WPC Ix^b1xfg=Fjqy,h[ Xh&ҷp>XtǞc_%}MQⶢԽjbNj0~ht Z Rř*W)v TtIS WjȨZ c3i{w~ِaTVG_8 ަ$OK6?oKc5YiI<&qi@$4hnz[s\WVZ0 di[)=|ȳ x(r5*s@(F:IYC]5?+L_S57B 8 8#}oi#3-~C37P71(Ck3R_/IuO.u庘 ͒lRЏhdVgU^'L>V}t eb#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m 0D   i/UNNCE Eb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K AS/ 0H 0D A0\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0y/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.R-JUDG 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(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular Rm$      1    _Ԁ Boganv.Bogan ,60S.W.3d721(Tenn.2001)modifiedthisperspective.  Rm$      2    _ԀThetrialjudgefoundthatWifereasonablyrequired$2167.00forlivingexpenses.Weagreewiththisfinding.  Shereceives$752.00socialsecurity,whichshouldbededucted(togetherwithanyfutureincreases)fromhismonthly t requirements. - -(|G2m$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8\XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ &   October15,2003Session L X\X #XX\#FRANKIEPAULINEMAPLESv.FRANKALLENMAPLESX\X  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.54419Bill_Swann_,CircuitJudge  6 FILEDNOVEMBER25,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200300722_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Husband,forthesecondtime,seeksareductioninhisalimonyobligation,claimingthathisbonafide x  retirementcoincidedwithasubstantialdecreaseinincome.Thetrialcourtmodifiedtheobligation d byreducingitto$919.50monthly.Wifereceives$752.00fromsocialsecurity.Herreasonable P expenseswerefoundtobe$2176.00.Husbandappeals,insistingthatthereductionisinsufficient. < Wifepresentsforreviewtheissueofwhetheranyreductionwasjustified.Wereinstatetheinitial (x award,findingthatHusband,asinthepriorappeal,continuedhispatternofconductinrestructuring d hisassetstoawardhisobligation. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisReversed  (   #X\t#X\X.WilliamH._Inman_,Sr.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand  D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined.  FrankL.Flynn,Knoxville,Tennessee,attorneyforappellant,FrankAllenMaples. t MikeA._Hickman_,_Maryville_,Tennessee,attorneyfortheappellee,FrankiePaulineMaples. L  } OPINION #XX\#X\X $"t! X XXX\     Bothpartiespresentissues,whichwerestate:(1)whetherHusbandsretirementwas #L# objectivelyreasonableandthusconstitutesamaterialchangeincircumstances;(2)whetherthe $8 $ reductioninalimonywasappropriate;(3)whetherattorneyfeesshouldhavebeenawardedtoWife. %$!%     ThisCourtsreviewisdenovoupontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionof '"' correctnessofthefindingsoffactofthetrialcourtunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceis (#( otherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d), Boganv.Bogan ,  60S.W.3d721,727(Tenn.2001).Inaddition, )$) thisCourthasheldthat trialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontodeterminewhether_spousal_Ԁsupportis p*%* neededand,ifso,itsnature,amountandduration, _Anderton_Ԁv._Anderton_ ,988S.W.2d675,682 \+&+ (Tenn.Ct.App.1998),andatrialcourtsdeterminationof_spousal_Ԁsupportwillgenerallynotbe H,', alteredbythisCourtunlessthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.Trialcourtsaretoapplythefactors 4-(- _outlinedinTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)whendeterminingspousalsupport,andtheneedfor  supportandtheabilitytopayarethecriticalfactors. Andertonv.Anderton ,supra.Inthecaseat  Bar,Wifehasaconsiderableneedforherincometobesupplementedbyspousalsupport,and  Husbandhastheabilitythroughhisincomeandotherassetstopay.#X\X XXQ #X XXX\#x XX #X Xx t   Thesepartiesweremarriedin1954anddivorcedin1999.Husbandisseventyyearsold: L  Wifeissixtynine.Eachhashealthproblems.Atthetimeofthedivorce,Husbandwasearning 8  $8500.00permonthpursuanttoacontractresultingfromthesaleofhisbusiness.Thecontractual $ t paymentsendedinDecember1998andhisincomefellto$1355.00permonth,derivedsolelyfrom  ` socialsecurity.Wifehadnoincomeatthetimeofdivorce,andwasawarded$2200.00permonth  L  inalimonyinfuturo,laterreducedto$1682.00monthlywhenshebegantoreceivehersocialsecurity  8  payments.Herpresentincomeis$752.00monthly,exclusiveofalimony;hermonthlyexpensesare $  $2176.00.Thecurrentcomplainttomodifywasfiledin2001,againallegingamaterialchangein   circumstances,inthatHusbandhadretired,andhissoleincomewassocialsecuritypayments.He   allegedthathisretirementwasbonafide,thathehasnootherincome,andowingtohisageand   health,hasnoprospectsforadditionalincome.Hisobligationtopayalimonywasreducedto   $919.50permonth.Wifethereforehas$1671.50monthlyincomewhichshearguesisinsufficient p forherneeds;Husbandarguesthatthereductionisinsufficientbecausehehasonly$435.50forhis \ maintenance. H   Husbandhasbeenremarriedforelevenyears.Heandhispresentwifeliveandworkontheir  p farmofaboutthirtyacres.In1998,shortlybeforetheexpirationofhisconsultingagreement,he  \ filedapetitiontomodifytheoriginalalimonyaward,andthedecreewasmodifiedbyreducing H alimonyto$718.00permonth.Onappeal,thereductionwasdisallowedbecausethehusbands 4 decreasedincomewasforeseeableandthereforecouldnotbeconsideredasamaterialchangein   circumstances.  #  1      ׀WealsofoundthatHusbanddeliberatelyrestructuredhisassetsbydissipationand   otherwiseinordertorelievethealimonyaward.See, Maplesv.Maples ,2000WL281660(Tenn.  Ct.App.2000).    Thetrialjudgefoundthatthecircumstancesinthiscase fallsfoursquareunderthefactsand l holdingof Boganv.Bogan ,60S.W.3d671(Tenn.2001),whereintheSupremeCourt,inrulingon X  theissueofwhetherbonafideretirement,withaconcomitantreductioninincomeandthemeansto D! payalimony,wasamaterialchangeincircumstances,held: 0"  8  Abonafideretirementneedonlybeobjectivelyreasonableunderthetotalityofthe $X" circumstancestoconstituteamaterialchangeincircumstances.Insoholding,we $D # reject,intheretirementcontext,thetraditionaltestrequiringaninvoluntaryand %0!$ unforeseenchangeincircumstancestomodifyasupportaward.&"%   ThetrialjudgethenfoundthatHusbandsretirementin1998,whenhiscontractualbenefitsceased, (#' superimposeduponhisageanddeterioratinghealth,wasobjectivelyreasonableandthusconstituted )$( suchamaterialchangeincircumstancesastorequireareconsiderationoftheamountofhisalimony  obligation.    Wewouldbeinagreementwiththisfindingexceptfortheratherobviouspatternofconduct t engagedinbyHusband.Inthefirstappealwefound,inapoliteway,thathewasrestructuringhis ` assetsinadeliberateattempttoavoidhisalimonyobligation. Bogan presentedanewperspective; L  hencethepresentlitigation.But Bogan offersHusbandnosuccor;hisrestructuringanddissipation 8  ofassetstoavoidhisalimonyobligationcontinued.Forinstance,hisbrokerageaccountatEdward $ t JonesInc.,asofJanuary29,1999was$178,000.00whichconsistedofanannuityof$148,000.00  ` withtheremainderincorporatestocks.Afterthefirstcasewasdecidedonappeal,hebegan  L  withdrawing$1100.00monthly.FromMarchtoAugust2000hewithdrew$48,000.00and  8  purchasedfarmequipment,thirteenHolsteincows,tithed$5000.00tohischurch,andmadeother $  expenditures.Hepurchasedausedcarforhissonfor$3500.00;anewtruck,2001model,cost   $23,779.00;anewtractor,aftertradein,cost$16,700.00;acampercost$10,000.00;alakelotwith   amobilehomecost$15,000.00.Heandhispresentwifeownathirtyacrefarmvaluedat   $390,000.00;hiscattleareworth$28,000.00.Weneednotspecifyadditionalexpenditures,because   wearenotobligedtotakeandstateanaccountingofHusbandsincomeandassets.Wedonotethat p in1999hemadecharitablecontributionsof$7674.00;in2000hemadecharitablecontributionsof \ $9055.00andin2001,charitablecontributionof$9130.00.WealsonotethatHusbandsoldalot H onTellicolakefor$17,000.00andprofessedtohavingnorecollectionofhowhespent,orinvested, 4 theproceeds.  p   Wehold,aswemust,thatHusbandcannotbeallowedtomanipulateassetssoastocreate H whatprimafacieappearstobeamaterialchangeincircumstancesforhisbenefit.Theevidence 4 revealsthathehasprofligately spentdownhisinvestmentsasWifeargues,andthathehasmade   noeffortwhatevertoconvertnonincomeproducingassetstothosewhichcouldproduceincome.   Therecordalsoreflectsthathehascommingledhisassetswithhisnewwife,therebyhinderinghis  readyaccesstocash.    Weholdthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgmentreducingthemonthlyalimony, l andHusbandsobligationtopayperiodicalimonyisreinstatedat$1415.00permonth.  #  2       X    WeagreewithWifesargumentthatsheshouldnothavetopaythecostofdefendingher 0"  entitlementtoalimony.See, McCartyv.McCarty ,863S.W.2d716(Tenn.Ct.App.1998), Sanella #l! v.Sanella ,993S.W.2d73(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Thejudgmentdenyingattorneyfeesisreversed $X" andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforadeterminationoftheamountofattorneyfees,both $D # attrialandonappeal. %0!$  '#&   CostsareassessedtoHusband.       `      `     h     ____________________________________ `    `     h     WILLIAMH.INMAN,SENIORJUDG#X\X XX##XX\#X\XE