WPC # VU:a % 0(b w@4 ) 8 0l@ 0D 0J 0T: 0^ 0h 0rT 0| 0B 0 1uX 0d U*1B)[DC AM  v~v Bg D3 0@ AOF 0D  D/P BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- - DDDӀD H X@H 3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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""""7Border 1dd-#C << G !  #d#!  !   YYY FILED!XJuly2,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#!     !       WedonottakeanypositiononthequestionofwhetherthealimonyorderedinthiscaseautomaticallyterminatedundertheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(2)(B).Itisarguablethatthatsectionappliesonlytoalimonyinfuturooralimony theamountofwhichisnotcalculableonthedatethedecreewasentered.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  d))))'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !         \RA'\\RA'\7XXdd7    ћ CHONGY.STRUCK,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019612CH00547VS.      )      ) RutherfordChancery̜R$%#A1-j|`  `@Rߛ      ) No.94DR948GARYL.STRUCK,    )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFRUTHERFORDCOUNTYATMURFREESBORO,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEROBERTE.CORLEW,III,CHANCELLORBRADW.HORNSBYBULLOCK,FLY&McFARLIN301NorthSpringStreetMurfreesboro,TN371330398 AttorneyforPlaintiff/AppellantDICKENE.KIDWELL300EastVineStreetMurfreesboro,TN37130 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellee@ @ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.KOCH,J.  @ !OPINION !X  ThequestioninthiscaseiswhetherthealimonysetbythecourtwasϜsubjecttomodification.Thetrialjudgeterminatedthealimonyuponthewifesremarriage.Weaffirm.@ I.   InadivorcegrantedonDecember28,1994thecourtorderedthehusbandtopaythewife$200permonthasspousalsupportuntilthesaleofthemaritalhome(inwhichthewifewasallowedtolive).Hewasalsoorderedtomakethemonthlymortgagepaymentsof$550onthehouse.Whenthehousesold,thehusbandwasorderedtopaythewife$750permonthforthebalanceofatwentyfourmonthperiodmeasuredfromthedateofthedivorce.Forasubsequenttwentyfourmonthperiod,thecourtorderedthehusbandtopay$500permonth;then,foranadditionalsixtymonthsthehusbandhadtopay$250perϜmonth.  InMarchof1995thepartiesenteredanagreedorderwhichmodifiedthefinaldecreeinthefollowingway:8 8  2. Defendantwillconveyuntoplaintiffallofhisright,titleandinterestintheresidenceoftheparties.8 8  3. Defendantwillbegivencreditof$250permonthonhisalimonypaymentsof$750permonthforaperiodof12monthsbeginningApril,1995;thereafterdefendantwillpayuntoplaintiffthesumof$750foreightmonths,thuscomplyingwiththecourtsordertopaythesumof$750permonthfor24months,lessthosemonthswhereinthedefendantpaidthehousepaymentand$200permonthtotheplaintiffforsupportasorderedinthefinaljudgmentofdivorce.Thereafterthedefendantwillpaytheplaintiffthesumof$500permonthasspousalsupportfor24months,andthenhemustberesponsibleforthepaymentof$250permonthforaperiodof60additionalmonths.  InAprilof1996,thehusbandmovedtoterminatethealimonypaymentsbecausethewifehadremarried.Thetrialjudgegrantedthemotion.0 @ II.   ThewifeassertsonappealthattheawardintheMarch1995orderwasalimonyinsolidoandwasnotsubjecttomodificationortermination.SeeSelfv.Self,861S.W.2d360(Tenn.1993);Isbellv.Isbell,816S.W.2d735(Tenn.1991).Itisarguable,however,thata1993statutewouldhavechangedtheresultinbothcases.Itprovided:8 8 Anawardofrehabilitative,temporarysupportandmaintenanceshallremaininthecourtscontrolforthedurationofsuchaward,andmaybeincreased,decreased,terminated,extended,orotherwisemodified,uponashowingofsubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstances.Rehabilitativesupportandmaintenanceshallterminateuponthedeathoftherecipient.Suchsupportandmaintenanceshallalsoterminateuponthedeathofthepayorunlessotherwisespecificallystated.Therecipientofthesupportandmaintenanceshallhavetheburdenorprovingthatallreasonableeffortsatrehabilitationhavebeenmadeandhavebeenunsuccessful.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(2).  Afterthepassageofthestatute,anawardoftemporary,rehabilitativesupportremainswithinthecourtscontroleventhoughitisintheformofaninsolidoaward(foracertainsumandforafixedamountoftime).Therefore,thequestionbecomesoneofwhethertheawardinthiscasewasϜrehabilitativeandtemporary.  ThetrialjudgefoundasafactthatthepurposeoftheawardwasϜrehabilitation,andwethinkthetrialjudgeisinthebestpositiontoconstruehisorherownorders.Wearesatisfiedthatthetrialjudgewascorrect.  Therewasnoproofofferedonthemotiontoterminate,otherthanastipulationthatthewifehadremarried.Inouropinionremarriageisasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstances. &   כWithoutsomeproofthattherehabilitativesupportwasstillneededwecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialjudgesfindingthatthespousalsupportshouldbeterminated.  Thejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmed,andthecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofRutherfordCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.      ________________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_______________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  ќ