ÿWPCö 5# öUN %O 0ñUUNFw@”4Ôè 05÷ 0D, 0Dp 0J´ 0Tþ 0^R 0h° 0r Š 0|’ 0† 0” 1u$ 0d™ AQý ÆN B 0@1 0Dq D/µ Bä D3U>4B)rDC› AMÞU*+qUoÆp5v~¥vÓ#˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ɇ$¡¡Ñ°°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ€X”XXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÕDÖle×eØVÙVÚÛEÜÝÓ€çê‚_#3|xç(å(3š $¤¤Ý ƒ†!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€X XXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ! #$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial gÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌDecemberÏ5,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThese€payments€are€not€judicially€mandated€and€are€voluntarily€provided€by€Tuggle.€Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àAt€the€time€of€this€case,€the€statute€was€cited€as€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„820(a)(3).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓÓò ò›œ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌREIKO€McCULLOUGH,€€€€€à àà à)à àÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óDavidson€Circuit€No.€89D„3789Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€.0-A1-j|8Ï` 2 `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9701„CV„00039ò òÌWHITFORD€B.€McCULLOUGH,€à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellant.ò òà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óòòÌóóò òÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌJoseph€L.€Lackey,€Jr.€à àà àà àà àDavid€H.€Hornik€€€€€€€€€€ÌNashville,€Tennessee€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€œAND€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€¼XXdðXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€case€involves€a€petition€for€the€modification€of€alimony€payments.€€The€ex„husbandÏappeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€to€reduce€his€alimony€obligations€to€his€ex„wife.€€WeÏaffirm.Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant€Whitford€B.€McCullough€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Respondent€/AppelleeÏReiko€McCullough€(ð ðWifeðð)€were€divorced€on€April€29,€1991.€€The€divorce€decree€mandated€thatÏHusband€pay€Wife€monthly€alimony€payments€of€$608.00€for€an€unspecified€period€of€time.€€InÏSeptember€1994,€Husband€filed€a€petition€to€terminate€alimony€on€the€grounds€of€material€changeÏof€circumstances€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1997).€ÏHusband€later€amended€his€petition€to€allege€that€termination€of€alimony€was€warranted€on€theÏgrounds€that€Wife€was€living€with€a€third€person€who€was€contributing€to€her€support€andÏmaintenance,€€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3).ò òòòÌà àó óóóHusband€alleged€that€Wife€was€living€with€€Joseph€Tuggle€(ð ðTuggleðð).€€It€is€undisputedÏthat€Tuggle€is€the€father€of€a€child€conceived€by€Wife€after€the€divorce.€€Tuggle€has€been€payingÏWife€$100.00€per€month,€and€testified€that€the€payments€were€to€support€this€child.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àAt€trial,€Husband€contended€that€Tuggle€has€been€living€with€Wife€and€that€he€hasÏsupported€her€in€addition€to€the€child.€€The€proof€indicated€that€Tuggle€has€spent€the€night€at€WifeððsÏresidence€on€various€occasions.€€Tuggle€testified€that€the€frequency€of€his€overnight€visits€rangeÏfrom€zero€nights€per€week€to€four€or€five€nights€per€week.€€A€report€based€on€six€days€ofÏsurveillance€by€Husbandððs€private€detective,€Jonathan€Saad€(ð ðSaadðð),€stated€that€Tuggle€spent€theÏnight€on€one€occasion€during€the€six„day€period.Ìà àThe€proof€showed€that€Tuggle€owns€his€own€apartment.€€Husband€claimed€that€TuggleÏnever€lived€there.€€Saadððs€report€indicated€that€no€vehicles€registered€to€Tuggle€were€ever€parkedÏthere€during€his€surveillance.€€Tuggle€admitted€that€he€kept€multiple€vehicles€in€Wifeððs€driveway,Ïbut€testified€that€these€vehicles€were€all€broken€and€that€they€are€now€relocated€to€his€newÍresidence.Ìà àThe€evidence€also€demonstrates€that€Tuggle€installed€a€satellite€dish€in€Wifeððs€yard.€€As€ofÏthe€date€of€the€hearing,€Wife€had€had€the€satellite€dish€for€a€year€and€a€half.€€Tuggle€claimed€that€heÏintended€to€keep€it€there€only€temporarily.€€Tuggle€also€testified€that€he€bought€Wife€a€31„inchÏtelevision€and€a€waterbed.€€According€to€Tuggle,€the€television€was€a€ð ðjunk€t.v.ðð€that€he€repairedÏfor€her.€€In€addition,€Tuggle€conceded€that€he€has€occasionally€helped€with€household€chores€andÏpicked€Wife€up€from€work.€€Tuggle€testified€that,€since€he€moved€to€a€new€subdivision€in€April€ofÏ1996,€he€has€not€spent€the€night€with€Wife.Ìà àThe€trial€court€denied€Husbandððs€petition€to€terminate€his€alimony€payments.€€In€a€cursoryÏopinion,€the€trial€court€held€that€Husband€had€not€carried€his€burden€of€proving€sufficient€groundsÏto€warrant€relief.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€modify€Husbandððs€alimony€obligations€and€awardedÏWife€attorneyððs€fees.€€From€this€decision,€Husband€now€appeals.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Husband€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€he€had€not€presentedÏsufficient€proof€to€demonstrate€that€Wife€was€receiving€support€from€a€third€person€to€warrantÏtermination,€reduction,€or€suspension€of€his€alimony€obligations.€€Wife€seeks€an€affirmance€of€theÏtrial€courtððs€holding,€as€well€as€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÏcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€factual€finding€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€ò òòòdeÏnovoóóó ó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottoms,ó óóó€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101€governs€the€modification€of€alimony€payments.€ÏSub„section€(a)(3)€of€this€provision€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(3)€In€all€cases€where€a€person€is€receiving€alimony€in€futuro€and€theÏalimony€recipient€lives€with€a€third€person,€a€rebuttable€presumption€is€therebyÏraised€that:Ìà8 àà à(A)€The€third€person€is€contributing€to€the€support€of€the€alimony€recipientÏand€the€alimony€recipient€therefore€does€not€need€the€amount€of€support€previouslyÍawarded,€and€the€court€therefore€should€suspend€all€or€part€of€the€alimonyÏobligation€of€the€former€spouse;€orÌà8 àà à(B)€The€third€person€is€receiving€support€from€the€alimony€recipient€and€theÏalimony€recipient€therefore€does€not€need€the€amount€of€alimony€previouslyÏawarded€and€the€court€therefore€should€suspend€all€or€part€of€the€alimony€obligationÏof€the€former€spouse.Ìò òòòÌÓÓóóó óTherefore,€once€it€is€established€that€the€alimony€recipient€is€living€with€a€third€person,€this€raises€aÏrebuttable€presumption€that€the€alimony€recipient€does€not€need€the€amount€of€support€previouslyÏawarded.€€òòò òÌó óóóà àIn€order€for€this€rebuttable€presumption€to€arise,€the€petitioner€must€first€prove€that€theÏð ðalimony€recipient€lives€with€a€third€person.ðð€€ò òòòId.;€Binkley€v.€Binkleyó óóó,€No.€88„148„II,€1988ÏWL€97231,€*2€(Tenn.€App.€€Sept.€23,€1988).€€Husband€claims€that€the€evidence€demonstrates€thatÏWife€œÇwas›€living€with€Tuggle.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€Husband€cites€ò òòòAzbill€v.€Azbill,ó óóó€661ÏS.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€App.€1983).Ìà àIn€ò òòòAzbill,€óóó óthe€ex„husband€alleged€that€the€alimony€recipient,€the€ex„wife,€had€the€dailyÏcompany€of€a€third€party,€Mr.€Bell.€€Although€the€parties€did€not€appear€to€have€a€romanticÏrelationship,€the€proof€showed€that€Bell€was€at€the€ex„wifeððs€home€ð ðdaily,€had€a€key,€came€in€andÏout€as€he€pleased,€had€clothes€and€toilet€articles€in€the€house,€and€at€least€on€four€differentÏoccasions€spent€the€entire€night€in€the€home.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€686.€€Nevertheless,€both€the€ex„wife€and€BellÏmaintained€that€Bell€had€not€spent€the€night€at€her€home€and€did€not€keep€clothing€or€toiletry€articlesÏthere.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Bell€lived€with€the€ex„wife€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute€andÏreduced€the€alimony€payments.€€This€Court€determined€that€the€trial€courtððs€finding€was€based€onÏdeterminations€of€credibility.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€687.€€Deferring€to€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€theÏwitnessesðð€credibility,€this€Court€€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€the€wife€and€Bell€wereÏliving€together€pursuant€to€the€statute.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÌà àIn€ò òòòStanton€v.€Stanton,ó óóó€Shelby€Law€No.€82,€1986€WL€2301,€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€20,Ï1986),€the€trial€court€found€that€the€third€party,€McKinney,€moved€furniture€items€and€personalÏbelongings€into€the€alimony€recipientððs€(ex„wifeððs)€residence.€€This€address€was€listed€forÏMcKinneyððs€voter€registration€and€for€his€car€license.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóMcKinney€paid€the€ex„wife€$15.00€perÏday€as€board;€paid€for€all€of€the€telephone€bills€(with€the€exception€of€the€ex„wifeððs€long€distanceÏbill),€paid€the€ex„wife€$100.00€per€month€for€receiving€phone€calls,€handling€filing,€and€handlingÏmail;€and€gave€the€ex„wife€a€car.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó€€This€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€ex„wife€and€McKinney€were€living€together€pursuant€to€the€statute.€€ò òòòId.Ìà àó óóóIn€ò òòòWilliams€v.€Williamsó óóó,€No.€85„150„II,€1986€WL€5895,€*3€(Tenn.€App.€May€21,Ï1986),€this€Court€also€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€alimony€recipient,€the€ex„wife,€wasÍliving€with€a€third€person.€€In€ò òòòWilliamsó óóó,€€the€ex„wife€was€spending€ð ðat€least€several€nights€a€weekÏand€the€weekendsðð€at€the€third€partyððs€residence.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óFurthermore,€she€conceded€having€a€key€toÏhis€apartment,€keeping€some€of€her€clothes€and€other€personal€items€there,€and€keeping€some€ofÏher€furniture€there.€€ò òòòId.̜Ǜà àóóó ó€€ò òòòBinkleyó óóó€also€involved€a€situation€in€which€the€ex„wife€would€occasionally€stay€at€theÏhome€of€a€third€party.€€ò òòòBinkley,€óóó ó1988€WL€97231.€€In€this€case,€the€ex„wife€testified€she€wouldÏstay€overnight€at€her€friendððs€home€three€or€four€nights€per€week.ò òòò€€Id.ó óóó€at€*2.€€SurveillanceÏevidence€revealed€that€during€a€two€week€period,€the€ex„wifeððs€car€was€at€the€third€partyððs€home€allÏbut€one€day.€€€€According€to€the€court,€ð ð[i]n€common€parlance,€ððliving€withðð€implies€the€occupancyÏof€a€common€place€of€abode.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*3.€€The€trial€court€had€stated€that€it€was€ð ðnot€convincedðð€thatÏthe€ex„wife€was€living€with€the€third€party,€but€also€found€that€the€ex„wife€had€rebutted€anyÏpresumption€that€the€alimony€payments€were€no€longer€needed.€€This€Court€found€that€the€evidenceÏdid€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€ò òòòId.Ìà àó óóóTestimony€in€ò òòòDuffin€v.€Duffinó óóó,€No.€02A01„9302„CV„00028,€1993€WL€484204,€*1Ï(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€23,€1993),€indicated€that€the€alimony€recipient,€the€ex„wife,€had€an€ð ðoff€and€onððÏrelationship€with€a€third€party,€Steve€Grimes.€€The€ex„wife€stated€that€Grimes€would€sometimesÏspend€up€to€three€or€four€nights€in€a€row€at€her€home.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóFurthermore,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏGrimes€operated€a€business€from€the€ex„wifeððs€home.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*2.€€The€ex„wife€and€Grimes€bothÏtestified€that€he€did€not€have€a€key€to€her€house€and€he€did€not€keep€clothes€there€(with€theÏexception€of€a€change€of€clothes€when€he€would€stay€overnight).€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€*1.€€Grimes€kept€his€ownÏapartment€and€did€not€provide€the€ex„wife€with€any€money€or€pay€her€bills.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThe€ex„wifeÏtestified€that€the€relationship€ceased€five€months€before€the€hearing.€€ò òòòId.Ìà àó óóóIn€ò òòòDuffinó óóó,€this€Court€found€no€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€GrimesÏoperated€a€business€from€the€ex„wifeððs€home.€€After€examining€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€CourtÏreversed€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€ex„wife€was€living€with€Grimes.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€*3.€€CitingÏò òòòBinkleyó óóó,€the€court€held€that€ð ð[t]he€record€simply€does€not€contain€evidence€that€Wife€and€GrimesÏhad€ððoccupancy€of€a€common€place€of€abode.ðððð€ò òòòId.€ó óóó(citing€ò òòòBinkley,ó óóó€1988€WL€97231€at€*3).Ìà àIn€this€case,€since€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€Husbandððs€petition€was€cursory,€it€isÏunclear€whether€the€trial€court€found€that:€(a)€Tuggle€was€not€living€with€Wife,€and€that€HusbandÏhad€not€carried€his€burden€of€proving€a€material€change€of€circumstances€sufficient€to€warrant€aÍreduction€in€alimony,€or€(b)€even€if€Tuggle€were€living€with€her,€Wife€had€effectively€rebutted€anyÏpresumption€that€the€alimony€payments€were€no€longer€needed.€€Ìà àThe€evidence€presented€by€both€parties€is,€for€the€most€part,€uncontradictory.€€The€evidenceÏindicates€that€Tuggleððs€overnight€stays€at€Wifeððs€home€are€sporadic,€anywhere€from€zero€to€fiveÏnights€in€any€given€week.€€As€in€ò òòòDuffinó óóó,€Tuggle€maintained€his€own€residence.€€The€onlyÏevidence€of€Tuggleððs€personal€items€that€were€kept€at€Wifeððs€home€are€his€junk€cars€and€hisÏsatellite€dish.€€The€evidence€does€not€indicate€that€any€of€the€junk€cars€are€registered€to€WifeððsÏaddress.€€There€is€no€€evidence€that€Tuggle€kept€clothing€or€toiletries€at€Wifeððs€home,€that€he€had€aÏkey€to€the€home,€or€that€he€routinely€ate€his€meals€at€Wifeððs€home.Ìà àAlthough€this€is€a€close€case,€the€facts€appear€to€be€akin€to€those€presented€in€ò òòòDuffin€ó óóóandÏò òòòBinkleyó óóó.€€As€in€those€cases,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€in€favor€of€a€finding€that€WifeÏand€Tuggle€have€shared€the€ð ðoccupancy€of€a€common€place€of€abode.ðð€€ò òòòBinkley,ó óóó€1988€WL€97231Ïat€*3;€ò òòòDuffin,ó óóó€1993€WL€484204€at€*3.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€rebuttable€presumption€setÏforth€in€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€35„5„101(a)(3)ò òòò€ó óóóis€inapplicable.Ìà àHusband€may,€nevertheless,€be€entitled€to€relief€if€he€can€show€that€Wifeððs€receipt€of€theÏ$100.00€per€month€payments€by€Tuggle€constitutes€a€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€change€ofÏcircumstances,ðð€so€that€modification€of€his€alimony€obligations€is€warranted.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ35„5„101(a)(1).€€It€has€been€held€that€any€contributions€made€to€an€alimony€recipient€by€a€thirdÏparty€ð ðmay€be€taken€into€consideration€in€determining€whether€alimony€payments€should€beÏadjusted.ðð€€ò òòòRichardson€v.€Richardson,€ó óóó598€S.W.2d€791,€795€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€The€partyÏclaiming€that€a€change€of€circumstances€exists€carries€the€burden€of€proving€the€existence€of€theÏchanged€circumstances.€€ò òòòAzbill,ó óóó€661€S.W.2d€at€686.€€The€change€of€circumstances€must€beÏð ðsubstantial.ðð€€ò òòòCranford€v.€Cranford,€ó óóó772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€App.€1989);€ò òòòJones€v.ÏJones,€ó óóó784€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€Once€the€petitioner€shows€that€a€changeÏexists,€the€court€should€weigh€the€same€criteria€that€were€considered€in€making€the€initial€alimonyÏaward.€€ò òòòCranford,€ó óóó772€S.W.2d€at€50;€ò òòòThreadgill€v.€Threadgill,ó óóó€740€S.W.2d€419,€422„23Í(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€These€factors€are€enumerated€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d).ò òòòÌà àó óóóIn€this€case,€the€undisputed€testimony€was€that€Wife€has€a€child€fathered€by€Tuggle,€andÏthat€Tuggle€pays€Wife€$100.00€per€month€to€support€the€child.€€€The€other€evidence,€such€as€theÏevidence€that€Tuggle€gave€Wife€a€television€he€had€repaired€and€installed€a€satellite€dish€at€herÏhome,€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€Wifeððs€need€for€alimony€payments€has€lessened.€ÏTherefore,€considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€deny€Husbandððs€petition€for€a€reduction€in€alimony€payments.€€ÌœÇ›à àWife€requests€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€during€this€appeal.€€It€has€been€held€that€ð ðwhere€theÏwife€has€demonstrated€that€she€is€financially€unable€to€procure€counsel,€and€where€the€husband€hasÏthe€ability€to€pay,€the€court€may€properly€order€the€husband€to€pay€the€wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees.ðð€Ïò òòòHoughland€v.€Houghland,ó óóó€844€S.W.2d€619,€623€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€evidence€in€thisÏcase€supports€the€awarding€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Wife.€€Consequently,€the€matter€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€a€determination€of€the€appropriate€amount.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Wifeððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal€is€€òòÏóógranted,€and€the€matter€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€determination€of€the€amount€of€attorneyððsÏfees€on€appeal.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€Appellant€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.Ìò òÌÓÓó óà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌó óÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó