ÿWPCÄ qW£­³ƒàšÜRáÊ\anÐU;w€Ó¥†Ñ< ç*«Ô ÑùÀ¾37ͯ:?vA^<>°yǨ世Ø_Qõ´t8^½?M-3ÃSiZh‹ûÓ爣uÃÔµw‹8ލ¹°4iúB­±x·Uú$pHƒ+Ã3麜ªì«,l D`ÁÞüò»K²t~YÒ˴耮Ë1UbûJzTüg+]ú¡?P·eƒ¼¦ªj/€»n3É¡¦y)Ñ I Ü›TéAåKèS¿M—LzÈW5Z:Ãâî.Q¦rÃŒ–(cÄrq3S‚àR†‹®sàí!A´Oócƒ̶"|n©¿xµ ‚]~)~@)á£:Ô%ð‹7Öæ!s¬~ñXÒ÷AÛkR@²?ªÚ¹‚˜UA·äµoÝíÀ ‘$ŠRö‰lL6WûSÔìûæ”æúËòžÕ¨Kµ?<Õ÷ ?Z¨ápÕϸ‘Sœ¶&ìõ"»Óþ't;%мñ^¯þÅ<Zí|`-®$ÆÃpÞ¦7™ÅµâÓïó¹M.:M©+€Â†˜wR‡d¾3äQï´ˆg`¡ÄNfDpÈ\ˆ|¹«Ïÿo¾¾3” H£êJ(Бދ¥õ:Ž€Fj_}éç‹Ó_Ab#Á\ % U@# 0ˆc U Në n­9 Næ zè Òb 0D4 ^ x w„ „ ƈ ÆN ÆÆÚ¡ NAU8C4{E‘  m¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢b¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹ 0ëÁÁÁÁ B¬¬ 0¤É D3m D-  0KÍÍ ASÆk 0¤1 0DÕ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ ˜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.wpt(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóìuŸ-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 —Ý ƒRã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôan òòôø]ÔÔ#†ôø]ò òôan~#ÔÔ€ôø]òòôø]ÔOur€Supreme€Court€recently€prohibited€the€courts€from€awarding€both€rehabilitative€alimony€and€alimony€inÐ À Ðfuturo€in€a€single€decree,€reasoning€that€alimony€in€futuro€is€only€appropriate€if€rehabilitation€has€proven€to€be€unfeasible.Ð „Ä ÐòòÔ_ÔCrabtreeÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCrabtreeÔ_Ôóó,€16€S.W.3d€656€(Tenn.€2000).€€However,€such€awards€were€acceptable€in€1993.€?a ®9Z+‹ Courier New š‚,-p¤q·3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2ã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Je»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø]ò»»Ô d(|3‰X$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Je»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰X$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Je»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Je»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑÀ°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Je»»»ÔÑ8€ÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Je»»¼JeÔà@ü ü ìàԇJeÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ À Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Je»î9#ԈРæ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€8,€2002€SessionÐ  L ÐÔ‡XÉX»¼JeÔÌò òÔ#†¼Je»XXÉ!#ÔBETTY€R.€BROWN€òòóó€v.€MELVIN€E.€BROWNòòóóÔ‡XÉX»¼JeÔó óÐ  J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€92D„1857€€€€€€Marietta€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ ö 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¹ ` AßÐ º ú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00728„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€31,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ µõ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Œ` AßÐ Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€granted€the€wife€a€divorce€after€a€marriage€of€twenty„five€years,€and€ordered€theÐ ˆÈ  Ðhusband€to€pay€her€$300€per€month€as€alimony€in€futuro.€€Eight€years€later,€the€husband€filed€aÐ t´ ÐPetition€to€Modify€the€Final€Decree€and€eliminate€the€alimony€obligation,€citing€a€significantÐ `  Ðincrease€in€the€wifeððs€earnings.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petition.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼Je»XXÉ•#ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼JeÔÐ LŒ ÐÓùÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ $d ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Je»àXÉê#ÔÔ‡XÉX.¼JeÔBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó€andÐ è( ÐòòTom€E.€Gray,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ô ÐÌDavid€E.€Ô_ÔDannerÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Melvin€Eugene€Brown.Ð ¬ì ÐÌJames€L.€Curtis,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Betty€Ruth€Brown.Ð „Ä ÐÓ¼ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Je»XXÉë#ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼JeÔÐ \œ ÐÌò òI.€€òòDivorce€and€AlimonyÐ 4!t! Ðóóó óÌÔ#†¼Je»XXÉ% #ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼JeÔÓ  ÓÑÀ°Ñò òó óà  àBetty€Ruth€Brown€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce€from€her€husband€Melvin€in€1993,€after€aÐ  #L# Ðmarriage€of€twenty„five€years€and€several€lengthy€separations.€€At€the€time€of€divorce,€Ms.€Brown,Ð ø#8 $ Ða€registered€nurse,€was€receiving€disability€pay€because€of€a€job„related€injury.€€The€trial€courtÐ ä$$!% Ðgranted€her€the€divorce€on€the€ground€of€the€husbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€divided€theÐ Ð%"& Ðmarital€property,€and€ordered€Mr.€Brown€to€pay€his€wife€rehabilitative€alimony€of€$450€per€monthÐ ¼&ü"' Ðfor€two€years,€and€alimony€in€futuro€of€$300€per€month€thereafter.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Melvin€Brown€remarried€inÐ ¨'è#( Ð1997.Ð ”(Ô$) Ðâ âÐ €)À%*ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€March€25,€2001,€Mr.€Brown€filed€a€Petition€to€Modify€the€Final€Decree.€€He€claimed€thatÐ À Ðâ âBetty€Brownððs€financial€condition€had€improved€in€the€ensuing€eight€years,€to€the€extent€that€she€noÐ ¬ì Ðlonger€needed€alimony,€and€he€accordingly€asked€the€court€to€eliminate€his€alimony€obligation.€€Ms.Ð ˜Ø ÐBrown€denied€that€her€need€for€support€had€disappeared.Ð „Ä ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€Betty€Brown€sought€discovery€about€her€former€husbandððs€financial€affairs,Ð \œ Ðincluding€the€income€of€his€current€spouse.€€Ms.€Brownððs€counsel€also€asked€questions€at€Mr.Ð H ˆ ÐBrownððs€deposition€to€determine€if€his€petition€was€actuated€by€unhappiness€on€the€part€of€hisÐ 4 t Ðcurrent€wife€about€her€husband€continuing€to€provide€support€to€the€former€wife.€€Mr.€BrownÐ  ` Ðresponded€by€invoking€his€spousal€privilege.€Ð  L  ÐÌà  àMelvin€Brown€subsequently€moved€the€court€for€a€protective€order€to€prevent€ð ðannoying,Ð ä $  Ðembarrassing,€and€oppressive€discoveryðð€about€his€wife.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðcourtððs€order€prohibited€Betty€Brown€from€discovering€any€information€relating€to€Mr.€BrownððsÐ ¼ü  Ðpresent€wife€or€her€family,€and€permitted€Mr.€Brown€to€redact€any€information€which€was€not€relatedÐ ¨è  Ðto€his€own€personal,€individual€finances€from€the€financial€documents€he€was€required€to€provide.Ð ”Ô  Ѐ€€€€€€€Ð €À Ðà  àA€hearing€on€the€husbandððs€petition€was€conducted€on€February€7,€2002,€during€which€bothÐ l¬ Ðparties€testified.€€Among€other€things,€Betty€Brown€testified€that€she€was€now€earning€over€$50,000Ð X˜ Ða€year,€while€Melvin€Brown€testified€that€his€annual€income€was€over€$40,000.€€At€the€conclusionÐ D„ Ðof€the€proof,€the€trial€judge€announced€that€she€was€going€to€deny€the€Petition€to€Modify€the€FinalÐ 0p ÐDecree,€because€while€both€parties€were€doing€better€financially€than€they€were€at€the€time€ofÐ \ Ðdivorce,€the€wife€was€entitled€to€retain€the€alimony€ð ðas€one€very€small€safety€netðð€for€the€future.€€TheÐ H Ðcourt€also€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€the€wifeððs€attorney€fees€in€the€amount€of€$1,800.€€This€appealÐ ô4 Ðfollowed.€Ð à  Ѐ€€€€Ð Ì  Ðà@ƒƒ!ìàò òII.€€òòForeseeabilityó óóóˆÐ ¸ø ÐÌà  àA€grant€of€alimony€in€futuro€remains€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€that€awarded€it,€butÐ Ð Ðmay€be€modified€only€upon€a€showing€of€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.€€Tenn.Ð |¼ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1);€òòMcCarty€v.€McCartyóó,€863€S.W.2d€716€(Tenn.€Ct.€App€1992).€€OurÐ h¨ Ðcourts€have€also€stated€that€in€order€for€a€change€in€circumstances€to€be€considered€material,€suchÐ T ” Ða€change€must€have€been€unforeseeable€at€the€time€of€the€original€decree.€€òòSannella€v.€Sannellaóó,€993Ð @!€  ÐS.W.2d€73€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòElliott€v.€Elliottóó,€825€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòSeal€v.Ð ,"l! ÐSealóó,€802€S.W.2d€617€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).Ð #X" ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€criticizes€this€court„made€requirement,€noting€that€the€support€statute,€Tenn.Ð ð$0!$ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101,€does€not€specifically€mention€foreseeability.€€He€argues€that€it€is€anÐ Ü%"% Ðessentially€meaningless€standard,€because€almost€any€event€can€be€considered€foreseeable.€€We€agreeÐ È&#& Ðthat€if€too€broadly€construed,€the€forseeability€requirement€can€be€used€to€deny€modification€petitionsÐ ´'ô#' Ðwithout€sufficiently€rigorous€analysis€of€the€changes€relied€upon€by€petitioners.€€It€appears€to€us,Ð  (à$( Ðhowever,€that€no€oneððs€life€is€static,€that€everyone€undergoes€changes€over€time,€and€that€only€thoseÐ Œ)Ì%) Ðchanges€which€were€not€anticipated€by€the€court€and€were€not€factored€into€its€original€decree€canÐ x*¸&* Ðjustify€a€change€in€that€decree.€€€€€€€€Ð d+¤'+ ÐÐ P,(, Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€knew€that€Ms.€Brown€was€a€registered€nurse,€and€that€sheÐ À Ðhoped€to€return€to€work.€€The€court€accordingly€fashioned€an€award€in€two€parts:€rehabilitativeÐ ¬ì Ðalimony€for€no€more€than€two€years€to€help€carry€Ms.€Brown€through€her€involuntary€unemployment,Ð ˜Ø Ðand€alimony€in€futuro€ð ðin€the€event€she€returns€to€work.ðð€€The€court€went€on€to€state€that€ð ðthis€willÐ „Ä Ðlast€until€her€death€or€remarriage.€€If€there€is€a€change€of€circumstances€then€either€party€may€petition€Ð p° Ðthe€court€to€adjust€the€alimony.ðð€Ð \œ ÐÌà  àApparently,€Ms.€Brown€earned€between€$30,000€and€$40,000€prior€to€her€disability.€€SinceÐ 4 t Ðthe€court€was€probably€aware€that€the€pay€scale€for€registered€nurses€has€increased€steadily€over€theÐ  ` Ðyears,€it€is€at€least€arguable€that€her€eventual€increase€in€income€to€$50,000€was€foreseeable,€and€wasÐ  L  Ðfactored€into€its€award.€€It€appears€to€us,€however,€that€even€if€the€increase€was€unforeseeable,€theÐ ø 8  Ðcourt€would€still€be€justified€in€dismissing€Mr.€Brownððs€petition.Ð ä $  ЀÌà@æ æ ìàò òIII.ó ó€ò ò€òòRelative€Economic€Disadvantageó óóóˆÐ ¼ü  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€this€case€is€unique€in€the€annals€of€Tennessee€domestic€law,Ð ˜Ø  Ðbecause€the€wife€now€earns€more€than€the€husband,€but€insists€that€she€is€still€entitled€to€receiveÐ „Ä Ðalimony€from€him.€€He€argues€that€since€the€bedrock€statutory€requirement€for€alimony€is€theÐ p° Ðeconomic€disadvantage€of€one€spouse€relative€to€the€other,€Ms.€Brownððs€income€has€rendered€herÐ \œ Ðineligible€for€further€support.€We€believe,€however,€that€despite€her€income,€Ms.€Brown€is€stillÐ Hˆ Ðrelatively€disadvantaged.Ð 4t ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€noted€that€at€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€divorce,€they€were€in€difficult€financialÐ  L Ðstraits.€€Betty€Brown,€a€registered€nurse,€had€suffered€an€injury€on€the€job.€€She€was€not€working,€butÐ ø8 Ðwas€drawing€disability,€and€awaiting€resolution€of€her€workersðð€compensation€claim.€€Melvin€BrownÐ ä$ Ðwas€in€the€midst€of€a€Chapter€13€bankruptcy,€and€was€paying€$800€a€month€out€of€his€$2,400€netÐ Ð Ðincome€for€the€benefit€of€his€creditors.Ð ¼ü ÐÌà  àThe€years€immediately€after€the€divorce€were€not€easy€for€Betty€Brown.€€The€trial€courtÐ ”Ô Ðawarded€her€the€marital€home,€but€ordered€her€to€pay€her€husband€$5,000€for€his€interest€in€theÐ €À Ðproperty.€€Since€she€had€limited€income,€she€fell€behind€on€the€mortgage€payments.€She€had€toÐ l¬ Ðrefinance€the€house€to€meet€her€obligations€(including€a€new€roof€and€other€expensive€repairs)Ð X ˜ Ðresulting€in€a€larger€mortgage€payment.€€When€she€was€able€to€return€to€work,€Ms.€Brown€felt€sheÐ D!„  Ðhad€to€take€a€second€job,€but€all€the€pressures€caused€a€nervous€breakdown,€leading€to€a€furtherÐ 0"p! Ðperiod€of€unemployment.€€€Ð #\" ЀÌà  àBy€the€time€of€the€hearing€on€the€petition€to€modify,€both€parties€had€made€substantialÐ ô$4!$ Ðimprovements€in€their€financial€positions.€€The€testimony€of€the€parties€and€their€income€and€expenseÐ à% "% Ðstatements€show€that€Betty€Brown€is€working€again,€that€she€has€paid€off€most€of€her€debts,€and€thatÐ Ì& #& Ðshe€is€earning€more€than€$50,000€per€year.€Melvin€Brown,€who€is€employed€by€a€trucking€firm,€isÐ ¸'ø#' Ðearning€more€than€$40,000€per€year,€and€his€expenses€have€substantially€decreased.€€Not€only€hasÐ ¤(ä$( Ðhe€emerged€from€bankruptcy,€but€because€of€his€marriage€he€does€not€have€responsibility€for€any€rentÐ )Ð%) Ðor€mortgage.Ð |*¼&* Ðâ âÐ h+¨'+ Ðà  àAs€we€stated€above,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€support€statute€only€applies€where€theÐ À Ðâ âobligee€spouse€is€at€a€relative€economic€disadvantage€when€compared€to€the€obligor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ¬ì ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€Mr.€Brown€argues€that€not€only€does€Betty€Brown€earn€more€moneyÐ ˜Ø Ðthan€he€does,€but€she€owns€her€own€home,€while€he€owns€no€real€estate,€and€lives€in€a€house€that€wasÐ „Ä Ðowned€by€his€current€wife€prior€to€their€marriage.€€€€Ð p° ÐÌà  àWe€note,€however,€that€the€income€and€expense€statements€filed€by€the€parties€show€thatÐ H ˆ ÐBetty€Brown€is€still€paying€a€mortgage€of€$1,224€per€month,€which€considerably€reduces€the€amountÐ 4 t Ðof€money€she€has€available€for€other€needs.€€Marvin€Brown€has€no€mortgage,€and€no€housingÐ  ` Ðexpenses€other€than€about€$125€a€month€for€electricity.€€Neither€party€appears€to€be€an€overlyÐ  L  Ðextravagant€spender,€but€Ms.€Brownððs€statement€shows€a€monthly€shortfall€of€about€$470,€while€Mr.Ð ø 8  ÐBrownððs€statement€shows€that€his€net€income€exceeds€his€expenses€by€$550,€even€after€tithing€$300Ð ä $  Ðto€his€church€and€paying€$300€in€alimony.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€it€is€contrary€to€law€for€the€trial€court€to€take€the€income€orÐ ¨è  Ðresources€of€Mr.€Brownððs€second€wife€into€account€when€calculating€his€alimony€obligation€to€hisÐ ”Ô  Ðfirst€wife.€€We€agree€that€it€would€be€unfair€to€add€her€income€to€his€for€that€purpose.€But€we€alsoÐ €À Ðbelieve€that€it€would€be€unfair€to€give€him€credit€for€paying€household€expenses€for€which€she€hasÐ l¬ Ðtaken€primary€responsibility.€€It€therefore€appears€to€us€that€contrary€to€the€arguments€of€theÐ X˜ Ðappellant,€Betty€Brown€is€still€at€an€economic€disadvantage€relative€to€her€former€spouse.Ð D„ ÐÌà@ËËìàò òIV.€òò€Need€and€Ability€to€Payó óóóˆÐ \ ÐÌà  àOur€courts€have€stated€that€the€most€important€factors€to€take€into€account€in€determiningÐ ô4 Ðalimony€are€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay€and€the€need€of€the€recipient.€€òòAnderton€v.€Andertonóó,€988Ð à  ÐS.W.2d€675€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòLindsey€v.€Lindsey,óó€976€S.W.2d€175€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòLoydÐ Ì  Ðv.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€It€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€Mr.€Brown€hasÐ ¸ø Ðthe€ability€to€pay€the€modest€amount€of€alimony€ordered€by€the€trial€court.€€It€is€also€apparent€thatÐ ¤ä ÐMs.€Brown€continues€to€be€in€need€of€alimony,€despite€the€improvement€in€her€income.Ð Ð ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€Ms.€Brownððs€need€results€from€her€voluntary€assumption€of€debt.Ð h¨ ÐBy€this,€he€means€her€retention€of€the€marital€home,€refinancing€of€the€mortgage,€and€investment€inÐ T ” Ðnecessary€repairs.€€But€Ms.€Brown€would€be€burdened€with€housing€expenses€no€matter€where€sheÐ @!€  Ðchose€to€live,€and€we€do€not€believe€that€she€should€be€penalized€for€attempting€to€keep€the€homeÐ ,"l! Ðwhere€she€lived€and€raised€her€children€for€twenty„five€years.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€order€of€theÐ #X" Ðtrial€court.€€€Ð $D # ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òV.ó óˆÐ Ü%"% ÐÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€DavidsonÐ ´'ô#' ÐCounty€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant,Ð  (à$( ÐMelvin€E.€Brown.€Ô#†¼Je»XXɶ #ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼JeÔÐ Œ)Ì%) ÐÌÌÐ P,(, Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.Ð ¬ì ÐÌ