ÿWPC ‰Fu–¤¦ íI×÷<¬ ¨Ú±h÷œ,ó#W©£N|– ÿ-\ÓlIð0“s (Ç£ê¹rÎTAõÆEµÝŸÐoòÔÇ(hp 2£Çñ‡YIM]‘FÜ–è‡$óåsWÊW*:h(b›Vý·ó–ª »‰cîB0›þ2Ñ"ß/Íû«'TÏ{2û=y: ?—ÃM… Éaþ¤ÝnXÄ@¯p0î߬ðgõx¡ÞEËÎg q¹tLþÀU$3›ÔEކ ê¹ |¬°ÔHéTwåóáÍ\÷ ›·±-(ªå‡r×ù0Ç™ÁÙö-k¡)1²!•Nµ]cÜ‚þk[–³ƒüïöHsb îTÀWz[/Ø7ù[Å;ÊÌüX–Ìç5pi~¿tŒÕ î2 M  nËêI*Œ\ç–zþüâqÉ/¥Y!+ÆcÊóòûûf&sƒ2ï’nŠIwA+8¹#£¼òŠŽŠœO÷»h‹[˜õ\¸˜xßÝEmjjüôÓ®(+ÜšaÃèhãc”Ù;®ñ*zšî±«WgMf³ÖÞ<áxŒmæ›ùä aç¡ø¦å¨8{ø°Æ»·DòÜ_Ö½_òô?ŒÔª¥»t>šÕÕra %¥Ó_cW›v'§¦®¢ƒs; `4@T 0(c‹w“—UN™ 0lç 0DS m—#!®NÏ ^ Ñ 1‡Ý UNd 1u² 72' Y Æa a 6' U:] ] ] UB— %Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Bß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ASü ÆO 0D 0DY 0D D5á”@q'ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0Ïv'L (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ,Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XþXXXÔÔ€èw çXXþÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ïâçèw ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX dZ[\]_Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&&&&)ÿÿ!dxdxÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€¸XXdÈdÈ8ÑÔ€X0\XXXÔÔ€ŠÝ‹XX0\ÔÔ_Ô€€€€à@M M ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü  Ðßx€Y_B2.jz}ÿË `€€@ÿE« Žtt¨¦Mã xßÌà@þþ$‚àAT€KNOXVILLE€€ˆÌÌó óà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àÌÌÌÌÌPATSY€CARR€SMITH,à0 < àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9901„CH„00020Ðà ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellee,à0 < àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à)€HAMILTON€CHANCERYÐà ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìvs.à0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àà0<ä (#ä (#àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à)€HON.€HOWELL€N.€PEOPLES,Ðà ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€CHANCELLORÌDONALD€WALKER€SMITH,à0 ” àà0ì”(#”(#à)Ðàì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€AFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌà 4 àDefendant„Appellant.à0 ” àà0ì”(#”(#à)€AND€VACATED€IN€PARTÐàì(#ì(# ÐÌÌKYLE€E.€HEDRICK,€Chattanooga,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌÌMITCHELL€A.€BYRD,€Chattanooga,€for€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ à% ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÔ‡ŠÝ‹‹ŠÝÔÔ‡X0\X‹ŠÝÔÓÓà 4 àÌà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€action,€the€Trial€Judge€dismissed€Donald€Smithððs€petition€to€modify€theÏalimony€award€to€his€former€wife,€Patsy€Smith.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àDonald€Smith€appeals,€insisting€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€was€improper.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€parties€were€divorced€by€Final€Decree€filed€on€July€1,€1994,€and€the€FinalÏDecree€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àHusband€shall€pay€to€the€Wife,€alimony€in€futuro,€in€the€monthly€amount€ofÏTwo€Thousand€Dollars€($2,000.00).Wife€will€not€seek€any€modification€for€anÏincrease€in€the€alimony.€After€three€years,€or€in€the€event€of€disability,Ïremarriage€of€the€Wife,€cohabitation€of€the€Wife,€or€substantial€change€inÏcircumstances,€Husband€may€petition€the€Court€for€reduction€or€cessation€ofÏalimony.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÐ x;œ02ý  ÐÓÓà 4 àà Œ àOn€June€1,€1997€the€appellant,€discontinued€the€payments€required€by€theÐ ˆ8€13 ÐFinal€Decree€and€began€making€payments€in€the€amount€of€$1,000.00€per€month.€Ð `:X35ý  Ðà 4 àà Œ àAppellant€had€been€self€employed€as€a€pharmacist,€and€retired€at€age€65.€€HeÐ  Ðsold€his€pharmacy€for€$185,000.€€He€still€owns€the€building,€and€collects€$500€a€month€inÐ àØ Ðrent.€€As€part€of€the€sale€of€his€business,€he€signed€an€agreement€not€to€compete€within€a€five„Ð ¸ ° ÐÔ_Ômile€radius.€€Ð  ˆ Ðà 4 àà Œ àAppellant€had€a€myocardial€infarction€in€1995€that€required€balloon€surgery.€Ð h` ÐHowever,€the€Trial€Judge€found€that€this€did€not€affect€his€ability€to€work€as€he€continued€toÐ @8  Ðwork€until€he€retired€in€1997.€€The€Judge€also€found€that€Mr.€Smith€ð ðprobably€could€haveÐ   Ðworked€this€year€if€work€was€availableðð.€€Ð ðè  Ðà 4 àà Œ àAppellee€filed€a€petition€for€contempt,€seeking€judgment€for€arrearage€andÐ ÈÀ Ðattorneyððs€fees,€and€appellant€filed€a€counterclaim€seeking€reduction€in€alimony,€€alleging€thatÐ  ˜ Ða€reduction€beginning€June€1,€1997€was€ð ðcontemplatedðð€by€the€parties€in€1994€by€theirÐ xp Ðagreements€as€this€would€be€his€retirement€date€three€years€later.€Ð PH Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Judge€ordered€the€appellant€to€pay€$16,000€in€back€alimony€andÐ (  Ðcontinue€to€pay€$2,000€per€month€and€dismissed€the€Counter€Claim.€€The€Trial€Judge€foundÐ ø Ðthat€to€modify€a€final€decree,€a€party€must€show€a€change€of€circumstance,€and€that€suchÐ Ø Ð Ðchange€was€not€foreseeable€when€the€decree€was€entered.€€The€Judge€concluded€that€the€Ð °"¨ Ðretirement€at€age€65€is€quite€typical€and€was€certainly€a€foreseeable€event€to€the€parties€priorÐ ˆ$€  Ðto€the€entry€of€the€Final€Decree,€and€for€that€reason,€the€decree€would€not€be€modified.€€Ð `&X" Ðò òó óà 4 àà Œ àThe€appellantððs€refusal€to€pay€the€full€amount€of€alimony€awarded€by€theÐ 8(0!$ ÐCourt€in€its€Final€Decree€was€properly€classified€as€civil€contempt.€€òòSeeóó€òòGivler€v.€Givleróó,€964Ð *#& ÐS.W.2d€902€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Moreover,€we€have€held€that€€ð ð[w]here€[the€husband]Ð è+à$( Ðneglects€to€apply€for€a€modification€of€the€decree€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€sufficient€causeÐ À-¸&* Ðexists€to€warrant€an€alteration€thereof,€the€mere€existence€of€such€grounds€is€not€available€asÐ ˜/(, Ða€defense€to€proceedings€for€contempt.ðð€€òòMowery€v.€Moweryóó,€363€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð p1h*. ÐApp.€1962).Ð H3@,0 Ðà 4 àà Œ àDonald€Smith€cannot€use€as€a€defense€the€fact€that€he€thought€that€the€decreeÐ  5.2 Ðallowed€for€modification€upon€his€retirement,€even€if€his€retirement€three€years€from€the€timeÐ ø6ð/4 Ðof€the€decree€was€an€event€that€would€trigger€modification.€€The€final€decree€of€the€courtÐ Ð8È16 Ðclearly€states€that€the€Husband€merely€has€the€right€to€òòpetitionóó€the€court€after€three€years.€Ð  ÐThere€is€no€language€in€the€decree€to€suggest€that€such€a€modification€would€be€automatic€atÐ àØ Ðthat€time.€€Additionally,€because€Donald€Smith€did€not€plead€the€defense€of€inability€to€pay,Ð ¸ ° Ðanalysis€of€such€an€ability€is€unnecessary.€€Regardless,€he€clearly€had€the€resources€to€payÐ  ˆ Ðalimony€prior€to€his€retirement,€and€his€retirement€was€a€conscious€choice€by€him,€andÐ h` Ðtherefore€he€cannot€avail€himself€of€a€plea€that€his€was€unable€to€obey€the€court€order.Ð @8  Ðà 4 àà Œ àInstead€of€petitioning€the€Court€for€modification€as€he€had€a€right€to€do,€heÐ   Ðcompletely€disregarded€the€order€of€the€Court€as€set€forth€in€the€Final€decree.€€He€is€thereforeÐ ðè  Ðguilty€of€contempt€and€the€Courtððs€order€for€him€to€pay€the€amount€for€which€he€was€inÐ ÈÀ Ðarrears€was€correct.€€Ð  ˜ Ðà 4 àà Œ àð ðIt€is€a€general€rule€that€a€party€who€is€in€contempt€will€not€be€heard€by€theÐ xp Ðcourt,€when€he€wishes€to€made€a€motion€or€ask€a€favor....€€His€first€duty€is€to€purge€hisÐ PH Ðcontempt.ðð€€òòHoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746€S.W.2d€665€(Tenn.€1988)€(citing€òòBradshaw€v.€Bradshawóó,Ð (  Ð133€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1939)).€The€court€may€also€act€within€its€discretion€toÐ ø Ðtake€into€account€a€party's€contempt€when€fashioning€a€remedy€instead€of€flatly€refusing€toÐ Ø Ð Ðhear€such€a€party.€€òòHoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€673€(citing€òòGossett.€v.€Gossettóó,€241Ð °"¨ ÐS.W.2d€934€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1951).€Ð ˆ$€  Ðà 4 àà Œ àòòóóIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€Trial€Judge€found€that€the€only€change€of€circumstanceÐ `&X" Ðalleged€was€Donald€Smithððs€retirement,€and€that€such€retirement€was€not€a€material€changeÐ 8(0!$ Ðbecause€it€was€foreseeable€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€but€we€conclude€from€the€languageÐ *#& Ðincorporated€in€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement,€that€the€parties€contemplated€someÐ è+à$( Ðpossible€modification€of€the€award€at€the€time€of€the€appellantððs€retirement.Ð À-¸&* Ðò òà 4 àà Œ àó óThe€rules€of€construction€applicable€to€written€instruments€also€apply€toÐ ˜/(, Ðjudgments€and€orders.€€òòHale€v.€Haleóó,€838€S.W.2d€206,€208€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)òòóó.€€Thus,€aÐ p1h*. Ðfinal€divorce€decree€should€be€construed€in€light€of€the€pleadings,€particularly€the€requests€forÐ H3@,0 Ðrelief,€and€the€apparent€intentions€of€the€drafters€and€of€the€court.€€òòHaleóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€208„Ð  5.2 Ð209;€òòSouthwestern€Presbyterian€Univ.€v.€Clarksvilleóó,€259€S.W.€550,€553€(Tenn.€1924)òòóó.€Ð ø6ð/4 ÐWhere€the€decree€incorporates€a€marital€dissolution€agreement,€the€entire€agreement€shouldÐ Ð8È16 Ðbe€considered€in€determining€the€meaning€of€any€or€all€of€the€parts€of€the€decree.€€òòSeeÐ  ÐDavidson€v.€Davidsonóó,€916€S.W.2d€918€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)òòóó.Ð àØ Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€decree,€in€pertinent€part,€states:Ð ¸ ° ÐÓÓà8 4 àò òà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àAfter€three€yearsó ó,€ò òòòoróóó ó€in€the€event€of€disability,€remarriage€of€the€Wife,Ð  ˆ Ðcohabitation€of€the€Wife,€ò òòòoróóó ó€substantial€change€in€circumstances,Ð € x ÐHusband€may€petition€the€Court€for€reduction€or€cessation€of€alimony.Ð ld Ð(Emphasis€added.)ÐXP Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓThe€use€of€the€word€ð ðorðð€suggests€that€the€parties€contemplated€the€possible€modification€ofÐ 0(  Ðalimony€after€three€years€even€absent€ð ðsubstantial€change€in€circumstances.ðð€€Three€yearsÐ   Ðfrom€the€divorce€was€the€time€the€appellant€would€turn€65,€the€normal€age€of€retirement.€€AsÐ àØ  Ðretirement€is€foreseeable€and€therefore€not€a€material€change€in€circumstances,€it€would€beÐ ¸° Ðnecessary€for€the€parties€to€provide€for€modification€absent€such€a€change€as€defined€by€theÐ ˆ Ðcourts.€€If€the€husband€still€had€to€show€a€substantial€change€in€circumstances,€the€ð ðafter€threeÐ h` Ðyears,€orðð€language€would€be€superfluous.Ð @8 Ðà 4 àà Œ àWe€therefore€vacate€and€remand.Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àUpon€remand,€the€Trial€Court€should€evaluate€the€relevant€factors€in€T.C.A.Ð ðè Ððð36„5„101€to€determine€the€appropriate€amount€of€alimony€in€light€of€the€circumstances.€€ItÐ È!À Ðshould€be€noted€that€the€recipient€spouseððs€demonstrated€need€for€spousal€support€is€theÐ  #˜ Ðsingle€most€important€factor,€òòsee€Sannellaóó,òòóó€and€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay€is€anotherÐ x%p! Ðimportant€factor.€òòAlso€seeóó€òòSannellaóó.Ð P'H # Ðò òà 4 àà Œ àó óAppellantððs€final€argument€is€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€not€requiring€theÐ () "% Ðfiling€of€certain€financial€records€regarding€income.€€The€appellant€argues€that€the€Trial€JudgeÐ +ø#' Ðcould€not€make€the€appropriate€comparison€òòóówithout€considering€the€financial€records€fromÐ Ø,Ð%) Ðthe€time€of€the€divorce,€nor€did€he€require€the€filing€of€sworn€statements€of€the€parties€asÐ °.¨'+ Ðprovided€in€Rule€18.04€of€the€òòHamilton€County€Local€Rules€of€Chancery€Practiceóó.€€It€is€in€theÐ ˆ0€)- Ðdiscretion€of€the€Chancellor€to€waive€the€filing€requirements€if€he€deems€them€unnecessary.€Ð `2X+/ ÐMoreover,€it€is€the€appellantððs€burden€to€prove€a€change€in€circumstances€to€justifyÐ 840-1 Ðmodification.€€He€should€have€filed€€financial€statements,€regardless€of€the€Courtððs€failure€toÐ 6/3 Ðrequest€them,€if€he€deemed€those€statements€necessary.Ð è7à05 Ðà 4 àà Œ àUpon€remand,€appellant€will€be€required€to€purge€himself€of€contempt,€beforeÐ À9¸27 Ðproceeding€on€the€issue€remanded.€€ð ðHis€first€duty€is€to€purge€his€contempt.ðð€€òòHall€v.€Wilsonóó,Ð  Ð746€S.W.2d€655€(Tenn.€1988).€€€Ð àØ Ðà 4 àà Œ àWe€do€not€disturb€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€entered€by€the€Trial€Judge,€butÐ ¸ ° Ðdecline€to€award€any€attorneyððs€fees€as€a€result€of€this€appeal.Ð  ˆ Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€cause€will€be€remanded€to€proceed€in€accordance€with€this€Opinion,€andÐ h` Ðthe€cost€of€the€appeal€is€assessed€one„half€to€each€party.Ð @8  ÐÓÓÌà 4 àÔ#†XøaXXXøa" #ÔÔ#†ŠÐvˆXXøaA #ÔÌÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð ü Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ð ü ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð ü ÐÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________Ð !ü ÐHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.Ð "ü ÐÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________Ð (ü " ÐÔ‡ŠÐvˆˆŠÐvÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.Ô#†ŠÐvˆˆŠÐvn7#ÔÐ )ü!# ÐÌ