WPC$ # t U: % 0 w@ 4   0J#m 0Tu 0^ 0h' 0r 0| 0} 0 1u 0dU *lB) BDCU> AM]Q D3Pv~! 0@v AO ! 0D! D/ " B:" 0?W" 0D$HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLD,cAZ"Arial RegularX(~$  HTR[A' LegalLh (Avery 4167 Post CardA' Legalh (Avery 4167 Post CardTXmXXX73XXdXXd7 DUDUӀڃ"3|xH2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd<  9p`(&Times New Roman-%C << G  !  #d#"    H \RA'\#d#  "   YYY FILED"X November3,1997CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk   !  #d#"    H \RA'\#d#  $       ݀Husbandwas66yearsofage;wifewas62.Theyweremarried24years.Neitherenjoyedgoodhealthandneitherhadanyrealisticmarketableskills.Husbandwasamilitaryretiree.$$$$'dxd  !#d#"    H \RA'\#d#  $       "Noretrospectivelaworlawimpairingtheobligationsofcontractsshallbe made.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd((3$ ~!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXZXXX7ZXXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   ! . "    H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   &&R'(%A1-j|` . `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE LILLIANELIZABETH KLINE )      ) WASHINGTONCIRCUIT Plaintiff/Appellee   )       ) NO.03A019706CV00240 v.      )       ) HON.G.RICHARDJOHNSONJOHNTHOMASKLINE  ) JUDGE      ) Defendant/Appellant  ) AFFIRMEDJohnP.Chiles,Kingsport,forAppellant.RobertJ.Jessee,JohnsonCity,forAppellee. @ & OPINION&       INMAN,SeniorJudge  ThesepartiesweredivorcedMarch12,1991.Thejudgmentprovidedthat husbandwouldpaytowifethesumof$478.00permonthasspousalsupport. )   ׀AnagreedorderwasthereafterenteredwhichrequiredhusbandtodesignatewifeasthebeneficiaryofhisSurvivorsBenefitPlan[SBP]pursuanttotheUniformedServicesFormerSpouseProtectionAct,10U.S.C.A.1048etseq.,anddirectedthattheawardof$478.00shallbepaidbydirectpaymenttowifefromhusbandsretirementpaybytheMilitaryFinanceCenter,Denver,Colorado. AnotheragreedorderwasenteredonOctober1,1991which,aspertinent,provides:  8 ItisorderedthatthemotionandstipulationofthepartiesisherebyapprovedandthatinlieuofsupportprovidedinParagraph14oftheoriginaljudgment,[wife]shallreceivethesumof$259.00permonthfrom[husbands]militaryretirementandanadditionalsumof$100.00permonthtobepaidby[husband].Inadditionthereto,[husband]shallpayfromhisretirementthesumof$54.00permonthtobeappliedtotheSBP[SurvivorBenefitPlan],aninsuranceplanwhichwillafford[wife]aninsuredincomefrom[husbands]retirementsubsequenttohisdeath.   Itisthelatterorderwhichmustbeconstruedinthislitigation,becausewifemarriedaretiredministeronDecember3,1996whoseentireincomeissocialsecuritybenefits.Wifedidnotinformhusbandofherremarriage;uponhislearningofthefact,hefiledamotiontoterminatealimonypursuanttoT.C.A.365101(a)(2)(B)whichprovides:  8 Inallcaseswhereapersonisreceivingalimonyinfuturooralimonytheamountofwhichisnotcalculableonthedatethedecreewasentered,andthatpersonremarries,thealimonyinfuturooralimonytheamountofwhichisnotcalculableonthedatethedecreewasentered,willterminateautomaticallyandunconditionallyupontheremarriageoftherecipient.Therecipientshallnotifytheobligoroftheremarriagetimelyuponremarriage.Failureoftherecipienttotimelygivenoticeoftheremarriagewillallowtheobligortorecoverallamountspaidasalimonyinfuturooralimonytheamountofwhichisnotcalculableonthedatethedecreewasentered,totherecipientaftertherecipientsmarriage.   Believingthatitwouldbeinequitabletoapplythestatute,thetrialjudgedeniedthemotion.Husbandappealsandpresentsforreviewtheissueofwhetherthealimonyawardterminatedupontheremarriageofwife.Ourreviewisdenovoontherecordwith""XԀ"&nopresumptionofthecorrectnessofthedecisionofthetrialcourtonaquestionoflaw.NCNBNatlBankv.Thrailkill,856S.W.2d150(Tenn.Ct.App.1993). Attheoutset,weobservethatnoevidencewhateverwaspresentedastochangedcircumstances.Thecasewastriedanddecidedsolelyontheissueoftheapplicabilityofthestatute. ThepreciseissuehasbeenaddressedbythisCourtononeoccasion.InHusseyv.Hussey,No.01A019504PB00181,MiddleSection,April1996,aPropertySettlementAgreement[PSA]requiredhusbandtopayalimonyinfuturoof$25,000.00everythirdyearuntilwifesdeathorremarriagetoenablehertopurchaseanewautomobile.ThePSAalsorequiredhusbandtopayadditionalalimonyinfuturoof$1,442.30eachFridayand$10,000.00onJuly31ofeachyear.NeitherthePSAnorthedecreeprovidedthatthelattertwopaymentswoulddiscontinueuponwifesremarriage. Husbandwasamultimillionaire,andwifesurrenderedanymaritalinterestin15parcelsofrealestate,18bankaccounts,andothervaluableassets.Abouteightyearslaterwiferemarried,andhusbandfiledamotiontoterminateorreducehisalimonypaymentsbecause(1)wifessecondhusbandcontributedtohersupport,and(2)T.C.A.365101(a)(2)(B)automaticallyterminatedthealimony. ThetrialcourtheldthatthepartiesbytheplaintermsoftheMaritalDissolutionAgreementintendedthealimonyinfuturotocontinueafterremarriageofthewife,andthatthestatutecouldnotbeappliedretroactively,sincetodosowouldconflictwithart.I,20oftheTennesseeConstitution. +   ׀Theorderreflectingthesereasonswasvacatedandthetrialjudgethereafterruled: (1)ThatthestatutedidnotapplytothecaseatBar,owingtoconstitutionallimitations; (2)thatthepartiesintendedthattheMaritalDissolutionAgreementretainitscontractualnature,and (3)Thatthepartiesintendedthathusbandwouldpaythealimonyuntilheorwifedied,whicheveroccurredfirst. WeheldthattheMaritalDissolutionAgreementwascontractualinnature,andinlightofthefactthatfromamaritalestateofmorethanfourteenmilliondollarswifeacceptedalumpsumofonly$100,000.00,thepartiesintendedthatthealimonyobligationwouldnotterminateupontheremarriageofwife. Wealsodeclinedtoapplythestatuteretroactively,holdingthatacourtistoapplyastatuteprospectively unlessthelegislatureclearlyindicatestothecontrary,citingShellv.State,893S.W.2d426(Tenn.1995),andthat thestatuteatissueintheinstantcasedoesnotclearlydirectthecourtstoapplyitϜretroactively.Totakethebenefitsacquiredunderthelawprevailingatthetimeofthedivorce1991fromwifepursuanttoastatuteenactedin1994wouldinourjudgmentbeunconstitutional. InthecaseatBarthereisnoMaritalDissolutionAgreementandthusnocontract,andnoindicationthatalimonywasawardedonanybasisotherthanneed.Neitheristhereanyindicationthattheportionoftheawardorderedtobepaidfromthehusbandsmilitarypensionwastreatedasamaritalasset,andthusnotalimonyasthattermiscommonlyunderstood.Neitherwasanyproofoffered,orinsistencemade,thatachangeofcircumstanceshadoccurred,thusjustifyingtheterminationofalimony.Thehusbandssoleargumentisdirectedtotheapplicabilityofthequotedstatute.WereiterateourholdinginHussey,thatthestatutecannotbegivenretrospectiveeffectconsistentwiththeConstitutionofTennessee.  Thejudgmentisaffirmed,withcostsassessedtoappellant.̛̜      _________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge̜________%  _______________________HerschelP.Franks,Judge