WPC  Mt'S7.m5{oq>\2yH չr䙤#2#hW7bNH^XTrCUqr)DFz)J{qJ~M4e;# q"Qo0{/N'hHAWteۚmkP@?RLÍB$eNɾ0fTyQ,ПҖf1lKk@Fdury'<T1ƻg |q r 6fJГYW `.s59ȑrXzbU0nZB`2Dd9 JjtM^恲)t<uզLnC)N";(1%dP\2O:024yVWB_(ɵCP`C.:-:׆8JdPcT0o8^a(}|Lb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1NEb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K ASb 0{ 0D AcHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0bK)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(bk1< 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 - -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  D d(|3 $ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#D #Ԉ ,   August28,2000Session X XXD #DXX#MICKEYBRENTBILLINGSLEYv.DIANEBROWNBILLINGSLEYXXD   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforObionCounty  h @@No.16,466WilliamMichaelMaloan,Chancellor  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W199900338_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober9,_2000_Ԁ '  AV) ` dE<` A       X8XXXThiscaseconcernsahusbandseffortstoterminatehisobligationtopayhisexwife$216.67per  monthinalimony infuturo becauseofthepostdivorceincreaseinhisformerwifesincome.The  trialcourtdeniedthehusbandspetition,findingthattherehadnotbeenachangeincircumstances  sufficienttowarranttheterminationofthespousalsupportobligation.Weaffirm. z #XXX X8##DXXw#XXD Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealAsofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and R Remanded  B   #DX#XX.DDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., "r andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. b RichardL.Dunlap,III,Paris,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MickeyBrentBillingsley. B SteveConley,UnionCity,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DianeBrownBillingsley. "  OPINION #DXX #XXD   #DXX #  XXD X8XXX  OnJune12,1992,MickeyBrentBillingsley(Mr.Billingsley)andDianeBillingsley(Ms. "! Billingsley)weredivorced.Thepartieshadtwochildren,andthetrialcourtawardedcustodytoMs. ~#" Billingsley.Aspartofthefinaljudgmentofdivorce,thecourtorderedMr.BillingsleytopayMs. j$# Billingsley$50.00perweek($216.67permonth)asalimony infuturo baseduponthedisparityin V% $ theearningcapacitiesoftheparties,Ms.Billingsleysneed,andMr.Billingsleysabilitytopay. B&!% Additionally,thecourtawardedthepartieshome,with$22,000.00ofequitytherein,toMs. .'~"& Billingsleyasalimony insolido . (j#'   Atthetimeofthedivorcein1992,Ms.BillingsleywasemployedatMichelsonsJewelers )B%) andearned$9,618.00peryear.Herhousepaymentswere$546.03permonth.Afterthedivorce,Ms. *.&* Billingsleywaslaidofffromherjob.SherefinancedherhomeforthefirsttimeonMay28,1993, +'+ incurringdebtof$55,385.20.OnFebruary2,1998,Ms.Billingsleyrefinancedherhomefora ,(, secondtime,increasingthedebtto$68,000.00.Ms._Billingsley_Ԁfiledforbankruptcy,andinJuneof -(- 1999,shelostherhometoforeclosure.Ms._Billingsley_ԀiscurrentlyemployedbytheDoctorsClinic  inUnionCity,Tennessee,andearns$7.75perhour.Includingchildsupportpaymentsandalimony,  Ms.Billingsleyearnsatotalof$2,184.00permonth.Hermonthlyexpensestotal$2,848.00.    Sincethedivorce,Mr.Billingsleyhasremarried,andheandhiswifehaveacombined ` monthlyincomeof$5,028.57,withMr.Billingsleycontributingapproximately$2,510.70tothat L  total.Theirmonthlyexpensesare$4,870.32.Afterthedivorce,Mr.Billingsleypurchasedrealestate 8  valuedat$70,700.00,a1997FordExpedition,ajetski,apontoonboat,andhadaswimmingpool $ t builtbehindhishome.Additionally,Mr.Billingsleyswifesniececurrentlyresideswithhimand  ` hiswife.Mr.Billingsleyreceivesnosupportpaymentsforhiswifesniece.  L    OnJanuary15,1999,Mr.Billingsleyfiledapetitionrequestingtheterminationofhis $  alimonyobligation,assertinginsupportofhismotionthatMs.Billingsleysincomehadrisentoa   levelsuchthatMr.Billingsleyshouldnolongerberequiredtopayalimony infuturo .Ahearingon   Mr.Billingsleyspetitiontoterminatealimony,alongwithotherissuesraisedbytheparties,was   heldonSeptember1,1999.ThecourtdeniedMr.Billingsleyspetitiontoterminatealimony,   findingthatthefinancialsituationofthepartiesreallyhadnotchangedsincethedivorce,thatMs. p Billingsleywasstillinneedofsupport,andthatMr.Billingsleywasstilllimitedinhisabilitytopay \ alimony.Specifically,thecourtfoundthattherehadbeenchangesincircumstances,butnonewere H significantenoughtowarrantamodificationofthealimonyaward.ThesoleissueraisedbyMr. 4 BillingsleyonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingMr.Billingsleyspetitionto  p terminatealimony.  \   Becausespousalsupportdecisionsarefactualinnatureandinvolveabalancingoffactors, 4 includingthoseinsection365101(d)oftheTennesseeCode,thiscourtmustreviewthetrialcourts   decision denovo withapresumptionofcorrectnessunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.    See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)(1999); Cranfordv.Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.Ct.App.  1989); Lunav.Luna ,718S.W.2d673,675(Tenn.Ct.App.1986).Appellatecourtsgivewide  latitudetoatrialcourtsdecisionregardingalimonyawards. SeeCranford ,772S.W.2dat50.    Accordingtosection365101(a)(1)oftheTennesseeCode,acourtcanmodifyasupport X  awardonlyiftherehavebeensubstantialandmaterialchangesincircumstances.A substantialand D! materialchangehasbeendefinedtomeanthatthechangeincircumstancewasunforeseeableatthe 0"  timeofthedivorcedecreeandthatthechangeaffectedtherecipientspousesneedorthepayor #l! spousesabilitytopay. SeeSannellav.Sannella ,993S.W.2d73,76(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);  $X" McCartyv.McCarty ,863S.W.2d716,719(Tenn.Ct.App.1992); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836 $D # S.W.2d563,568(Tenn.Ct.App.1991); Elliotv.Elliot ,825S.W.2d87,90(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). %0!$ Theburdenofprovingasubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstancelieswiththepartyseeking &"% themodification,butashowingofanincreaseinincomeoftherecipientspousealoneisnotenough '#& towarrantmodificationorterminationofthesupportaward. SeeSannella ,993S.W.2dat76; (#'  Brewerv.Brewer ,869S.W.2d928,935(Tenn.Ct.App.1993); McCarty ,836S.W.2dat720; )$(  Norvellv.Norvell ,805S.W.2d772,774,775(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Furthermore,thepayor |*%) spousesrequirementtopayalimonycannotbeterminatedmerelybecausethepayorspouse h+&* voluntarilyassumedotherfinancialobligations. SeeElliot ,825S.W.2dat91; Jonesv.Jones ,784  S.W.2d349,353(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).    Mr.Billingsleyassertedasthebasisforhispetitiontoterminatealimony infuturo thatMs. t Billingsleyisgainfullyemployedandearnsanincomeatsuchalevelthatheshouldnotberequired ` topayalimony.ItcanthusbeinferredfromMr.BillingsleyspetitionthatheisallegingthatMs. L  Billingsleysincreaseinincomeisasubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstancewhichwarrants 8  themodificationofhisalimonyobligation.TherecordsupportsMr.BillingsleysassertionthatMs. $ t Billingsleyiscurrentlygainfullyemployedandisearningmoreinsalarynowthanshedidatthetime  ` ofdivorce.Itis,however,notunforeseeablethatMs.Billingsleywouldhavetofindajobpaying  L  hermorethan$9,618.00peryearinordertosupportherselfandhertwoteenagedchildrenafterthe  8  divorce.Caselawisclearthatthedependentspousesincreaseinpostdivorceincomealoneisnot $  enoughtoqualifyasasubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstance. SeeSannella ,993S.W.2d   at76; McCarty ,863S.W.2dat720; Norvell ,805S.W.2dat775.Furthermore,thetrialcourtfound   thatthepartiesfinancialsituationhadnotchangedagreatdealsincethedivorceandthat,although   therewerechangesincircumstances,noneweresignificantenoughtowarrantamodificationofthe   awardofalimony infuturo .WeagreewiththetrialcourtthatMr.Billingsleyhasnotshowna p substantialandmaterialchangeincircumstancessufficienttojustifyterminatinghisalimony \ obligation.Therefore,fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofMr. H Billingsleyspetitiontoterminatealimony infuturo . 4   Ms.Billingsleyrequeststhiscourttoawardherattorneysfeesnecessitatedbythisappeal.  \ Insupportofherrequest,Ms.Billingsleycitessection365103(c)oftheTennesseeCodeas H authorityforthiscourttoawardhertheattorneysfeessheincurredonthisappeal.Section365 4 103(c)statesinrelevantpartthat [t]he plaintiff spousemayrecoverfromthe defendant spouse.   ..reasonableattorneyfeesincurredin enforcing anydecreeforalimony...bothupontheoriginal   divorcehearingandatanysubsequenthearing....Tenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)(Supp.1999)  (emphasisadded).Ms.Billingsleyisneitherthe plaintiff spousenorisshe enforcing adecreefor  alimony.Rather,Ms.Billingsleyisdefendingthealimonyawardgrantedherinthetrialcourt. See  generally_Glanton_Ԁv._Glanton_ ,No.01A019601PB00013,1996WL502136,at**3( Notably, l thestatutedoesnotstatethata defendant spousemayrecoverfroma plaintiff spouse .)(emphasis X  inoriginal).#XXX X8w # X8XXXAdditionally,attorneysfeespersection365103(c)oftheTennesseeCodeare D! primarilyawardedtofacilitateachildsaccesstothecourts. SeeSherrodv.Wix ,849S.W.2d780 0"  (Tenn.Ct.App.1992).BecauseMs.BillingsleydoesnotfittherequirementsoftheCode,wefind #l! thatsection365103(c)doesnotprovideastatutorybasisforawardingMs.Billingsleyher $X" attorneysfeesonappeal. $D # ̀    Ordinarily,apartycannotcollecthisattorneysfeesfromhisadversaryabsenteither(1)a &"% statuteorruleofcourtor(2)acontractualprovisionbetweentheparties.BecauseMs.Billingsley '#& doesnotmeettherequirementsofthestatuteprovidingforattorneysfeesandbecausenocontractual (#' provisionregardingpaymentofattorneysfeesexistsbetweenMr.BillingsleyandMs.Billingsley, )$( wefindthatMs.Billingsleyisnotentitledtoanawardofattorneysfeesonappeal. |*%)  h+&*   Basedontheforegoing,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofMr.Billingsleyspetitionto  terminatealimony infuturo .Additionally,wedenyMs.Billingsleysrequestforherattorneysfees  onappeal.Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,MickeyBrent_Billingsley_,andhis  surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. t ̀#XXX X8H1#   `     h     ___________________________________ $ t    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE