,€even€in€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€situations,€aÐ à Ðrecipientððs€increased€income€alone€is€not€sufficient€to€warrant€reducing€orÏterminating€support.€€òòSee€McCartyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€720;€òòNorvell,€805€S.W.2dóó€atÐ Ð  Ð775.€€Husbandððs€salary€has€remained€approximately€$60,000.€€Thus,€there€remainsÏa€significant€disparity€between€the€incomes€earned€by€the€parties.€€Wife€is€stillÏeconomically€disadvantaged€relative€to€Husband.€Of€course,€the€basis€forÏHusbandððs€request€for€termination€is€not€a€change€in€the€incomes€of€either€of€theÏparties;€it€is€his€assertions€regarding€the€impact€of€Wifeððs€cohabitation.Ìà ö àIn€òòIsbell€v.€Isbellóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€735,€€the€Supreme€Court€rejected€theÐ $à Ðargument€that€remarriage€is€by€its€nature€rehabilitative€and€held€that€remarriageÏitself€did€not€warrant€termination€of€rehabilitative€alimony,€stating,€€ð ðTheÏpresumption€that€the€state€of€marriage€in€and€of€itself€meets€the€economic€needsÏof€the€female,€or€indeed€of€either€spouse,€is€an€antiquated€presumption€that€mayÏnot€be€indulged€in€modern€society,ðð€òòIsbellóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€739.€€Similarly,€inÐ 0/€*( ÐòòGregory€v.€Gregoryóó,€No.€03A01„9503„CH„00093,€1995€WL€447786€(Tenn.€App.Ð P1 ,* ÐJuly€31,€1995)€(no€Tenn.R.App.P.€11€application€filed),€this€court€held€thatÏremarriage€does€not€constitute€a€change€of€circumstances€sufficient€to€warrantÐ 5à0. Ðtermination€of€rehabilitative€alimony.€€Based€on€the€reasoning€of€these€holdings,Ïwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€cohabitation,€in€and€of€itself,€does€not€constitute€aÏchange€of€circumstance€sufficient€to€trigger€a€review€of€an€award€of€rehabilitativeÏsupport.€€The€critical€factor€is€not€the€cohabitation€itself,€but€the€economic€impactÏon€the€recipient€former€spouse€of€any€financial€contribution€from€the€cohabitee.€Ìà ö àWith€regard€to€the€economic€effects€of€Wifeððs€relationship€with€anotherÏman,€the€record€is€scanty.€€The€fact€that€the€couple€share€a€joint€bank€account€doesÏnot€prove€that€Wife€has€benefitted€financially€from€that€arrangement.€€Similarly,Ïalthough€the€record€shows€that€the€residence€was€jointly€purchased€in€March€ofÏ1997,€for€approximately€$140,000,€as€tenants€in€common€with€the€right€ofÏsurvivorship,€joint€ownership€of€the€residence€does€not€establish€that€wife€enjoysÏeconomic€benefit.€€The€couple€paid€monthly€installments€of€$1300€on€theÏresidence,€and€Wifeððs€income€€and€expense€statement€reflects€a€monthly€expenseÏof€$690€for€the€mortgage.€According€to€Wifeððs€income€and€expense€statement,€herÏincome€(including€the€rehabilitative€support)€exceeds€her€expenses€by€only€$65Ïper€month.€We€have€no€information€regarding€Wifeððs€monthly€expenses€at€theÏtime€of€the€divorce;€therefore,€the€record€does€not€show€a€substantial€decrease€inÏher€expenses.€€Further,€the€record€contains€no€information€regarding€otherÏfinancial€assets€(other€than€the€condominiums€discussed€separately€below)€or€theÏdistribution€of€assets€such€as€pension€funds€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.ÌÓ  ÓœñÌñIñÌñV.›ÌÓ€[Óà ö àHusbandððs€primary€point€involves€Wifeððs€ownership€and€renting€out€of€twoÏcondominiums.€Husband€claims€that€because€Wife€is€able€to€live€in€the€residenceÏshe€co„owns,€she€is€ð ðfree€to€invest€in€and€rent€out€at€least€two€other€properties€andÏto€benefit€from€their€increase€in€equity.ðð€€In€this€argument,€Husband€asserts€thatÏthe€economic€benefits€Wife€enjoys€from€living€with€someone€else€allow€her€toÐ Ð9 52 Ðimprove€her€overall€economic€situation€through€accumulation€of€assets€(theÏequity).Ìà ö àThe€record€does€not€fully€reflect€all€the€circumstances€surrounding€WifeððsÏacquisition€of€these€properties.€€However,€Husband€quitclaimed€his€interest€in€oneÏcondominium€to€Wife€at€the€time€of€their€divorce,€and€the€quitclaim€deed€includesÏan€affidavit€that€the€deed€was€executed€and€delivered€in€accordance€with€theÏPartiesðð€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€and€Final€Decree€of€Divorce.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AnÐ pÀ  Ðincrease€in€the€value€of€assets€acquired€in€a€division€of€marital€property€isÏforeseeable€and,€therefore,€does€not€constitute€a€substantial€and€material€changeÏof€circumstances.€€òòSee€Norvellóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€775.€The€record€includes€aÐ Ð  Ðquitclaim€deed€from€a€previous€co„owner€(with€Wife)€of€another€condominiumÏdated€June€30,€1995,€but€contains€no€further€information€about€Wifeððs€acquisitionÏof€partial€and€then€total€ownership€interest€in€this€property.Ìà ö àAn€unforeseeable€substantial€change€of€circumstances€justifyingÏmodification€of€a€support€award€has€often,€in€the€context€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,Ð p"À Ðbeen€interpreted€to€require€a€change€in€the€recipientððs€need€or€the€payorððs€abilityÏto€pay,€or€both.€€òòSee€Bowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€863€S.W.2d€563,€568€(Tenn.€App.Ð °&"  Ð1991).€€Those€principles€have€applicability€to€rehabilitative€alimony;€however,€Ïthe€concept€of€ð ðneedðð€in€this€situation€must€be€analyzed€with€reference€to€theÏpurposes€and€goals€of€rehabilitative€alimony,€which€differ€from€those€of€alimonyÐ -`(& Ðòòin€futuro.Ð 0/€*( ÐÓÓà8 ö àà8N ö ü!ö ü!àóóThe€concept€of€rehabilitation€in€ordinary€usageÐ ° Ðinvolves€the€process€of€restoring€an€individual€.€.€.€to€aÏuseful€and€constructive€place€in€society€through€someÏform€of€vocational€.€.€.€retraining€or€through€relief,Ïfinancial€aid,€or€other€reconstructive€measure.ðð€ÏWebsterððs€Third€New€International€Dictionary€1949Ï(1961).€€In€legal€parlance€and€in€connection€withÏalimony,€rehabilitation€ð ðcontemplates€sums€necessaryÏto€assist€a€divorced€person€in€regaining€a€useful€andÏconstructive€role€in€society€through€vocational€orÏtherapeutic€training€or€retraining€and€for€the€furtherÏpurpose€of€preventing€financial€hardship€on€society€orÏindividual€during€the€rehabilitative€process.ðð€€BlackððsÏLaw€Dictionary€1157€(5òòthóó€ed.€1979).€€Both€definitionsÐ €Ð  Ðcontemplate€the€enhancement€of€an€individualððsÏcapacity€to€function€independently€and€with€economicÏsecurity€in€society.€€Likewise,€the€statute€in€questionÏexpresses€the€General€Assemblyððs€intent€that€theÏeconomically€disadvantaged€spouse€be€rehabilitatedÏwhenever€possible€and€provides€guidelines€for€theÏcourt€to€consider€when€ð ðdetermining€the€nature,Ïamount,€length€of€term,€and€manner€of€payment.ðð€€TheÏconcept€of€rehabilitation€in€the€statute€is€theÏimprovement€of€oneððs€present€and€future€capacity€toÏfunction€independently€in€society.€Ð N ¤N ¤ ÐÌòòÓÓIsbell,óó€816€S.W.2d€at€738„38€(quoting€from€òòGerlach€v.€Gerlachóó,€1988€WL€102744Ð P   Ðat€*3€(Tenn.€App.€October€6,€1988).€€à ® àRehabilitative€alimony€has€also€beenÐ p"À Ðdescribed€as€providing€ð ða€temporary€income€during€a€period€of€adjustment€andÏeffort€of€the€dependent€spouse€to€become€partially€or€totally€self„sufficient.ððÏòòLoria,€óó952€S.W.2dòò€óóat€838.Ð Ð( $" Ðà ö àA€gradual€improvement€in€the€recipientððs€economic€situation€during€theÏadjustment€period€is€not€only€foreseeable,€it€is€the€expectation€and€the€goal€ofÏrehabilitative€alimony.€€The€concept€of€a€change€in€the€recipientððs€ð ðneedðð€in€theÏcontext€of€rehabilitative€alimony€must€be€viewed€from€that€perspective.€€HusbandÏhas€alleged€some€non„defined€increase€in€Wifeððs€financial€condition€by€herÏâ âaccumulation€of€equity€in€the€two€rental€properties.€€However,€he€has€failed€toÐ 5à0. Ðestablish€that€this€equity€interest€has€rendered€Wife€economically€self„sufficient.ñÓñ׃*×ñÓññÓñ׃×ñÓñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðâ âSince€the€equity€accumulation€indicates€a€gradual€and€incremental€improvementÏin€Wifeððs€financial€condition,€it€cannot€be€said€to€have€been€unforeseeable€at€theÏtime€Husband€executed€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement.€€Changes€inÏcircumstances€are€not€material€if€the€parties€contemplated€them€when€enteringÏinto€an€agreement€regarding€support.€€òòSee€Givler€v.€Givleróó,€964€S.W.2d€at€902,Ð P   Ð906€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€€An€attempt€by€the€obligor€to€shorten€the€period€ofÏrehabilitation€will€not€be€successful€where€an€incremental€improvement€inÏfinancial€condition€is€all€that€is€shown€or€alleged.Ìà ö àTherefore,€we€find€that€Husband€has€failed€to€establish€a€material€changeÏof€circumstance€since€the€entry€of€the€final€divorce€decree€which€would€warrantÏconsideration€of€termination€of€the€rehabilitative€support€he€agreed€to€pay.à ¾# àÐ ` Ðà@ˆˆ-ùàœVñÍñIñÍñ.›ˆÌà ö àIn€addition€to€asserting€that€the€benefit€accruing€to€Wife€from€theÏincreasing€equity€in€the€two€condominiums€obviates€her€need€for€continuedÏsupport,€€Husband€alternatively€argues€that€such€investment€in€rental€propertyÏdoes€not€constitute€sufficient€rehabilitative€efforts€on€Wifeððs€part€to€justifyÏcontinuation€of€rehabilitative€alimony.׃-à×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Husband€asserts€that€Wifeððs€onlyÐ Ð( $" Ðrehabilitative€efforts€were€the€purchase€of€a€computer€and€some€computerÏmanuals,€which€were€insufficient€to€meet€the€statutory€requirement€ofÐ -`(& Ðreasonableness.€€Wife€asserts€her€successful€re„employment€efforts€and€her€realÏestate€investments€are€reasonable€rehabilitative€efforts.Ìà ö àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(2)€requires€recipients€of€rehabilitativeÏalimony€to€make€ð ðreasonableðð€efforts€at€rehabilitation.€€ð ðIf€a€dependent€spouseÏdoes€not€satisfactorily€strive€for€self„sufficiency,€the€Court€may€withdraw€part€orÏall€of€the€support€allocated€to€finance€rehabilitation.ðð€€òòLoriaóó,€952€S.W.2d€at€838.€Ð P   ÐOn€the€other€hand,€if€the€dependent€spouse€achieves€partial€self„sufficiency,€butÏdemonstrates€an€inability€to€be€totally€self€supporting,€courts€may€grant€alimonyÐ à Ðòòin€futuroóó€to€supplement€the€spouseððs€earning€capacity.€€òòSee€idóó.Ð ° Ðà ö àSome€grants€of€rehabilitative€alimony€have€been€based€upon€specificÏrehabilitative€goals,€e.g.,€obtaining€a€college€education.€€However,€the€statuteÏitself€does€not€limit€rehabilitative€measures€to€education€and€training,€and€thereÏis€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€such€a€specific€purpose€in€this€case.€€In€theÏsituation€of€Wife€herein,€who€was€57€years€old€at€the€time€of€divorce€and€hadÏbeen€employed€for€35€years,€it€would€not€have€been€realistic€to€expect€her€toÏobtain€training€or€education€in€a€new€field,€launch€a€new€career,€and€attain€enoughÏsuccess€in€it€to€enable€her€to€prepare€financially€for€her€retirement€if€she€couldÏhope€to€retire€around€the€customary€age.Ìà ö àWhile€working€at€the€job€she€had€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Wife€attemptedÏto€increase€her€earnings€by€working€toward€advancement.€In€fact,€her€salary€wasÏincreased€from€$21,750€to€$24,300€in€her€position€at€that€company.€However,ÏWife€lost€her€job€when€that€company€closed,€€a€setback€unanticipated€by€eitherÏparty.€€During€her€unemployment,€€Wife€purchased€the€computer€and€manuals€toÏupgrade€her€skills€so€that€she€could€find€another€job.€She€also€sent€out€resumes€atÏthe€rate€of€10€to€15€per€week€for€seven€months.€She€briefly€tried€working€in€aÏretail€store,€but€her€health€problems€made€continuation€impossible.€€SheÐ Ð9 52 Ðsucceeded€in€obtaining€a€new€position,€at€a€salary€slightly€higher€than€the€salaryÏshe€was€earning€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€toÏindicate€that€Wife€is€capable€of€finding€suitable€employment€at€a€significantlyÏgreater€salary,€although€she€continues€to€look€for€opportunities€with€betterÏeconomic€prospects.Ìà ö àBased€upon€Wifeððs€situation,€her€efforts€to€upgrade€her€skills€to€allow€herÏto€advance€monetarily€in€the€occupation€where€she€had€35€years€of€experience,€asÏwell€as€her€efforts€to€find€another€job€after€her€employer€closed,€€wereÏunquestionably€€reasonable.€To€expect€her€to€completely€retrain€for€a€newÏoccupation€would,€in€our€opinion,€be€unreasonable.€Since€the€purpose€ofÏrehabilitative€alimony€is€ð ðthe€improvement€of€oneððs€present€and€future€capacityÏto€function€independently,ðð€the€gradual€improvement€of€Wifeððs€financialÏcondition€through€real€estate€or€other€investments€is€also€reasonable.€€In€anyÏevent,€we€think€Wife€herein€has€made€efforts€which€were€reasonable€in€herÏsituation;€however,€she€continues€to€need€the€rehabilitative€support€ordered€by€theÏcourt€and€agreed€to€by€Husband.€€òòSeeóó€òòWisemanóó,€1997€WL€418495€at€*2.Ð $à Ðà ö àBecause€Wife€proved€that€she€made€reasonable€efforts€at€rehabilitation€butÏcontinues€to€require€the€additional€support€contemplated€by€the€parties'€MaritalÏDissolution€Agreement,€we€need€not€reach€Husband's€argument€€that€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(2)€required€Wife€to€bear€the€burden€of€proving€that€she€madeÏsufficient€efforts€to€rehabilitate€herself.€€€€òò€See€Wisemanóó€òòv.€Wisemanóó,€1997€WLÐ 0/€*( Ð418495€at€*4.€€Ìà@aa-ùàœVIñÎñIñÎñ.›ˆÌà ö àIn€summary,€the€record€shows€that€Wife€was€and€is€at€an€economicÏdisadvantage€when€compared€with€Husband.€€He€clearly€has€a€much€greaterÏearning€capacity.€€Notwithstanding€her€chronic€health€problems,€Wife€has€madeÐ Ð9 52 Ða€concerted€effort€to€remain€employed€and€to€upgrade€her€skills.€€She€bought€aÏcomputer€and€instruction€books,€sent€out€numerous€resumes€during€her€period€ofÏjoblessness,€and€managed€to€obtain€employment€at€a€higher€rate€of€compensationÏthan€she€enjoyed€at€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€divorce.€€However,€this€job€providesÏno€health€benefits,€a€problem€for€an€employee€with€Wife's€medical€history.€€WhileÏshe€continues€to€seek€employment€with€greater€opportunity,€her€age,€longÏemployment€history,€lack€of€advanced€education,€and€medical€problems€poseÏobstacles€to€dramatic€career€changes.€€Meanwhile,€she€has€invested€in€real€estateÏand€is€gradually€accumulating€increased€equity€in€those€properties.€€All€these€factsÏconvince€us€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€declining€to€modifyÏthe€rehabilitative€alimony.€€òòIngram€v.€Ingramóó€721€S.W.2d€262,€264€(Tenn.€App.Ð ð@ Ð1986)€(trial€courts€possess€considerable€latitude€in€making€alimony€decisions,€and€Ïthis€court€is€disinclined€to€interfere€unless€the€facts€require€it.).Ìà ö àAccordingly,€the€trial€court's€denial€of€Husband's€petition€for€modificationÏof€spousal€support€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€suchÏfurther€proceedings€as€may€arise.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Tommy€Eugene€StockmanÏfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌà ö àà N àà ¦ àà þ àà V àà ® à______________________________Ìà ö àà N àà ¦ àà þ àà V àà ® àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€€JUDGEÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÐ 0/€*( ÐÌœñÑñ_______________________________ñÑñ›œñÒñ_ñÒñ›ÌœñÐñ_ñÐññÑñ›ñÑññÐñÌñÐñBEN›€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÐ  ®7þ20 ÐÓÓœñÏñBased€upon€the€record€before€us,€Husband€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€ofÏshowing€that€there€has€been€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstancesÏthat€would€justify€termination€of€the€alimony€he€agreed€to€pay.ÌÌÌOur€analysis€is€hindered€by€the€lack€of€evidence€on€many€of€the€statutory€factors.€ÏThe€record€fails€to€address€the€existence€of€financial€resources€other€than€thoseÏlisted€above,€such€as€pensions,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„5„101€(d)(1).€€Nor€does€it€indicate€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€theÏmental€condition€of€the€parties,€the€existence€of€any€minor€children€or€theÏexistence€of€any€separate€assets€possessed€by€the€husband€or€the€wife,€with€theÏexception€of€her€real€estate€holdings.€òòId.€óóNeither€the€standard€of€living€establishedÐ ` Ðduring€the€marriage€nor€the€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€tangible€orÏintangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€is€addressed.€òòId.óó€€The€record€contains€noÐ P   Ðevidence€revealing€a€change€in€the€husband's€ability€to€continue€paying€theÏagreed„to€alimony.€€It€contains€no€indication€of€the€portion€of€the€mortgage€paidÏby€the€wife€and€Mr.€Yancy.€€Further,€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€is€not€inÏthe€record€on€appeal.€€Nor€is€the€divorce€decree.€€In€light€of€these€facts,€we€cannotÏsay€that€the€husband€satisfied€his€burden€of€showing€a€substantial€and€materialÏchange€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€warrant€a€modification€of€the€alimony.€€òòSeeÐ -`(& ÐElliotóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€91„92€(voluntary€purchase€of€house€did€not€constitute€aÐ 0/€*( Ðchange€in€circumstances€warranting€reduction€in€alimony).à  àÐ P1 ,* ÐÌÌà ö àThe€party€seeking€modification€of€a€support€obligation€bears€the€burden€ofÏproving€both€that€there€has€been€a€substantial,€material€change€in€circumstancesÐ Ð9 52 Ðand€that€the€modification€is€warranted.€€òòSee€Elliotóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€90;€òòSealóó,€802Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€620;€òòMcCartyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€719€(citing€òòSealóó).׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€If€the€petitionerÐ Ð  Ðmeets€this€burden,€the€court€then€utilizes€the€same€factors€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36-5-101(d)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€that€were€considered€in€making€the€initial€award€toÏdetermine€the€appropriate€modification€where€such€factors€are€relevant.€€òòSeeÐ 0 € ÐBreweróó,€869€S.W.2d€at€936;€òòNorvellóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€774.€Ð P   Ðà ö àWhether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(2)ððs€last€sentence,€which€providesÏthat€the€recipient€of€rehabilitative€support€ð ðshall€have€the€burden€of€proving€thatÏall€reasonable€efforts€at€rehabilitation€have€been€made€and€have€beenÏunsuccessful,ððapplies€where€the€payor€of€such€support€seeks€to€terminate€orÏreduce€it€has€not€been€decided.€Ìà ö àAlthough€not€directly€addressing€the€applicability€of€the€burden€of€proofÏlanguage,€we€think€the€approach€taken€by€this€Court€in€òòGregory€v.€Gregoryóó,€1995Ð 0€ ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€511€(Tenn.€App.€1995),€in€examining€whether€the€obligorÏspouse€continued€to€need€rehabilitative€alimony,€has€application€to€the€situationÏpresented€herein.€€In€òòGregoryóó,€the€Court€noted€that€the€original€grant€ofÐ $à Ðrehabilitative€alimony€was€for€four€years,€and€the€hearing€on€the€modificationÏpetition€took€place€two€years€after€the€divorce,€so€that€the€original€time€period€forÏrehabilitation€was€not€over.€€This€Court€found€there€was€no€proof€in€the€recordÏthat€the€object€of€rehabilitation€had€been€achieved.€€The€Court€also€found€in€thatÏcase€that€the€evidence€did€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€tacit€findingÏthat€the€recipient€spouse€still€needed€time€and€money€to€rehabilitate€herself.€ÏòòGregoryóó€at€*4.Ð p3À., Ðà ö àWe€are€mindful€that€the€statute€has€also€been€described€as€allowing€a€courtÏto€withdraw€part€or€all€of€a€rehabilitative€support€award€where€a€dependent€spouseÐ °730 Ðdoes€not€satisfactorily€strive€for€self„sufficiency.€€òòLoria,óó€952€S.W.2d€at€838.€€WeÐ ° Ðdo€not€interpret€that€language,€however,€to€authorize€periodic€reviews€of€aÏrecipient€spouseððs€efforts€at€rehabilitation€during€the€period€originally€granted€inÏthe€award€or€a€shifting€of€the€burden€of€proof€in€such€reviews.€€The€law€remainsÏthat€a€party€seeking€modification€of€an€award€of€spousal€support€bears€the€burdenÏof€establishing€a€material€and€substantial€change€of€circumstances€warrantingÏsuch€modification.Ìà ö àA€recipient€spouse€who€does€not€make€reasonable€attempts€to€reach€theÏgoal€of€self„sufficiency€within€the€period€of€the€alimony€award€faces€the€very€realÏrisk€of€economic€hardship€at€the€expiration€of€the€rehabilitation€period.€€AnÏattempt€to€extend€the€support€payments€beyond€the€initial€award€will€beÏunsuccessful€if€the€recipient€did€not€make€reasonable€efforts€to€becomeÏeconomically€self„sufficient€with€the€resources€awarded€to€him€or€her.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0€ ÐòòMarlar€v.€Marlaróó,€1996€WL€268374€(Tenn.€App.€1996).Ð P   ÐñÏñ›