ÿWPCj ½m2SÙt×òo7œ® Ùµ5‘ŸÚ.ƒw¢csÜ°õuZÄòj7yìi¥Ë¥¨%ÒÔq"´f7«‡œ’‰å$OJ3-hX–úó%Õ4,Ãn±VO{çƒQ*ø¤8i²Ç¾æ3IþåRºR°+»µj«€û}¬mÁA7UáÐrÌY“ \r'?3zÈOË-&y X8œ…n?FF=6ÈM HJSuÜn³çØ1v»#ßE,̲„V<ànõ%iÞŸA·&n•<é#ÿâS¼2t} Îkâçyeu[D&> PªgšŸß¹±iϘñ°gs×Ë0ûà<º&ßÞ“*rFˆçM¬$Ê/¯$Z¾Â?á"¢¹p—s‹Õ‡"¾ —Ý;R2óWVNš‰ÖîÆ®0>¢)Û6ظ©9zèîuH‚-£Î:YT+fâ¯å6öR¢Ì…Ý뎔›¾Ûí[ÈïpÑß1´D\p©vÖòIH­Äh»¤-ÌpgL ºÚJVwlÇï ìG €²Ä›’‡ŠWÛíÌê)!:ß•R×âØ%-Q£„­^SuTȦŽóƒÂ.¯©ˆc¸®Xéf.¨+^†¡ìïøÂ;4m) †2w>Ûi²ð[W#ÉÂU N‹ %Ù 0:ß U N ^ g ws 4w ‹ š mœ b³ J» è Ní í í jï ï 0DYYE`Ÿ±ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 0°°°° BM˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularfŽp1Ï 6hö0B013C13|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù- @Ý ƒRË$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€rather€puzzling€language€in€the€ò òòòBoganóóó ó€decision€appears€to€imply€that€ð ðmaterialðð€means€ð ðunforeseen.ðð€Ð ° Ðò òòòBoganó óóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€727„28. HardemanWhitenton COA P.J. W.S.HighersCarthel Loyd ha[d exh PSAhad hadThreadgill `Ý ƒRË$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHusband€does€not€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€he€was€in€contempt€of€court€for€his€failure€toÐ ° Ðpay€alimony,€nor€did€he€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Wife.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó VÝ ƒRË$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€Husband,€the€value€of€Wifeððs€portion€of€the€marital€property€was€worth€approximatelyÐ ° Ð$460,000.€€Some€of€it€was€comprised€of€investments€that€had€decreased€in€value€over€time. §Ý ƒRË$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIncluded€in€these€expenses€is€a€monthly€payment€of€$1,000€from€Wife€to€her€son€for€rent.€€When€theÐ ° Ðparties€separated,€Wife€spent€$60,000€to€construct€an€additional€bedroom€and€bathroom€onto€her€sonððs€house€for€herÐ qÁ Ðto€live€in.€€Wife€said€that€she€and€her€son€have€agreed€that,€if€she€ever€moves€out€of€his€home,€he€will€pay€her€backÐ 2‚ Ðthe€$60,000.€€While€she€lives€there,€she€pays€him€$1,000€for€rent,€utilities,€property€taxes,€and€other€incidentalÐ óC Ðexpenses.€€€€€€€€(.G2Ë$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­òXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÓ·XXXÔÔ‡¼ži»XXÓ·ÔÑ€ ÑÑ8€{~XXdédÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ#†XÓ·X»¼ži\#ÔÔ‡îtÞîXXÓ·ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†XÓ·XîîtÞ#ÔÔ‡¼ži»XXӷԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓJuly€21,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ#†XÓ·X»¼ži¨#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼ži»XXÓ·ÔJO€ANN€HARRISòòóó€v.€BILLY€HARRISòòóóÔ#†XÓ·X»¼ži:#Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hardeman€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11261€€€€€€Dewey€C.€Whitenton,€ChancellorÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02112„COA„R3„CV€Ô_Ô„€Filed€November€16,€2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€petition€to€modify€alimony.€€The€parties€were€married€for€over€forty„one€years.€€In€1998,Ð V¦  Ðthe€wife€filed€a€petition€for€legal€separation.€€In€October€1998,€the€trial€court€entered€a€final€decreeÐ ? Ðof€legal€separation,€incorporating€the€terms€of€the€partiesðð€property€settlement€agreement.€€In€thatÐ (x Ðagreement,€the€husband€agreed€to€pay€the€wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€of€$1,300€per€month.€€In€OctoberÐ a Ð2001,€the€husband€filed€a€petition€to€modify€his€alimony€payments,€based€on€the€deterioration€in€hisÐ úJ Ðhealth,€which€hindered€his€ability€to€pay,€as€well€as€the€wifeððs€receipt€of€social€security€benefits€andÐ ã3 Ðincome€from€investments€that€diminished€her€need€for€alimony.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that,€sinceÐ Ì Ðthe€1998€decree,€there€had€been€no€substantial€or€material€change€in€circumstances€that€was€notÐ µ Ðforeseeable€when€the€decree€was€entered.€€Consequently,€the€husbandððs€petition€to€modify€alimonyÐ žî Ðwas€dismissed.€€The€husband€now€appeals.€€We€affirm.€€€€€Ð ‡× ÐÓ±ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ Y© ÐÌòòÓ  ÓHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ ,| Ðand€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€joined.Ð e ÐÌCarthel€L.€Smith,€Jr.,€Lexington,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Billy€Harris.Ð ç 7  ÐÌDaniel€Loyd€Taylor€and€Amy€R.€Harden,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Jo€Ann€Harris.Ð ¹" " ÐÓÖ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àPlaintiff/Appellee€Jo€Ann€Harris€(ð ðWifeðð)€and€Defendant/Appellant€Billy€HarrisÐ ^&®!& Ð(ð ðHusbandðð)€were€married€in€February€1956€and€lived€together€until€April€1997.€€In€May€1997,€WifeÐ G'—"' Ðfiled€a€petition€for€divorce,€later€amended€to€seek€a€legal€separation.€€In€September€1998,€the€partiesÐ 0(€#( Ðexecuted€a€property€settlement€agreement€dividing€the€partiesðð€marital€property.€€In€that€agreement,Ð )i$) ÐHusband€agreed€to€pay€Wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€of€$1,300€per€month€and€to€maintain€health€insuranceÐ *R%* Ðfor€Wife€until€she€reached€age€sixty„five.€€The€parties€agreed€that,€if€the€parties€divorced€before€WifeÐ ë*;&+ Ðattained€the€age€of€sixty„five,€Husband€would€maintain€health€insurance€for€Wife€under€theÐ Ô+$', Ðprovisions€of€COBRA€at€his€expense€until€Wife€turned€sixty„five.€€On€October€28,€1998,€the€trialÐ ½, (- Ðcourt€entered€a€decree€of€separate€maintenance/legal€separation€(ð ðfinal€decreeðð),€which€incorporatedÐ ¦-ö(. Ðthe€partiesðð€settlement€agreement.€€At€the€time€of€the€final€decree,€Husband€and€Wife€were€sixty„fourÐ ° Ðand€sixty„two€years€old,ò òó ó€respectively.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àOn€October€22,€2001,€about€one€month€after€Wife€turned€sixty„five,€Husband€filed€a€petitionÐ k» Ðto€modify€the€alimony€obligation€established€in€the€final€decree,€claiming€that€a€material€change€inÐ T¤ Ðcircumstances€had€occurred€since€the€final€decree€was€entered.€€Husband€noted€that,€since€the€entryÐ =  Ðof€the€final€decree,€Wife€had€begun€drawing€social€security€benefits€of€$463€per€month,€therebyÐ & v Ðdiminishing€her€need€for€alimony.€€In€addition,€Husband€asserted€that€his€health€had€deteriorated,Ð  _ Ðpreventing€him€from€being€gainfully€employed€and€rendering€him€unable€to€pay€the€orderedÐ ø H Ðalimony.€€In€the€petition,€Husband€asked€that€his€obligation€be€reduced€to€$800€per€month.€€As€theÐ á 1  Ðcase€progressed,€however,€Husband€sought€termination€of€his€alimony€obligation€altogether.Ð Ê   ЀÌà  àHusbandððs€petition€to€modify€was€not€immediately€set€for€a€hearing.€€Husband€continued€toÐ œì  Ðmake€his€$1,300€per€month€alimony€payments€through€January€2003,€while€his€petition€to€modifyÐ …Õ  Ðwas€still€pending.€€On€March€19,€2003,€Wife€filed€a€petition€for€contempt€against€Husband,€statingÐ n¾  Ðthat€he€had€failed€to€pay€alimony€in€February€and€March€2003,€and€arguing€that€he€should€thereforeÐ W§  Ðbe€held€in€contempt.€€On€March€26,€2003,€Husband€filed€a€response€to€Wifeððs€petition€for€contempt,Ð @ Ðacknowledging€his€failure€to€make€alimony€payments€in€the€previous€two€months.€€In€his€response,Ð )y ÐHusband€explained€that€he€did€not€make€the€payments€because€he€had€ð ðòòóóserious€health€problems,Ð b Ðha[d]€recently€been€diagnosed€with€prostate€cancer€and€[had]€undergone€surgery€therefor.€[Husband]Ð ûK Ðstates€he€continues€to€be€unable€to€work€due€to€his€health€problems.ðð€€Therefore,€Husband€argued,Ð ä4 Ðð ð[Wifeððs]€need€for€the€alimony€òòin€futuro€óódoes€not€outweigh€[Husbandððs]€ability€to€pay.ðð€€TheÐ Í Ðdepositions€of€both€parties€were€taken€in€March€2003.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àOn€May€27,€2003,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€Husbandððs€petition€to€modify€alimony€andÐ ˆØ Ðon€Wifeððs€petition€for€contempt.€€At€the€hearing,€the€parties€agreed€to€have€the€trial€court€resolve€theÐ qÁ Ðalimony€dispute€without€live€testimony€from€the€parties.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€partiesððÐ Zª Ðdepositions,€both€at€the€time€of€the€final€decree€of€legal€separation€and€again€in€March€2003,€as€wellÐ C“ Ðas€other€trial€exhibits,€the€trial€memoranda,€and€the€arguments€of€counsel.ò òó óÐ ,| Ѐ€€Ð e Ðà  àMany€of€the€underlying€facts€were€undisputed.€€In€March€1998,€€Husbandððs€monthly€incomeÐ þN Ðwas€$2,828€per€month,€comprised€of€social€security€income€($963),€retirement€income€($1,655),€andÐ ç 7 Ðincome€on€land€($210).€€At€that€time,€Wife€had€argued€that€Husband€derived€at€least€some€incomeÐ Ð!   Ðfrom€shoeing€horses;ò òó ó€Husband€denied€this,€asserting,€ð ðI€donððt€do€much€of€that€now.€€I€have€a€badÐ ¹" ! Ðback€and€I€just€donððt€do€much€of€it€now.ðð€€In€March€2003,€Husbandððs€monthly€income€had€increasedÐ ¢#ò" Ðslightly€to€$3,090€per€month,€still€comprised€of€social€security€($1,080),€retirement€($1,800),€andÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€same€income€on€land.€€In€addition,€by€March€2003,€Wife€was€insured€by€Medicare€and€HusbandÐ t%Ä $ Ðwas€therefore€no€longer€obligated€to€pay€for€her€health€insurance€($267€per€month).Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àThe€exhibits€also€included€information€on€Husbandððs€expenses.€€In€1998,€Husbandððs€monthlyÐ /(#' Ðexpenses€were€$1,757.€€In€March€2003,€Husbandððs€monthly€expenses€were€$1,917,€not€includingÐ )h$( Ðmedical€and€dental€expenses.€€In€his€2003€deposition,€Husband€acknowledged€that€he€was€livingÐ *Q%) Ðwith€a€woman€named€Gina€Hamm,€who€deposited€an€undetermined€amount€of€money€into€his€bankÐ ê*:&* Ðaccount€each€month.€€Husband€said€that€their€joint€expenses€were€paid€out€of€his€account.€€HusbandÐ Ó+#'+ Ðalso€indicated€that,€in€January€2003,€he€underwent€surgery€for€prostate€cancer.€€He€asserted€that€heÐ ° Ðwas€obligated€to€pay€approximately€$11,500€in€out„of„pocket€expenses€resulting€from€the€surgery.€Ð ™é ÐWife€argued,€however,€that€Husband€was€not€obligated€for€the€entire€$11,500,€pointing€out€that€theÐ ‚Ò Ðmedical€bills€submitted€by€Husband€were€marked€ð ðpaidðð€or€were€paid€by€insurance.Ð k» Ѐ€€Ð T¤ Ðà  àWith€respect€to€Husbandððs€health,€in€his€March€2003€deposition,€Husband€said€that€in€1997,Ð =  Ðprior€to€the€partiesðð€1998€property€settlement€agreement,€concerns€about€cancer€had€prompted€himÐ & v Ðto€undergo€a€biopsy€on€his€prostate€each€year,€and€a€PSA€test€at€the€six€month€interval€betweenÐ  _ Ðbiopsies.€€He€explained€the€PSA€test€as€ð ða€cancer€element€in€the€prostate.ðð€€The€PSA€number€beganÐ ø H Ðincreasing€(presumably€indicating€a€greater€likelihood€of€cancer),€and€Husband€eventually€developedÐ á 1  Ðprostate€cancer.€€In€January€2003,€Husband€had€surgery€to€remove€the€cancer,€and€he€and€hisÐ Ê   Ðphysician€were€hopeful€that€all€of€the€cancer€was€removed.€€When€asked€whether€he€was€able€ò òó óto€shoeÐ ³  Ðhorses€after€the€surgery,€Husband€replied€that€he€was€not€shoeing€horses€anymore€because€heÐ œì  Ðintended€to€retire.€Ð …Õ  Ѐ€€Ð n¾  Ðà  àOther€evidence€submitted€at€the€hearing€related€to€Wifeððs€need€for€alimony.€€In€Wifeððs€MarchÐ W§  Ð1998€deposition,€it€was€noted€that€she€would€reach€age€sixty„two€the€following€September,€and€WifeÐ @ Ðwas€asked,€ð ðDo€you€know€or€do€you€have€anyone€check€for€you€to€determine€what€type€of€socialÐ )y Ðsecurity€monies€that€you€will€receive€when€you€become€62?ðð€€Wife€replied€that€she€had€not.€€AtÐ b Ðsome€point€after€the€final€decree€of€legal€separation€was€entered,€Wife€began€to€draw€Social€securityÐ ûK Ðbenefits€in€the€amount€of€$484€per€month.€€In€addition,€Wife€began€to€receive€$700€per€month€inÐ ä4 Ðinvestment€income€from€investments€she€had€made€with€her€share€of€the€marital€estate.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Í ÐÌà  àHusband€argued€that€his€prostate€cancer,€and€the€resulting€$11,500€in€medical€expenses,€wereÐ Ÿï Ðunforeseeable.€€He€also€contended€that€Wifeððs€receipt€of€social€security€benefits€and€her€receipt€ofÐ ˆØ Ðinvestment€income€were€a€material€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€a€reduction€in€hisÐ qÁ Ðalimony€obligation.€€Wife€argued€that€Husbandððs€prostate€cancer€was€foreseeable,€and€that€WifeððsÐ Zª Ðreceipt€of€Social€security€benefits€and€investment€income€was€foreseeable€as€well.€€Sometime€afterÐ C“ Ðthe€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€a€decree€of€divorce€by€stipulation,€but€reserved€resolution€of€theÐ ,| Ðissues€pertaining€to€alimony€and€contempt.Ð e ÐÌà  àOn€July€1,€2003,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€Husbandððs€petition€to€modify€his€alimonyÐ ç 7 Ðobligation€and€Wifeððs€petition€for€contempt.€€After€considering€the€record€and€the€trial€memoranda,Ð Ð!   Ðthe€trial€court€concluded€that€Husband€had€ð ðfailed€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€credibleÐ ¹" ! Ðevidence€that€there€has€been€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€since€the€entry€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€original€decree€regarding€alimony€that€was€not€foreseeable.ðð€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€notedÐ ‹$Û# Ðthat€Husband€had€failed€to€make€his€alimony€payments€from€February€2003€through€June€2003,Ð t%Ä $ Ðfound€that€he€had€had€the€present€ability€to€pay€the€alimony€when€it€was€due,€and€that€his€failure€toÐ ]&­!% Ðdo€so€constituted€willful€contempt€of€court.€€Accordingly,€in€addition€to€Husbandððs€$1,300€perÐ F'–"& Ðâ âmonth€alimony€obligation,€the€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$100€each€month€toward€theÐ /(#' Ð$6,500€arrearage€at€10%€interest.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$5,000€of€WifeððsÐ ° Ðattorneyððs€fees,€also€at€a€rate€of€$100€each€month.€€From€that€order,€Husband€now€appeals.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€his€petition€for€aÐ k» Ðmodification€of€his€alimony€obligation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€argues€that€his€diagnosis€of€prostate€cancer€in€JanuaryÐ T¤ Ð2003€was€unforeseeable€at€the€time€the€parties€entered€into€the€property€settlement€agreement,€andÐ =  Ðmaintains€that€Wifeððs€income€from€her€investments€and€social€security€benefits€is€sufficient€to€meetÐ & v Ðher€financial€needs.€€Those€facts,€Husband€argues,€constitute€a€material€change€in€circumstancesÐ  _ Ðsufficient€to€justify€modification€of€his€alimony€obligation.Ð ø H ЀÌÔ#†X{~XXXÓ·=#Ôà  àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€presuming€those€findings€to€be€correctÐ Ê   Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€ò òòòBogan€v.€Boganó óóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð ³  ÐModification€of€an€alimony€award€is€factually€driven,€calling€for€a€careful€balance€of€many€factors.€Ð í  Ðòòò òId.óóó ó€€The€trial€court€is€given€wide€latitude€in€exercising€its€discretion€in€such€matters,€and€its€decisionÐ †Ö  Ðwill€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€is€ð ðnot€supported€by€the€evidence€or€is€contrary€to€the€public€policiesÐ pÀ  Ðreflected€in€the€applicable€statutes.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€(quoting€ò òòòKinard€v.€Kinardó óóó,€986€S.W.2d€220,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Y©  ÐApp.€1998)).€€Therefore,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€record€showsÐ C“ Ðthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€An€abuse€of€discretion€occurs€when€the€trial€court€reachesÐ ,| Ða€decision€against€logic€that€causes€harm€to€the€complaining€party€or€when€the€trial€court€applies€anÐ e Ðincorrect€legal€standard.€€ò òòòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóóó ó,€72€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòò òState€v.Ð þN ÐShirleyó óóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)).Ð è8 ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€has€explained€the€circumstances€under€which€an€award€of€spousalÐ »  Ðsupport€may€be€modified€or€terminated:Ð ¤ô ÐÌà8  àIt€is€well€settled€that€a€court€may€not€modify€or€terminate€a€spousal€support€awardÐ vÆ Ðunless€it€first€finds€that€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€hasÐ _¯ Ðoccurred€since€the€entry€of€the€original€support€decree.€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ H˜ Ð36-5-101(a)(1)€(Supp.€2000).€€In€the€typical€case€involving€modification€of€spousalÐ 2‚ Ðsupport€awards,€a€change€in€circumstances€is€considered€to€be€ð ðmaterialðð€when€theÐ k Ðchange€(1)€ð ðoccurred€since€the€entry€of€the€divorce€decree€ordering€the€payment€ofÐ  T Ðalimony,ðð€òòò òWattersó óóó,€22€S.W.3d€at€821,€and€(2)€was€not€ð ðanticipated€or€[within]€theÐ í = Ðcontemplation€of€the€parties€at€the€time€they€entered€into€the€property€settlementÐ ×!'  Ðagreement,ðð€òòò òid.ó óóó;€òòò òsee€also€McCarty€v.€McCartyó óóó,€863€S.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð À"! Ð1992);€òòò òElliot€v.€Elliotó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€90€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Moreover,€aÐ ª#ú" Ðchange€in€circumstances€is€considered€to€be€ð ðsubstantialðð€when€it€significantlyÐ ”$ä# Ðaffects€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔeitherÔ_Ô€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay€or€the€obligeeððs€need€for€support.€òòò ò€SeeÐ }%Í $ ÐBowman€v.€Bowmanó óóó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€568€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ó“ÓÐg&·!%Ð Ð  ÐÓˆBÓòòò òBoganó óóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€727-28.€€Thus,€to€justify€a€modification€in€spousal€support,€there€must€be€aÐ ;(‹#' Ðchange€in€circumstances€that€occurs€after€the€entry€of€the€final€decree€that€was€not€within€theÐ %)u$( Ðcontemplation€of€the€parties€at€the€time€of€the€decree,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€was€ð ðsubstantial,ðð€in€that€it€ð ðsignificantlyÐ ° Ðaffects€either€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay€or€the€obligeeððs€need€for€support.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€728.€€All€of€theÐ ™é Ðfactors€listed€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d)€are€relevant€in€considering€whether€andÐ ƒÓ Ðto€what€extent€an€alimony€award€should€be€modified,€but€the€two€most€important€factors€forÐ l¼ Ðconsideration€remain€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay€and€the€obligeeððs€need€for€the€alimony.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€730.Ð U¥ ÐÌà  àWe€first€address€Husbandððs€argument€that€his€diagnosis€of€prostate€cancer€constitutes€aÐ ( x Ðmaterial€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€a€reduction€in€alimony.€€Assuming€thatÐ  a ÐHusbandððs€diagnosis€was€not€foreseeable,€the€evidence€did€not€indicate€that€the€cancer€or€theÐ ú J Ðresulting€surgery€affected€Husbandððs€monthly€income.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€indicates€that€HusbandÐ ã 3  Ðhas€slightly€more€income€now€than€he€did€in€1998,€and€that,€in€addition,€he€has€been€relieved€of€hisÐ Ì   Ðobligation€to€pay€for€Wifeððs€health€insurance.€€Husband€argues€that,€as€a€result€of€his€cancer€and€hisÐ µ  Ðsurgery,€he€is€now€unable€to€engage€in€shoeing€horses,€a€side€job€that€he€claims€earned€him€the€extraÐ žî  Ðincome€necessary€to€pay€his€living€expenses.€€However,€in€1998,€Husband€asserted€that€he€did€notÐ ‡×  Ðð ðdo€much€of€that€nowðð€because€of€a€ð ðbad€back.ðð€€Moreover,€in€2003,€although€Husband€indicatedÐ pÀ  Ðthat€he€ð ðintended€to€retire,ðð€he€did€not€testify€that€the€cancer€or€the€surgery€had€forced€him€to€do€so,Ð Y©  Ðand€there€was€no€other€evidence€showing€that€either€the€cancer€or€the€surgery€prevented€him€fromÐ B’ Ðany€activities,€including€shoeing€horses.€€Husband€argues€that€the€$11,500€in€medical€bills€arisingÐ +{ Ðout€of€his€surgery€reduced€his€ability€to€pay€alimony.€€However,€since€many€of€the€bills€were€paidÐ d Ðby€insurance,€the€evidence€is€unclear€as€to€what,€if€any,€out„of„pocket€expenses€were€actually€owedÐ ýM Ðby€Husband.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€Husband€did€not€show€that€his€diagnosisÐ æ6 Ðand€surgery€significantly€reduced€his€ability€to€pay€alimony.€€Therefore,€it€did€not€constitute€aÐ Ï Ðsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€a€modification€in€his€alimonyÐ ¸ Ðobligation.€€ò òòòSee€Threadgill€v.€Threadgillóóó ó,€740€S.W.2d€419,€424€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(recognizingÐ ¡ñ Ðthat€the€change€in€circumstances€must€affect€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay€or€the€obligeeððs€need€for€theÐ ‹Û Ðpayment).€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àHusband€also€argues€that€his€alimony€payments€should€be€reduced€or€terminated€becauseÐ F– ÐWife€no€longer€needs€the€alimony,€based€on€her€receipt€of€social€security€benefits€and€income€fromÐ / Ðher€investments.€€Clearly,€however,€Wifeððs€receipt€of€this€income€was€foreseeable€at€the€time€of€theÐ h Ðfinal€decree.€€In€October€1998,€the€time€the€final€decree€was€entered,€Wife€was€already€sixty„twoÐ  Q Ðyears€old€and€eligible€for€social€security€benefits.€€As€demonstrated€by€the€questions€asked€of€WifeÐ ê : Ðin€her€1998€deposition,€the€parties€were€aware€of€that€fact€when€they€executed€the€propertyÐ Ó!#  Ðsettlement€agreement.€€Whether€they€were€aware€at€the€time€of€the€exact€amount€of€her€benefits€isÐ ¼" ! Ðinconsequential.€€In€addition,€as€part€of€the€property€settlement€agreement,€Wife€receivedÐ ¥#õ" Ðapproximately€$460,000€in€marital€property.€€Husband€€asserts€that€it€was€unforeseeable€that€WifeÐ Ž$Þ# Ðwould€make€investments€from€those€assets€in€order€to€produce€an€income€stream€to€supplementÐ w%Ç $ Ðâ âHusbandððs€alimony€payments.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.€€Furthermore,€the€record€shows€thatÐ `&°!% ÐWifeððs€monthly€expenses€increased€from€approximately€$740€in€1998€to€$2,427.05€in€2003.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,Ð ° Ðâ âdespite€Wifeððs€additional€monthly€income€of€$1,184€from€social€security€and€investments,€theÐ ™é Ðevidence€overall€does€not€show€that€her€need€for€the€alimony€has€decreased.€€Therefore,€under€theseÐ ‚Ò Ðcircumstances,€we€must€conclude€that€the€increase€in€Wifeððs€income€since€the€entry€of€the€1998Ð k» Ðdecree€is€not€a€substantial€and€material€change€justifying€modification€of€Husbandððs€alimonyÐ T¤ Ðobligation.€€Thus,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Husbandððs€petition€for€aÐ =  Ðreduction€in€his€alimony€obligation.Ô‡XÓ·XXX{~ÔÐ & v ÐÌà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€to€be€taxed€to€Appellant€BillyÐ ø H ÐHarris,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.Ð á 1  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð n¾  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€M.€KIRBY,€JUDGEÔ#†X{~XXXÓ·'X#Ô