ÿWPC* Cu0sÓ˜0;Ï@»ö¤ë •ÓÛËçöF˜ëý™Z ‚"–ød4pÃh”ãkåÄêšR îö'&Ó ì9þ‘ pŽÅÓxXŠQ¤ÀQÀÕ(]¸ÞÈ *`µÖ›UßfÊŸ[U wœY‘»øéj2B´ó/ØW¤é¸°Š«já×èè™9ø`q)ŠT·¿C¬þ TŦ°ñ¼&ˆßTRnü_g9‘õ=£šW£É²³~Kg×òÜÝûlw¶îÕ.Ç8E.Å[Î=œí2£fXÝ2§\ë*ºfΘñeyÞ¿Ô ¼U8»|[L|kÇyÿ^¾A ÚÇ„„„2Ó+Ø`‰Øž9‹C¿ª.̉Hís!Y@ ʧÂÎKH%Š­éYܤPT̺”ù[9 ìÅŠþȦóÌ å•f?.>Ì!ÛÝÞ¢BZý˜zyZvMOpLÃÐä.ŠþàÈ_^™ˆ¯URþ/NÖúÉ>MV×ðJÞU·<™-ay÷ I:ê'ɪãȵ3?/ë†g³@Õç–Å™ÕY-`ŒO+<–¢Èß*¢½ûôcÈÇ§Š” ~Ñ ¾¯LØ‹ «»ß²ÿíqu8«<;Qçì!¢ôÙ?bÓ^AMt°PA)u $ˆ…ÊT^ãZb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿUNŠOEÙ 0DÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛb 0ë'''' B 0¤/ D3Ó D- 0K33 AS~ÆÑ 0¤— 0D; A«˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»lí(L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularö~ì( œ1X ¡ ˜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(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular €Ý ƒRq$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¦#X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€On€February€11,€1999€Wifeððs€attorney€filed€a€motion€to€admit€postÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔÔ_ÔjudgmentÔ_Ô€evidence,Ð ° Ðseeking€to€introduce€evidence,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€immediately€after€the€trial€Husband€took€his€newÐ  ð Ðfamily€for€a€vacation€in€Florida,€and€that€as€soon€as€he€returned€to€Nashville,€Husband€beganÐ à Ðworking€at€Ô_ÔBeamanÔ_Ô€Automotive€Group,€on€February€1,€1999.€€Husbandððs€counsel€protested€theÐ €Ð Ðadmission€of€this€post„judgment€evidence,€arguing€that€it€was€irrelevant€since€the€trial€court€hadÐ pÀ Ðstated€that€its€finding€of€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€was€not€based€onÐ ` ° ÐHusbandððs€unemployment.€€The€trial€judge€commented€that€the€post„judgment€evidence€simplyÐ P   Ðconfirmed€her€assumption€that€Husband€would€not€remain€unemployed€for€long,€and€denied€WifeððsÐ @  Ðmotion.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2q$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€°»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¦#X»»Ô d(|3Á$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€°»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€°»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€°»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼°»»»Ôà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ È ÐÔ‡X¦#X»¼°ÔÌò òÔ#†¼°»XX¦#*#ÔÓ  ÓCATHY€LEE€BARNES€WILLIAMSòòóó€v.€RODNEY€LEE€WILLIAMSòòóó.Ô‡X¦#X»¼°Ôó óÐ Ð  ÐÓpÓÌà@  ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ Ø ( Ðà@  ìàNo.€93D„961€€€€Marietta€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€Circuit€Court€JudgeˆÐ È  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<— ` A߈Ð ˜ è  ÐÌà@Ä Ä ìàNo.€M1999„00221„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV„€Decided€June€27,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР—ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<v` AßÐ wÇ  Ðó óÌà  àThis€is€a€post„divorce€petition€for€reduction€in€alimony.€€The€wifeððs€income€had€increasedÐ vÆ  Ðbecause€she€began€working€full„time€instead€of€part„time,€and€her€expenses€decreased€because€theÐ f¶  Ðpartiesðð€son€graduated€from€college€and€the€partiesðð€daughter,€living€with€the€wife,€was€close€toÐ V¦ Ðobtaining€her€professional€license.€€The€husband€was€unemployed€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€TheÐ F– Ðtrial€court€granted€the€husbandððs€petition,€finding€that€husbandððs€decrease€in€income€was€temporary,Ð 6† Ðbut€holding€that€the€wifeððs€€increase€in€income,€combined€with€the€decrease€in€her€expenses,Ð &v Ðconstituted€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€a€reduction€inÐ f Ðalimony.€We€reverse,€finding€that€the€changes€in€the€wifeððs€circumstances€were€foreseeable€whenÐ V Ðthe€parties€entered€into€the€marital€dissolution€agreement,€and€therefore€do€not€support€the€trialÐ öF Ðcourtððs€finding€of€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.Ð æ6 ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€remanded.€ó óÐ Æ ÐÌòòHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.Ô#†¼°»àX¦#¹#ÔÔ‡X¦#X.¼°Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,Ð ¦ö ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,Ô_Ôw.s.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó€joined.Ð –æ ÐÌMary€Anne€Ô_ÔKevilÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLaGrangeÔ_Ô,€Kentucky,€for€the€appellant,€Cathy€Lee€Barnes€Williams.Ð v Æ ÐÌF.€Ô_ÔDulinÔ_Ô€Kelly€and€Andy€L.€Ô_ÔAllmanÔ_Ô,€Henderson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Rodney€Lee€Williams.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼°»XX¦#~ #ÔÔ‡X¦#X»¼°ÔˆÐ 6$†# ÐòòóóÔ#†¼°»XX¦#A #ÔÔ‡X¦#X»¼°ÔÌÔ#†¼°»XX¦#Ÿ #ÔÔ€X¦#X»¼°ÔÓ€ÓÓ€Óà  àAppellee€€Rodney€Lee€Williams€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Appellant€Cathy€Lee€Barnes€WilliamsÐ &f!% Ð(ð ðWifeðð)€were€divorced€on€January€9,€1995,€after€twenty„one€€years€of€marriage.€€€The€parties€hadÐ 'V"& Ðtwo€children,€Rodney€Lee€Williams,€Jr.€(ð ðRodneyðð)€and€Alesha€Lee€Williams€(ð ðAleshaðð),€twins,€whoÐ ö'F#' Ðwere€twenty€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€Rodney€was€in€college€at€The€University€ofÐ æ(6$( ÐTennessee€at€Knoxville.€€Alesha,€who€had€a€baby,€lived€at€home€with€Wife.€€Wife€earnedÐ Ö)&%) Ðapproximately€$20,000€a€year€from€a€part„time€job€as€a€pharmaceutical€salesperson.€€Husband€earnedÐ Æ*&* Ðapproximately€$143,419.13€per€year€as€a€sales€manager€at€a€car€dealership.€òòóóÐ ¶+'+ Ðà  àPrior€to€the€divorce,€€the€parties€entered€into€a€marital€dissolution€settlement€agreementÐ ¦,ö', Ð(ð ðagreementðð).€€This€agreement,€with€the€exception€of€one€provision€relating€to€life€insurance,€wasÐ –-æ(-ý' Ðultimately€incorporated€into€the€partiesðð€final€decree€of€divorce.€€The€agreement€provided€for€spousalÐ ° Ðsupport€as€follows:Ð  ð ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€parties€acknowledge€and€agree€that€the€husband€has€the€ability€to€pay€andÐ €Ð Ðthe€wife€has€the€present€and€future€need€for€spousal€support€until€her€death€orÐ pÀ Ðremarriage,€based,€in€part,€on€the€relevant€criteria€set€forth€at€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€36„5„101(d)€(1)Ð ` ° Ð(A„L),€including,€but€not€limited€to,€the€duration€of€the€marriage€and€the€relativeÐ P   Ðfuture€health€and€earning€capacities€of€the€parties.€€Ð@ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTherefore,€the€parties€agree€that,€in€the€event€of€the€separation€and/or€divorce,Ð 0 € Ðthe€husband€shall€pay€the€wife€the€total€cash€sum€of€not€less€than€Four€ThousandÐ  p  ÐDollars€($4,000)€per€month€as€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€until€the€death€or€remarriage€of€theÐ `  Ðwife.€ÐP Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€agreement€provided€that€the€partiesðð€liquid€assets€be€divided€60%€to€Wife€and€40%€to€Husband.€Ð à0  ÐThe€agreement€contained€no€provision€on€the€payment€of€tuition€and€school€expenses€for€eitherÐ Ð  Ðchild.€€After€the€divorce,€Wife€assumed€the€responsibility€of€paying€Rodneyððs€college€tuition€andÐ À Ðexpenses,€of€supporting€€Alesha€and€the€partiesðð€grandchild,€and€of€assisting€Alesha€in€completingÐ ° Ðher€training€as€a€licensed€practical€nurse.Ð  ð Ðà  àOn€January€20,€1998,€Husband€filed€a€petition€to€modify€the€award€of€alimony,€arguing€thatÐ à Ðthere€had€been€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€a€decrease€inÐ €Ð Ðhis€alimony€obligation.€€A€hearing€was€held€on€the€petition€on€January€20,€1999.€€Husband€arguedÐ pÀ Ðthat€Wife€had€increased€her€income€by€working€full„time€instead€of€part„time,€had€saved€from€herÐ `° Ðearnings€and€had€earned€interest€on€her€savings.€€He€also€argued€that€Wifeððs€expenses€had€decreasedÐ P  Ðafter€Rodneyððs€graduation€from€college,€and€noted€that€Ô_ÔAleshaÔ_Ô€was€expected€shortly€to€complete€herÐ @ Ðnursing€education.Ð 0€ Ðà  àAt€trial,€Wife€acknowledged€that€in€1998€she€had€grossed€€$61,778€from€her€full„timeÐ  p Ðposition€as€a€pharmaceutical€salesperson,€and€that€in€1997€she€had€earned€approximately€$7500€inÐ ` Ðinterest€on€her€savings€account.€€She€did€not€dispute€that€she€no€longer€had€the€expense€of€RodneyððsÐ P Ðcollege€tuition.€Ð ð@ Ðà  àHusband€also€argued€€that€his€ability€to€pay€the€agreed„upon€level€of€alimony€had€decreased,Ð à0 Ðdue€to€the€additional€expenses€he€had€incurred€with€the€birth€of€a€new€child,€and€his€recent€declineÐ Ð  Ðin€income.€€Husband€testified€that€€his€income€had€been€$165,149€in€1995,€$142,221€in€1996,Ð À! Ð$122,722€in€1997,€and€$90,472€in€1998.€€Husband€testified€that€he€was€unemployed€at€the€time€ofÐ °"  Ðthe€hearing.€€He€acknowledged,€however,€€that€his€new€wife€earned€between€$50,000€and€$60,000Ð  #ð! Ðper€year,€that€he€and€his€wife€had€reported€a€combined€income€of€$174,088€in€1997,€ò òó óand€that€he€hadÐ $à" Ðbeen€able€to€meet€his€alimony€obligations€to€date€without€having€to€alter€his€lifestyle.€€He€admittedÐ €%Ð # Ðthat€he€had€no€immediate€plans€to€sell€his€$290,000€home,€either€of€his€two€vehicles,€or€his€boats.€Ð p&À!$ Ðà  àOn€February€3,€1999,€the€trial€court€issued€an€order€reducing€Husbandððs€alimony€obligationÐ `'°"% Ðto€$2500€per€month.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Wifeððs€increase€in€income,€combined€with€theÐ P( #& Ðdecrease€in€her€expenses€due€to€the€sonððs€graduation€from€college€and€the€daughterððs€maturation,€wasÐ @)$' Ða€material€change€in€circumstances€justifying€the€decrease€in€alimony.€€The€trial€court€did€not€base€Ð 0*€%( Ðits€finding€of€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€on€Husbandððs€currentÐ  +p&) Ðunemployment,€stating€that€it€assumed€that€Husband€would€quickly€find€another€job,€and€that€hisÐ ,`'* Ðincome€would€remain€at€essentially€the€level€it€was€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€The€trial€courtððs€orderÐ ° Ðstates:Ð  ð ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€appears€to€the€Court€from€an€examination€of€the€records,€evidenceÐ €Ð Ðpresented€to€the€Court,€and€the€testimony€of€the€parties€that€there€has€been€a€materialÐ pÀ Ðand€substantial€change€in€the€circumstances€of€Cathy€Williams€that€would€warrantÐ ` ° Ða€reduction€in€alimony€payable€to€her.ÐP  Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€find€[sic]€such€material€and€substantial€changes€in€circumstancesÐ @  Ðto€be€a€substantial€increase€in€the€income€of€Cathy€Williams€and€a€substantialÐ 0 € Ðdecrease€in€the€expenses€of€Cathy€Williams,€particularly€the€graduation€of€theÐ  p  Ðpartiesðð€son€from€college€and€the€maturation€of€the€partiesðð€daughter€who€is€nearingÐ `  Ðcompletion€of€her€education.ÐP Ð Ð  ÐÌFrom€this€order,€Wife€now€appeals.Ð à0  Ðà  àWife€argues€on€appeal€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourtððs€finding€of€a€material€and€substantial€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€the€decreaseÐ À Ðin€alimony.€€Wife€contends€that,€€under€Tennessee€case€law,€Husband€is€required€to€show€that€theÐ ° Ðchange€in€circumstances€is€permanent,€and€that€it€was€not€within€the€contemplation€of€the€parties€atÐ  ð Ðthe€time€of€the€divorce.€€She€asserts€that€the€changes€cited€by€Husband,€€the€sonððs€graduation€fromÐ à Ðcollege€and€Wifeððs€increased€income€due€to€full„time€work,€were€within€the€contemplation€of€theÐ €Ð Ðparties€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€and€that€Husbandððs€unemployment€was€temporary.€€Wife€asks€thatÐ pÀ Ðthis€Court€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decision€and€reinstate€the€$4000€per€month€alimony€award.€€SheÐ `° Ðalso€asks€that€she€be€awarded€her€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€for€the€appeal.Ð P  Ðà  àHusband€argues€that€neither€party€anticipated€Wifeððs€substantial€increase€in€income,€orÐ @ ÐHusbandððs€loss€of€employment,€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€decree.€€Husband€asserts,€therefore,€thatÐ 0€ Ðthe€trial€court€appropriately€reduced€his€alimony€obligation€since€Wife€had€a€greater€income€andÐ  p Ðfewer€needs,€while€Husband€had€a€reduced€ability€to€pay.€Husband€argues,€however,€that€the€trialÐ ` Ðcourt€did€not€sufficiently€reduce€Wifeððs€alimony€award.€€Husband€contends€that€an€award€€of€$2500Ð P Ðper€month€exceeds€Wifeððs€current€needs€and€leaves€her€with€a€windfall.€€Husband€asks€that€thisÐ ð@ ÐCourt€further€reduce€Wifeððs€alimony€to€$1500€or€less€per€month,€and€deny€her€request€for€attorneyððsÐ à0 Ðfees.Ð Ð  Ðà  àÔ‡ X¦#XXX¦#ÔOur€review€of€this€case€is€governed€by€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÐ À! ÐProcedure,€which€states€that€appellate€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€shall€be€òòde€novoóóÐ ° Ðon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ  ð Ðevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€Ð à ÐÒe°Òà ½ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101€(a)(1)€provides€that€a€court€may€increase€or€decreaseÐ €Ð Ðthe€amount€of€alimony€awarded€in€a€divorce€ð ðonly€upon€a€showing€of€substantial€and€material€changeÐ pÀ Ðin€circumstances.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(a)(1)€(Supp.1999).€The€burden€to€show€€substantialÐ ` ° Ðand€material€change€of€circumstances€falls€on€the€party€seeking€modification€of€the€award.€ò òòòSanellaÐ P   Ðv.€Sanellaó óóó,€993€S.W.2d€73,€76€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);òòò ò€Elliot€v.€Elliotóóó ó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€90€(Tenn.€Ct.€Ð @  ÐApp.€1991);òòò ò€€Seal€€v.€Sealóóó ó,€802€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€To€be€considered€substantialÐ 0 € Ðand€material,€the€change€in€circumstances€must€have€occurred€after€the€entry€of€the€divorce€decree,Ð  p  Ðand€must€not€have€been€anticipated€by€the€parties€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€ò òòòMcCarty€€v.€McCartyóóó ó,Ð `  Ð863€S.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€ò òòòEliotóóó ó,€825€S.W.2d€at€90;ò òòò€Ô#†X¦#XX X¦#A/#ÔSealóóó ó,€802€S.W.2d€at€621.€€Ð P  Ðà ½ àAn€increase€in€income€by€an€alimony€recipient€is€not€enough,€without€more,€to€warrant€aÐ ð@  Ðreduction€in€alimony.€€ò òòòSee€McCartyóóó ó,€863€S.W.2d€at€720€(citing€ò òòòNorvell€v.€Norvelló óóó,€805€S.W.2d€772,Ð à0  Ð774„75€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€ò òòòSeal€v.€Sealó óóó,€802€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€ò òòòJones€v.Ð Ð  ÐJonesóóó ó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€353„54€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);òòò ò€Threadgill€v.€Threadgillóóó ó,€740€S.W.2d€419,Ð À Ð423„24€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€ò òòòDodd€v.€Doddóóó ó,€737€S.W.2d€286,€288„89€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)).ò òòòóóó ó€òòò òSeeÐ ° Ðalsoó óóó€€ò òòòSanellaóóó ó,€993€S.W.2d€at€76;ò òòòóóó ó€ò òòòElliotóóó ó,€825€S.W.2d€at€91.€€In€ò òòòÔ_ÔMcCartyÔ_Ôó óóó,€the€wifeððs€income€increasedÐ  ð Ðsubstantially€after€the€divorce,€from€$3000€to€$43,000€per€year,€due€to€her€move€from€part„time€toÐ à Ðfull„time€employment€and€the€interest€she€received€from€the€investment€of€assets€received€in€theÐ €Ð Ðdivorce.€ò òòòÔ_ÔMcCartyÔ_Ôóóó ó,€863€S.W.2d€at€720.€The€husband€cited€the€wifeððs€increase€in€income€as€one€of€theÐ pÀ Ðfactors€to€support€his€petition€to€terminate€his€alimony€obligations.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€719.€€The€trial€court€foundÐ `° Ðthat€there€had€been€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€and€reduced€the€wifeððs€alimonyÐ P  Ðpayments€from€$2,200€to€$1,700€per€month.€This€Court€reversed,€finding€that€there€had€not€been€aÐ @ Ðsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances,€within€the€meaning€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð 0€ Ð101(a)(1),€sufficient€to€warrant€the€reduction€in€alimony.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€720.€The€Ô_ÔMcCartyÔ_Ô€court€discussedÐ  p Ðthe€wifeððs€increased€income:Ð ` ÐÌà8 ½ àà  àAn€alimony€recipientððs€income€alone€does€not€warrant€a€reduction€in€theÐ ð@ Ðhusbandððs€alimony€obligations.€€Although€the€need€of€the€spouse€is€one€of€the€primaryÐ à0 Ðfactors€in€determining€the€proper€amount€of€alimony,€modification€of€alimony€basedÐ Ð  Ðsolely€on€a€wifeððs€increased€earnings€is€not€proper€unless€the€husband€introducesÐ À! Ðevidence€indicating€that€the€amount€of€alimony€initially€awarded€was€based€upon€aÐ °"  Ðpresumption€that€the€wife€would€not€continue€to€increase€her€income€through€theÐ  #ð! Ðpursuit€of€her€career.€Ð$à"½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌò òòòId.óóó ó€(citations€omitted).€€Despite€the€husbandððs€contention€that€he€had€not€known€that€the€wife€wouldÐ p&À!$ Ðreturn€to€work€full„time€after€the€divorce,€this€Court€found€that€it€was€ð ðsufficiently€foreseeableðð€thatÐ `'°"% Ðshe€would€do€so,€and€that€the€wifeððs€increase€in€income€did€not€support€a€reduction€in€alimony.€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ P( #& ÐThe€Court€also€found€that€the€wifeððs€interest€income€from€property€she€received€in€the€division€ofÐ @)$' Ðmarital€property€ð ðis€not€a€sufficient€basis€on€which€to€reduce€alimony€payments€because€the€appelleeÐ 0*€%( Ðhas€not€produced€any€evidence€to€indicate€that€this€interest€income€was€unanticipated€or€unforeseen.ððÐ  +p&) Ðò òòòId.óóó óÐ ,`'* Ðà ½ àIn€this€case,€as€in€òòò òÔ_ÔMcCartyÔ_Ôó óóó,€Husband€has€introduced€no€evidence€to€show€that€Wifeððs€moveÐ ° Ðto€full„time€employment,€with€its€corresponding€increase€in€salary,€was€unanticipated€by€the€partiesÐ  ð Ðat€the€time€of€the€divorce€decree.€€The€property€agreement€between€the€parties€contains€nothingÐ à Ðindicating€that€Husbandððs€agreement€to€pay€Wife€$4000€per€month€in€alimony€was€predicated€on€theÐ €Ð Ðassumption€that€Wife€would€continue€to€work€only€part„time.€€Likewise,€there€is€no€evidence€that€theÐ pÀ Ðparties€did€not€anticipate€that€Wife€would€receive€interest€from€her€savings.€€€Ð ` ° Ðà ½ àHusband€argues€that€the€fact€that€Wife€has€been€able€to€increase€her€savings€and€retirement€Ð P   Ðaccounts€since€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€divorce€demonstrates€that€she€no€longer€needs€$4000€per€monthÐ @  Ðin€alimony,€and€is€a€sufficient€basis€for€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€reduction€in€the€alimony€award.€Ð 0 € ÐAt€trial,€Wife€testified€that€she€had€received€$176,000€as€her€60%€share€of€the€partiesðð€propertyÐ  p  Ðdivision€in€the€divorce.€€She€used€$42,000€to€buy€a€lot€upon€which€to€build€a€modest€house,€andÐ `  Ðplaced€the€rest€in€savings.€€She€stated€that€she€currently€had€$168,000€in€her€savings€account.€€WifeÐ P  Ðacknowledged€that€she€had€been€able€to€save€a€portion€of€her€income€to€add€to€her€savings€account,Ð ð@  Ðand€that€her€job€provided€her€with€a€retirement€plan.€€However,€had€the€parties€remained€married,Ð à0  ÐWife€would€have€been€able€to€save€money€and€plan€for€retirement.€€The€record€contains€no€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðthat€Wife€ð ðis€now€able€to€enjoy€a€higher€standard€of€living€now€than€before€the€divorce.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔMcCartyÔ_Ôó óóó,Ð À Ð863€Ô_ÔS.W.2dÔ_Ô€at€720.€€We€find€that€Wifeððs€savings€do€not€support€a€finding€of€a€substantial€and€materialÐ ° Ðchange€in€circumstances.Ð  ð Ðà ½ àThe€trial€court€also€cited€the€decrease€in€Wifeððs€expenses,€due€to€Rodneyððs€graduation€fromÐ à Ðcollege€and€Aleshaððs€maturation€and€completion€of€her€education,€in€support€of€the€finding€of€aÐ €Ð Ðsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.€€However,€the€record€contains€no€evidence€thatÐ pÀ Ðeither€of€these€events€were€unanticipated€at€the€time€the€parties€entered€into€the€marital€dissolutionÐ `° Ðagreement.€Ð P  Ðà ½ àHusband€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€his€alimony€obligation€because€of€hisÐ @ Ðdecreased€income€and€increased€responsibilities,€both€of€which€have€reduced€his€ability€to€pay.€€TheÐ 0€ Ðtrial€court€stated€that€it€assumed,€from€Husbandððs€employment€history,€that€Husbandððs€unemploymentÐ  p Ðwas€temporary,€and€that€he€would€soon€be€earning€substantially€the€same€amount€as€he€earned€at€theÐ ` Ðtime€of€the€divorce.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€Moreover,€theÐ P Ðincreased€financial€responsibilities€cited€by€Husband€were€all€voluntarily€assumed,€and€an€obligorÐ ð@ Ðspouse€may€not€ð ðavoid€paying€support€by€voluntarily€assuming€new€financial€obligations.ðð€€ò òòòSeeÐ à0 ÐÔ_ÔSanellaÔ_Ô€v.€Sanellaóóó ó,ò òòò€ó óóó€993€S.W.2d€73,€76€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòò òSee€also€Ô_ÔGivlerÔ_Ô€€v.€Givleróóó ó,€964€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð902,€908€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòò òElliot€v.€Elliotó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€ò òòòJones€v.Ð À! ÐJonesóóó ó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Therefore,€neither€Husbandððs€temporaryÐ °"  Ðunemployment€nor€his€increased€financial€responsibilities€support€a€reduction€in€alimony.Ð  #ð! Ðà ½ à€Consequently,€we€find€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€trialÐ $à" Ðcourtððs€finding€of€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances,€justifying€a€decrease€inÐ €%Ð # Ðalimony.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€Wifeððs€$4000€per€month€alimony€is€reinstated,Ð p&À!$ Ðretroactive€to€February€1999,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ `'°"% ÐOpinion.€€Ð P( #& Ðà ½ àWife€seeks€her€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€for€this€appeal.€€We€find€Wifeððs€motion€well„taken.€Ð @)$' Ѐò òòòSee€Seal€v.€Sealóóó ó,€802€S.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)(holding€that€wife€was€entitled€toÐ 0*€%( Ðattorneyððs€fees€incurred€in€defending€her€entitlement€to€alimony).€€Consequently,€we€grant€WifeððsÐ  +p&) Ðrequest€for€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€on€appeal,€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€to€hear€proofÐ ,`'* Ðand€set€a€reasonable€attorneyððs€fee€for€this€appeal.Ð ° Ðà ½ àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€toÐ  ð Ðdetermine€a€schedule€for€payment€of€the€back€alimony,€as€well€as€a€determination€of€WifeððsÐ à Ðreasonable€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€on€appeal.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€Appellee,€Rodney€Lee€Ð €Ð ÐWilliams,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€€Ð pÀ ÐÓ€ Óà ½ à€€Ð ` ° Ðà ½ àò òòòóóó óÔ‡X.= XXX¦#Ôà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àòòò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð È  Ðó óà0 ½ àà  àò òà0m ½(#½(#àà0Å m (#m (#àà0Å (#Å (#àà0u(#(#àòòóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_ÔÐ* z u(#u(# Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àòòóóALAN€E.€Ô_ÔHIGHERSÔ_Ô,€J.ó óÐ Œ Ü  ÐÔ#†X¦#X XX.=üY#Ô