WPC g ]}LuTB]+&:,bSWj@aC21MX:0XlI̕Vq*3&8 ][m\h ZlȪ:ni\)0+I2 Ɲ:~(+U<kzo Xes˽t9~Pq( _%KPDmu 06qnt$q+DH_e3V ! Vk| TU+-ʴ5C=ePl/F5V:B&lXxQ= *(Ka$k|>: d'+gF{ĉq-H'IȾDL^fWp*4P'n"8?}]q{,F1bBW#<Īsiw3:F5gY+ab#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1UNNEGDELNRK 0Db 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS@ 0Y 0D AAHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0 u) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB )Gy$ 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|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  R:$      2      _Wecertainlydonotintendtosuggestthatallcosmeticsurgeryisunreasonable.Forexample,thepurposeof  cosmeticsurgerytocorrectabirthdefectoraphysicalinjuryistoimprovethepatientsappearance.Undersuch t circumstances,however,theprocedurewouldbemedicallynecessaryandthuswouldbe reasonable.   R:$      1      _Ourinterpretationofthepartiesdivorcedecreeissomewhatdifferentfromtheconstructiongiventothedecree  bythearbitrator.ThearbitratorruledthatMr.Woodsisrequiredtopayforalluncoveredexpensesresultingfrom t proceduresthatare medicalanddidnotdistinguishbetweenproceduresthatare reasonableandthosethatare 8  unreasonable.Underourruling,however,theproceduremustnotonlybe medicalbutmustalsobe reasonable L inordertocomewithinthescopeofthedivorcedecree. H R:$      3      _Anappellatecourtcanaffirmtherulingofalowercourtevenifitdisagreeswiththereasoningofthelower  courtsolongastheultimateconclusionofthelowercourtisthesameastheconclusionreachedonappeal. See,e.g., t Statev.Rogers ,992S.W.2d393,395(Tenn.1999)(providingexampleofcaseinwhichappellatecourtaffirmedruling : ofthelowercourtonothergrounds).(#$  0  - -(|G2:$ !.8C$d d 8         0  (H d(|3M$ !.8C$d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$ !.8C$d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Dd d8     _   w 8"tXXdd 8  X @  {^ wINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# w {^#Ԉ &   April2000Session L  X9sX w # wX X9s#CHRISTOPHERLAMARWOODSv.ELLIEJOANWOODS X9sX w  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.146130R.D.DArmyBailey,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199900733COAR3CVDecidedAugust22,2000   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThisappealarisesfromadisputebetweenPlaintiffChristopherLamarWoodsandDefendantEllie x  JoanWoodsregardingMr.Woodsfinancialobligationsunderthepartiesfinaldecreeofdivorce. d Thetrialcourtapprovedtherulingofthearbitrator,whichwasthatMr.Woodsisresponsibleforthe P expenseofMs.Woods tummytuckandbreastreductionsurgerybutisnotresponsibleforthe < expenseofMs.WoodsObagicreamtreatments,collageninjections,lipimplants,andothertopical (x procedures# wX X9sw# X9sX w.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,weaffirmtherulingofthetrialcourt.  d  # wX X9s# X9sX w| Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  <   # w X9s# X9sX. wDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.  andHewittP.Tomlin,Sp.J.,joined.  DanielLoydTaylorandJohnN.Bean,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ChristopherLamar  Woods. t KayFareseTurnerandWilliamE.Miller,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,EllieJoanWoods. L  ] OPINION # wX X9s# X9sX w #`" # wX X9s #   X9sX w   Thepartiesfinaldecreeofdivorce,whichwasenteredbyconsentinSeptemberof1996, %$!% statesthat Husbandshallberesponsibleforalluncoveredmedicalbills,deductiblesanddentalbills. &"& HusbandfurtheragreestoberesponsibleforWifesuncoveredpsychologicalbillsuptoone(1)visit '"' perweek.Subsequenttothepartiesdivorce,Ms.Woodsunderwentseveralprocedures,including (#( a tummytuck,abreastreduction,Obagicreamtreatments,collageninjections,lipimplants,and )$) othertopicalprocedures.InMarchof1997,Ms.WoodsfiledapetitionallegingthatMr.Woodswas p*%* incontemptofthepartiesdivorcedecreebecausehehadfailedtopayorreimburseherforthe \+&+ expenseoftheaforementionedprocedures.Inhisresponsetothispetition,Mr.Woodstookthe H,', positionthat,becausetheseprocedureswerepurelycosmetic,hewasnotrequiredbythedivorce 4-(- decreetopayforthem.Thepartiesagreedtohavethematterheardbyanarbitrator,thatthetrial  shallbeconductedpursuanttotheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureratherthantheUniformRules  ofArbitration,andthatthedecisionofthearbitratorwouldbeincorporatedintotheirfinaldecree  ofdivorce.Afterahearingonthematter,thearbitratorruledthat,becausethepartiesdivorce t decreedidnotexcludepaymentforelectiveorcosmeticsurgery,Mr.Woodsisresponsibleforthe ` expenseofMs.Woods tummytuckandbreastreductionsurgery.Thearbitratorfurtherruled, L  however,thatbecauseMs.WoodsObagicreamtreatments,collageninjections,lipimplants,and 8  othertopicalprocedureswerenot medicalasthattermisusedinthedivorcedecree,Mr.Woods $ t isnotresponsiblefortheexpenseoftheseprocedures.ThetrialcourtenteredanorderonMarch3,  ` 1999approvingtherulingofthearbitrator.ThisappealbyMr.Woodsfollowed.   L    ThesoleissueraisedbyMr.Woodsonappealiswhetherthearbitratorerredinrulingthat, $  pursuanttothepartiesfinaldecreeofdivorce,Mr.WoodsisresponsiblefortheexpenseofMs.   Woods tummytuckandbreastreductionsurgery._X"tXX X9sTo_Ԁtheextentthatthisissueinvolvesquestions   offact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis denovo withapresumptionofcorrectnessandthus   wemaynotreversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceofthe   evidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);T.R.A.P.13(d). n Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumption X ofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,FurenandGinsburg, B P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);T.R.A.P.13(d). ,|   Inordertoreviewtherulingofthetrialcourt,wemustdeterminewhetherthearbitrator P properlyinterpretedorconstruedthepartiesdivorcedecree.Therulesofconstructionrelativeto : divorcedecreesaresetforthin Halev.Hale ,838S.W.2d206# X9sXXX"t#X"tXX X9s(Tenn.Ct.App.1992)# X9sXXX"t3#X"tXX X9s,asfollows: $   8  Adivorcedecreeistobeconstruedlikeotherwritteninstruments. SeeBranchv.  Branch ,35Tenn.App.552,249S.W.2d581(1952).Adecreemustbeconstrued  inlightofthepleadings,particularlytheprayerofthebillandtheapparent | purposesinthemindsofthedraftsmanandthecourt. Livingstonv.Livingston , f 58Tenn.App.271,429S.W.2d452,456(1967).Thegeneralrulesofevidence P regardingtheadmissionofparolevidenceandtheconstructionofwritten :  instrumentsalsoapplytotheadmissionofparolevidenceintheconstructionofa $!t divorcedecree.429S.W.2dat456,457.Thetestastotheapplicationofthe "^  parolevidenceruleiswhetherthetestimonyastooralagreementsornegotiations "H! variesorcontradictstheinstrumentinquestionormerelyexplainsit.429S.W.2d #2" at457,citing Marronv.Scarbrough ,44Tenn.App.414,451,314S.W.2d165 $ # (1958).%!$   # X9sXXX"t#X"tXX X9s Hale ,838S.W.2dat20809.Mr.Woodsarguesonappealthatthephrase alluncovered '"& medicalbillsinthepartiesdivorcedecreerefersonlytobillsnotcoveredbyinsurancethatare t(#' associatedwithnecessarymedicalproceduresanddoesnotincludethoseuncoveredbillsthatare ^)$( theresultofunnecessarymedicalproceduressuchaselectiveplasticorcosmeticsurgery.Ms. H*%)  Woodscontends,however,thatthephrase alluncoveredmedicalbillsreferstoallmedicalbills 2+&* notcoveredbyinsurance,regardlessofwhethertheunderlyingmedicalprocedureisnecessaryor  unnecessary.     AlthoughtherearenoopinionsoftheTennesseecourtsaddressingthespecificissue n raisedinthecaseatbar,therearecasesfromotherjurisdictionsthataddressthisissue.In X supportofherposition,Ms.Woodscites Stackv.Stack ,646So.2d51(Ala.Civ.App.1994).In B   Stack ,thepartiesdivorcedecreerequiredthefathertomaintainhealthinsurancefortheparties , | childrenandtopayonehalfofthechildrensmedicalanddentalexpensesnotcoveredby  f insurance. Seeid. at53.Themothersubsequentlyfiledapetitionseekingpaymentbythefather  P foronehalfofcertainuncoveredmedicalanddentalexpensesthathadbeenincurredbythe  :  children. Seeid. Inhisanswertothepetition,thefathermaintainedthathedidnotpayhis  $  portionofthechildrensuncovereddentalbillsbecauseheconsideredthisdentalworktobe   cosmeticandunnecessaryandbecausethemotherhadfailedtofileinsuranceclaimswithrespect   tosomeofthesebills. Seeid. at56.Thetrialcourtrejectedthisargumentandheldthefatherin   contemptofcourt. Seeid. at54,56.TheAlabamaCourtofCivilAppealsaffirmed,stating we |  cannotholdthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionorthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentwasplainly f  andpalpablywrong. Id. at56. P   Insupportofhisposition,Mr.Woodsreliesonthecasesof Hillv.Hill ,706So.2d406 $t (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998),and Futchv.Futch ,643So.2d364(La.Ct.App.1994).In Hill ,the ^ partiesfinaldecreeofdivorcestatedthat [t]hepartiesshalldivideevenlyanyuncovered H expensesnotcovered[bythechildrenshealthinsurance]asanadditionalformofchildsupport. 2  Hill ,706So.2dat407.Thefatherchallengedthisprovision,arguingthatitimposesanopen  endedandunlimitedfinancialliabilityonhimandisthereforeunenforceable. Seeid. The  FloridaDistrictCourtofAppealsagreedthattheaforementionedprovisionwastooopenended  andconsequentlymodifiedthepartiesdivorcedecreetoreflectthatthisprovisionappliesonly  tononelectivereasonableandnecessarymedicalexpenses. Seeid. Similarly,in Futch ,thetrial t courtenteredanorderofseparationstatingthathusbandshall payallof[wifes]documented ^ medicalexpensesnotcoveredbythehospitalizationpolicy. Futch ,643So.2dat369.The H wifesubsequentlyfiledapetitionagainstthehusbandseekingpaymentofcertainmedical 2 expensesincurredforcosmeticliposuctionsurgeryandoralcontraceptives. Seeid. at36667.  l Thetrialcourtrejectedthewifesrequestforpaymentoftheseexpenses,holdingasfollows: !V 8  Inthiscase,thewords medicalexpensesdonot,bydefinition,automatically "*! includecostsforcosmeticsurgeryorcontraceptiveswhensuchtreatmentwasnot #" undertakenforamedicalnecessity.Suchaconclusionwould,inthecourts $# opinion,leadto absurdconsequences.Thelanguageofthatprovision,read % $ together,indicatesthatMr.Futchintendedtocontinuethemedicalinsurance &!% currentlyinforceandtoprovidebasicandnecessarymedicalcare.Accordingly, l'"& thecourtfindsthatMr.Futchisnotobligatedtopayexpensesincurredorrelated V(#' tocosmeticsurgeryorfororalcontraceptives.@)$(    Id. at370.TheLouisianaCourtofAppealsaffirmedtherulingofthetrialcourt. Seeid. +d&* Ї  UnderTennesseelaw,therearecertainimpliedtermsthatmaybereadintoanycontract  orwritteninstrument.First,itiswellsettledthateverycontractcontainsanimplieddutyofgood  faithandfairdealingintheperformanceandenforcementofthecontract. SeeWallacev.  NationalBankofCommerce ,938S.W.2d684,686(Tenn.1996); Brooksv.Networksof n Chattanooga,Inc. ,946S.W.2d321,326(Tenn.Ct.App.1996); ACG,Inc.v.Southeast X Elevator,Inc. ,912S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); Winfreev.EducatorsCreditUnion , B  900S.W.2d285,289(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). Whenconsideringwhetherthepartieshave , | compliedwiththisdutyofgoodfaithandfairdealing,thecourtmustascertaintheintentionof  f thepartiesasdeterminedbyareasonableandfairconstructionofthelanguageofthecontract.  P  SeeWallace ,938S.W.2dat686; ACG,Inc. ,912S.W.2dat168.Additionally,aqualifying  :  wordthatmaybereadintoeverycontractistheword reasonableoritsequivalent  $   reasonably. SeeHurleyv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,922S.W.2d887,892(Tenn.Ct.   App.1995); Moorev.Moore ,603S.W.2d736,739(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).     Inlightoftheauthoritiescitedabove,wethinkthatthedisputedprovisionintheparties |  finaldecreeofdivorceshouldbereadas Husbandshallberesponsibleforall reasonable  f  uncoveredmedicalbills,deductiblesanddentalbills.Underthisreadingofthedivorcedecree, P Mr.WoodsisrequiredtopayfortheuncoveredmedicalexpensesincurredbyMs.Woodsonlyif : theunderlyingprocedureisboth reasonableand medical. #  1      ׀ThetrialcourtfoundthatMs. $t WoodsObagicreamtreatments,collageninjections,lipimplants,andothertopicalprocedures ^ werenot medical.Weagree.WefurtheragreethatMs.Woods tummytuckandbreast H reductionsurgerywere medicalprocedureswithinthemeaningofthepartiesdivorcedecree. 2 Thequestion,then,becomeswhetherMs.Woods tummytuckandbreastreductionsurgery  werealso reasonable.Asageneralrule,wethink reasonablemedicalexpenseswouldnot  includethoseassociatedwithcosmeticsurgeryobtainedsolelyforthepurposeofimproving  onesappearanceandnotbecauseofamedicalnecessity.d #  2      ׀Itwouldcertainlynotbe reasonable  toconstruethepartiesdivorcedecreeinsuchawaythatMr.Woodsisrequiredtopayforan t unlimitednumberofcosmeticandunnecessarymedicalproceduresobtainedatthewhimofMs. ^ WoodsandfornootherpurposethantoimproveMs.Woodsappearance.Likethe  Louisiana H courtin Futch ,wethinkthatsuchaconstructionwouldleadto absurdconsequences.Inthe 2 instantcase,Dr.RobinM.Stevenson,Ms.Woodsplasticsurgeon,testifiedthatMs.Woodshad  l sustainedapriorinjurytoherarmthatmadeitdifficultforMs.Woodstotakecareofherself. !V (Tr.Exhibit#4,at22).Dr.StevensonfurtherexplainedthatMs.Woodslargeheavybreastsand !@  pendulousabdomenaggravatedthisproblem,resultedinneck,shoulder,andbackpain,and "*! causedMs.Woodtodeveloprashesbeneatheachbreastanddeepgroovesinhershouldersfrom #" brastraps.AccordingtoDr.Stevenson,Ms.Woods tummytuckandbreastreductionsurgery  werenecessaryinordertoalleviatetheaforementionedpain,rashes,andgroovesandtoenable  Ms.Woodstomoreeasilycareforherself.Mr.Woodsdidnotofferanymedicaltestimony  contradictingthisopinionofDr.Stevenson.Thus,theevidenceattrialsupportstheconclusion n thatthepurposeofMs.Woods tummytuckandbreastreductionsurgerywasnotsimplyto X enhanceMs.Woodsappearanceandthattherewasatleastsomedecreeofmedicalnecessity B  associatedwiththeseprocedures.Wethereforeconclude,althoughfordifferentreasons, #  3      ׀thatthe , | arbitratorproperlyheldthatMr.Woodsisobligatedunderthepartiesdivorcedecreetopaythe  f uncoveredexpenseassociatedwiththeseprocedures.Thus,weaffirmthetrialcourtsapproval  P ofthearbitratorsruling.# X9sXXX"t#X"tXX X9s   :     Basedontheforegoing,therulingofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thecostsofthisappeal   areassessedtoChristopherLamarWoods,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueif   necessary. `    # X9sXXX"tnI#    `     h     ___________________________________ h     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE