ÿWPC) n§èÅê©3Ÿ­ñŒÃwg/ò2Ób3KN*ü8Y–ô‡Ù‡}2Bó¯(ÿ_C'†@ä±õ¯q%p¸ó@ðtë7gîL6Ê–‘¬±®ÿfˆàMipÞ(¢‘{…ü³èÊêal¾p±}‡.B’n”èí'i6†%þ§Ã®T»ÑQZ ô—wîætM–xŠ%ëÝE-$µGi‚u³÷bÊOªk_²vΘv¶Dýìb•nAõrZn½~ž¾gÙOY§$óõŠ¶u„¯`1_ÝDRà&FCc*âsäM`dŽóET˦dœ–ˆ&ñ‘< 2}Õ_{|Gç²ö ,äÜìI‹RÖ«ý¤UI§³í èΆÏ&(2Úóë=?;4Òš¶’ñrÃUøªÉ9óÓÖÕ)¸û¢:£\ bá'&fÕ‡7À: æ/t\}ŠŠÛÁ~~§UØ6é“Ó±æçSÙ~¯«$5$›:k'W#ÉÂUJN‹ %Ù 0:ß UN ^ g ws 4w ‹ š mœ ܳ 0 © 0 D8 ­| U>)U@g§Ni-k©˜EAAþCºAA[û{VVVDÑ  #À"%"%"%â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â&â& Br)˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9†O1Ï éJE1ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÒÝ ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔMs.€Woodall€did€not€object€to€the€amendment,€and€the€issue€was€litigated€at€the€hearing.Ô#†Xî$XòôÐ#ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$Ô€In€its€final€order€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€amended€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€the€proof.Ô#†Xî$XòôÐ*#Ô(Y(2g($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó £Ý ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔAt€the€time€of€the€divorce,€the€partiesðð€youngest€son€was€beginning€college,€but€was€twenty„four€years€old€andÐ ° Ðno€longer€living€at€home€at€the€time€of€the€modification€hearing.€€Ms.€Woodall€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,Ð tÄ Ðwhen€she€learned€her€former€husband€could€not€be€required€to€help€pay€their€adult€sonððs€expenses€at€the€local€communityÐ 8ˆ Ðcollege,€she€asked€for€an€amount€of€alimony€that€would€allow€her€to€help€her€son.ô\  `‹&Times New Romanô\  `(Times NewRomanTT  COArebuttableAzbillIsbellspousalCranfordSannellaw]hetherWattersa]ppellateKinardCrabtreeMs.WoodallunrebuttedMcCalebHowmetNelmsobligorobligeecohabitatingWoodall #Ñ#€<2Xÿÿd#Ñ ŸÝ ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôÐòXXî$ÔNot€only€did€Ms.Woodall€not€appeal€the€decrease,€at€oral€argument€her€counsel€repeated€that€she€did€not€appealÐ ° Ðthe€reduction€and€was€not€making€an€issue€of€it.€€Thus,€any€issues€regarding€the€reduction€have€been€waived.€ ôÝ ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôÐòXXî$ÔAccording€to€Ms.€Woodall,€she€takes€home€$300€per€week€from€the€salon€for€a€monthly€income€of€$1200.€Ð ° ÐHer€rent€for€her€apartment€and€the€shop,€utilities€for€both,€gas,€phones€for€both,€health€and€car€insurance,€consumer€loanÐ tÄ Ðpayments,€and€groceries€totaled€well€over€$2000€per€month.€ °Ý ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔThe€decree€did€not€specify€whether€the€alimony€was€òòin€futuroóó€or€rehabilitative;€however,€no€date€was€givenÐ ° Ðfor€the€payments€to€end.€€The€trial€court€held€it€was€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€We€agree.Ô#†Xî$XòôÐ#Ô QÝ ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôÐòXXî$ÔEven€after€the€surgery,€Ms.€Woodall€suffered€neck€pain€and€shoulder€pain,€and€her€arms€would€often€becomeÐ ° Ðnumb€after€cutting€hair.€€The€condition€made€more€difficult€many€of€the€activities€involved€in€being€a€hairdresser.€€Ms.Ð tÄ  ÐWoodall€testified€that€she€was€unable€to€work€a€full€week,€tried€to€put€in€four€days€a€week,€but€sometimes€only€workedÐ ° Ðthree.€€ qÝ ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔWe€are€mindful€that€a€modification€petition€based€on€cohabitation€will€often€trigger€an€end€to€that€cohabitation.€Ð ° ÐFaced€with€a€potential€loss€of€support,€an€alimony€recipient€could€predictably€choose€to€end€the€situation€that€jeopardizesÐ tÄ Ðthat€support,€as€did€Ms.€Woodall.€€Whether€the€change€in€residence€of€the€alimony€recipient€€is€genuine€and€permanentÐ 8ˆ Ðis€a€factual€question€to€be€determined€by€the€fact€finder,€and€Mr.€Woodall€does€not€argue€that€Ms.€Woodallððs€movingÐ üL Ðout€of€Mr.€Bishopððs€house€was€a€subterfuge.€€Even€where€the€move€is€determined€to€be€genuine,€however,€the€payingÐ À Ðformer€spouse€may€be€entitled€to€some€relief,€in€the€form€of€suspension€of€all€or€part€of€the€alimony€payments,€from€theÐ „Ô Ðtime€of€the€filing€of€the€modification€petition€until€the€cohabitation€ceases.€€The€appropriateness€of€such€relief€would,Ð H ˜ Ðof€course,€depend€on€the€facts€and€particularly€whether€the€recipient€rebutted€the€presumption€of€lack€of€need€during€theÐ  \ Ðrelevant€periodÔ#†Xî$XòôÐ#ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$Ô.€€Mr.€Woodallððs€alimony€was€suspended€for€a€while€during€the€pendency€of€his€petition.€€However,€theÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court€reinstated€the€alimony€obligation€back€to€the€date€of€the€suspension€order,€but€in€the€modified€amount.Ô#†Xî$XòôÐ?#Ô :Ý ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔMs.€Woodall€testified€that€ð ðI€didnððt€know€that€I€couldnððt€live€with€someone.€€I€figured€if€he€could€go€off€andÐ ° Ðlive€with€someone€that€caused€the€divorce,€then€I€could€live€with€someone€and€it€was€okay.€€I€thought€I€couldnððt€getÐ tÄ Ðmarried€or€I€had€to€die.ððÐ 8ˆ ÐÔ#†Xî$XòôÐ#ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$Ô Ý ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôÐòXXî$ÔOn€that€basis,€we€can€interpret€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€as€a€determination€that€Ms.€Woodall€did€not€need€theÐ ° Ðtotal€amount€of€alimony€each€month€while€she€was€living€with€Mr.€Bishop.€€Such€a€finding€would€support€a€reductionÐ tÄ Ðin€alimony€for€the€months€of€cohabitation€after€the€petition€was€filed. ¶Ý ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔThe€court€questioned€Ms.€Woodall€about€some€of€the€items€listed€on€her€expense€statement,€and€she€explainedÐ ° Ðthat€some€of€those€pointed€out€were€actually€yearly€expenses,€òòe.góó.,€license€fees€for€her€shop.Ô#†Xî$XòôÐ#Ô †Ý ƒ g($ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€Xî$XXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÐòXXî$ÔAs€for€Ms.€Woodallððs€assistance€to€Mr.€Bishop€upon€his€becoming€ill,€it€was€merelyÔ‡ôÐòòôÐÔ€Ô#†ôÐòòôÐ#ÔÔ‡ôÐòòôÐÔthe€type€of€supportÐ ° Ðindividuals€afford€friends.€€We€see€nothing€to€indicate€Ms.€Woodallððs€caring€for€Mr.€Bishop€indicated€she€was€using€herÐ tÄ Ðalimony€to€financially€support€him.Ô#†Xî$XòôÐ#ÔÔ#†Xî$XXXî$G#Ô dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXÔÑ  ÑÔ‡¼O¡»XXî$ÔÑ  ÑÑ€{Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ#†Xî$X»¼O¡h#ÔÔ‡îP°îXXî$ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†Xî$XîîP°Ù#ÔÔ‡¼O¡»XXî$ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€6,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†Xî$X»¼O¡s#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼O¡»XXî$ÔMARY€JANE€WOODALL€v.€HARRY€MICHAEL€WOODALLÔ#†Xî$X»¼O¡#Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Franklin€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€10,421„CV€€€€€€J.€Curtis€Smith,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„02046„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€15,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€appeal,€a€former€husband€seeks€to€be€relieved€of€his€obligation€to€pay€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€hisÐ xÈ  Ðformer€wife.€€In€support€of€his€request,€the€former€husband€asserts€there€have€been€various€changesÐ d´ Ðof€circumstances,€including€his€former€wifeððs€cohabitation€with€another€man.€€Although€the€trialÐ P  Ðcourt€reduced€the€monthly€support€payment,€it€denied€the€former€husbandððs€petition€to€be€relievedÐ <Œ Ðentirely€from€his€alimony€obligation,€finding€that€his€former€wife€was€not€living€with€a€third€personÐ (x Ðat€the€time€of€trial,€that€little€support€from€the€third€party€was€involved,€and€that€no€other€materialÐ d Ðchange€in€circumstances€had€occurred€to€warrant€modification€of€the€initial€award€of€alimony.Ô#†Xî$XXXî$=#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô€€WeÐ P Ðaffirm€the€denial€of€the€husbandððs€petition€to€be€relieved€of€his€alimony€obligation.Ô#†Xî$XXXî$#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÐ ì< ÐÓ“ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð Ä ÐAffirmedÐ ° Ðó óÌòòÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€and€òòFrankÐ ˆØ ÐG.€Clement,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐòòóóÌMark€Stewart,€David€Stewart,€Winchester,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Harry€Michael€Woodall.Ð L œ ÐÌJoseph€E.€Ford,€Winchester,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Mary€Jane€Woodall.Ð $"t! ÐÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÐ ü#L# ÐÓ  ÓÌòòóóÔ#†Xî$XXXî$³#Ôà  àIn€September€of€1997,€Mary€Jane€Woodall€was€granted€a€divorce€by€default€from€HarryÐ Ô%$!% ÐMichael€Woodall€after€a€twenty„six€year€marriage.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Mr.€Woodall€wasÐ À&"& Ðemployed€as€a€postal€clerk€earning€$36,000.€€In€contrast,€Ms.€Woodall€was€self„employed€andÐ ¬'ü"' Ðoperated€a€beauty€salon.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôððs€earning€capacity€was€adversely€affected€by€medicalÐ ˜(è#( Ðconditions,€specifically€disc€problems€in€her€neck€that€required€fusion€surgery€prior€to€the€divorce.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р„)Ô$) ÐÑ{Ñâ âÑ8€î$XXdìdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔAs€part€of€the€divorce,€Mr.€Woodall€was€ordered€to€pay€alimony€in€the€amount€of€$1500€per€month.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° ÐÌà  àIn€early€2002,€Mr.€Woodall€filed€a€petition€to€eliminate€or€reduce€his€payment€of€alimonyÐ ˆØ Ðbased€on€allegations€that€a€material€change€of€circumstances€had€occurred.€€Prior€to€trial,€Ms.Ð tÄ ÐWoodall€was€made€aware€that€her€former€husband€would€be€alleging€cohabitation€as€a€basis€for€theÐ `° Ðelimination€of€alimony.€€In€January,€2003,€the€trial€court€ð ðterminatedðð€Mr.€Woodallððs€payment€ofÐ L œ Ðalimony€until€the€modification€hearing€on€February€18,€2003.€€At€trial,€Mr.€Woodall€orally€amendedÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€petition€without€objection€to€allege€that€his€former€wife€had€been€cohabiting€with€and€beingÐ $ t Ðsupported€by€and€or€supporting€a€third€party€and,€as€a€result€of€the€cohabitation,€elimination€of€hisÐ  ` Ðalimony€payments€was€justified€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€36„5„105.׃ T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòóó€€In€addition,€Mr.€WoodallÐ ü L  Ðinsisted€that€additional€material€changes€of€circumstances€existed:€(1)€Ms.€Woodall€was€capable€ofÐ è 8  Ðgenerating€more€income€from€her€beauty€salon€and€(2)€less€alimony€was€needed€since€she€was€noÐ Ô$  Ðlonger€supporting€their€son.Ð À  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€òòóóordered€that€the€alimony€award€be€reduced€from€$1500Ð ˜è  Ðto€$1250€per€month.€€Mr.€Woodall€complains€the€trial€court€erred€by€only€reducing€the€alimony€byÐ „Ô  Ð$250.€€Ms.€Woodall€does€not€appeal€the€reduction.׃¤×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€its€final€order,€the€trial€court€considered€the€general€change€of€circumstances€first€and€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÐ H˜ Ðmade€the€following€findings:Ð 4„ ÐÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$ß#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôà8  àMr.€Woodall€has€failed€to€prove€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances.€Ð  \ ÐHis€own€financial€circumstances€have€not€changed€for€the€worse;€actually€his€yearlyÐ øH Ðincome€has€increased€substantially€and€he€earns€$36,000€to€$38,000€per€year.€€HeÐ ä4 Ðlives€with€a€girlfriend€who€earns€an€income€equal€to€his.€€Ms.€Woodall€testified€sheÐ Ð  Ðearns€approximately€$300€per€week;€the€same€now€as€when€the€divorce€was€granted.€Ð ¼  ÐMr.€Woodall€advances€two€circumstances€to€establish€a€substantial€and€materialÐ ¨ø Ðchange€of€circumstances;€that€Ms.€Woodall€lived€for€a€period€of€time€with€AubreyÐ ”ä ÐBishop€and€that€her€youngest€son€has€now€left€home.€€While€these€events€constituteÐ €Ð Ða€change€of€circumstance,€they€do€not€establish€a€substantial€and€material€change€ofÐ l¼ Ðcircumstance.€€Mr.€Bishop€provided€relatively€little€support€for€Ms.€Woodall€and€theÐ X ¨ Ðrelationship€had€ended€by€the€date€of€hearing.€€As€to€the€second€circumstance,€it€isÐ D!” Ðexpected€and€foreseeable€a€son€would€leave€home.€€Mr.€Woodall€also€argues€Ms.Ð ° ÐWoodall€has€not€reported€all€her€income€for€some€years,€including€many€years€duringÐ œì Ðthe€marriage.€€Even€if€Mr.€Woodall€is€correct€he€admits€he€knew€of€the€practice€at€theÐ ˆØ Ðtime€of€the€divorce,€therefore€it€was€foreseeable€such€would€continue.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€effect€of€the€cohabitation,€or€Mr.€Woodallððs€ð ðtheory€that€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„Ð L œ Ð101(a)(3)€applies€and€warrants€a€total€elimination€of€alimony,ðð€as€the€trial€court€phrased€it,€the€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðmade€the€following€findings:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àThe€proof€established€that€Ms.€Woodall€lived€with€Mr.€Bishop€from€October€of€2001Ð ü L  Ðuntil€June€of€2002.€€For€several€months,€thereafter€she€stayed€part„time€with€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐBishop€to€care€for€him€until€August€2002.€€Both€she€and€Mr.€Bishop€admitted€theÐ Ô$  Ðrelationship€was€first€an€intimate€one€but€became€a€ð ðnurse„patientðð€relationship€afterÐ À  Ðhe€was€diagnosed€with€cancer€in€May€of€2002.€€The€operation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„Ð ¬ü  Ð101(a)(3)€does€not€depend€on€a€liaison,€sexual€or€otherwise.€€The€effect€of€the€statuteÐ ˜è  Ðwas€to€change€the€method€of€getting€at€a€change€of€circumstances.€€Once€a€findingÐ „Ô  Ðis€made€that€the€alimony€recipient€is€living€with€someone€else,€the€burden€shifts€toÐ pÀ Ðthe€recipient€to€show€she€needs€the€amount€of€support€previously€awarded.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€court€went€on€to€hold€that€the€burden€had€shifted,€òòi.eóó.,€that€Ms.€Woodall€had€the€burdenÐ 4„ Ðto€prove€she€still€needed€the€amount€of€support€previously€awarded.€€The€court€found€the€list€ofÐ  p Ðexpenses€submitted€by€Ms.€Woodall€ð ðgrossly€inflatedðð׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and,€after€considering€the€ð ðcredible€evidenceÐ  \ Ðof€her€monthly€expenses,ðð€found€she€had€established€a€need€for€monthly€support€of€$1250€andÐ øH Ðreduced€Mr.€Woodallððs€alimony€obligation€accordingly.€Ð ä4 ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓI.€€Modification€of€Support€Awardó óóóÐ ¼  ÐÓ%ÓÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$h#Ôà  àModifications€of€alimony€may€be€granted€only€upon€a€showing€of€a€substantial€and€materialÐ ”ä Ðchange€in€circumstances€since€entry€of€the€original€support€order.€€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(a)(1);Ð €Ð ÐòòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727„28€(Tenn.€2001).€€In€order€to€be€material,€a€change€inÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€must€have€been€unforeseeable,€unanticipated,€or€not€within€the€contemplation€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðparties€at€the€time€of€the€decree.€€òòIdóó.€at€728;€òòElliot€v.€Elliotóó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€90€(Tenn.€Ct.€€App.Ð D!” Ð1991).€€To€be€considered€substantial,€the€change€must€significantly€affect€either€the€obligorððs€abilityÐ 0"€  Ðto€pay€or€the€obligeeððs€need€for€support.€€òòBoganóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€728;€òòBowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð563,€568€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àEven€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€does€not€automatically€result€in€aÐ à%0!$ Ðmodification.€€Modification€must€also€be€justified€under€the€factors€relevant€to€an€initial€award€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðalimony,€particularly€the€receiving€spouseððs€need€and€the€paying€spouseððs€ability€to€pay.€€òòBoganóó,€60Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.3d€at€730;€òòWrightóó,€83€S.W.3d€at€773.€€ð ðAs€evidenced€by€its€permissive€language,€the€statuteÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpermitting€modification€of€support€awards€contemplates€that€a€trial€court€has€no€duty€to€reduce€orÐ ° Ðterminate€an€award€merely€because€it€finds€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances.ðð€Ð œì ÐòòBoganóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€730.€€Where€there€has€been€such€a€change€of€circumstances,€the€ability€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðobligor€spouse€to€provide€support€must€be€given€equal€consideration€to€the€obligee€spouseððs€need.€Ð tÄ ÐòòIdóó.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àGenerally,€the€party€seeking€the€modification€bears€the€burden€of€proving€theÔ#†Xî$XXXî$W&#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô€modificationÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€warranted.€€òòAzbill€v.€Azbill,€óó661€S.W.2d€682,€686€(Tenn.€1983);òò€Wrightóó,€83€S.W.3d€at€772;€òòElliotóó,Ð $ t Ð825€S.W.2d€at€90.€€However,€the€legislature€has€identified€one€change€in€circumstances€that€willÐ  ` Ðtrigger€a€review€of€the€continued€need€for€alimony€and€that€shifts€the€evidentiary€burden.€€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$Í-#ÔTheÐ ü L  Ðrelevant€provision,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3),€sometimes€referred€to€as€the€cohabitationÐ è 8  Ðstatute,€òòóócreates€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€recipient€of€alimony€òòin€futuro€óówho€lives€with€a€thirdÐ Ô$  Ðperson€is€either€receiving€support€from€the€third€person€or€is€contributing€to€the€third€personððsÐ À  Ðsupport€and,€in€either€case,€no€longer€needs€the€previously€awarded€amount€of€alimony.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3),€cohabitation€does€not€automatically€end€the€rightÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€recipient€to€receive€alimony;€it€merely€shifts€the€evidentiary€burden€in€a€modificationÐ pÀ Ðproceedingòò.€€Isbell€v.€Isbellóó,€816€S.W.2d€735,€738€(Tenn.€1991);€òòWrightóó,€83€S.W.3d€at€775.€€OnceÐ \¬ Ðthe€presumption€arises,€the€alimony€recipient€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€a€need€for€theÐ H˜ Ðpreviously€awarded€alimony,€notwithstanding€the€cohabitation.€€òòAzbillóó,€661€S.W.2d€at€686;€òòWrightóó,Ð 4„ Ð83€S.W.3d€at€775.Ð  p ÐÌà  àOur€standard€of€review€for€a€modification€decision€has€been€explained€by€our€Supreme€Court:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àBecause€modification€of€a€spousal€support€award€is€ð ðfactually€driven€and€calls€for€aÐ Ð  Ðcareful€balancing€of€numerous€factors,ðð€òòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989),€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€modify€support€payments€is€givenÐ ¨ø Ðð ðwide€latitudeðð€within€its€range€of€discretion,€òòsee€Sannella€v.€Sannellaóó,€993€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð73,€76€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€In€particular,€the€question€of€ð ð[w]hether€there€has€beenÐ €Ð Ða€sufficient€showing€of€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€is€in€theÐ l¼ Ðsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòWatters€v.€Wattersóó,€22€S.W.3d€817,€821€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ ÐCt.€App.€1999)€(citations€omitted).€€Accordingly,€ð ð[a]ppellate€courts€are€generallyÐ D!” Ðdisinclined€to€second„guess€a€trial€judgeððs€spousal€support€decision€unless€it€is€notÐ 0"€  Ðsupported€by€the€evidence€or€is€contrary€to€the€public€policies€reflected€in€theÐ #l! Ðapplicable€statutes.ðð€€òòKinard€v.€Kinardóó,€986€S.W.2d€220,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);Ð $X" Ðòòsee€also€Goodman€v.€Goodmanóó,€8€S.W.3d€289,€293€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(ð ðAs€aÐ ô$D # Ðgeneral€matter,€we€are€disinclined€to€alter€a€trial€courtððs€spousal€support€decisionÐ à%0!$ Ðunless€the€court€manifestly€abused€its€discretionðð).€€When€the€trial€court€has€set€forthÐ Ì&"% Ðits€factual€findings€in€the€record,€we€will€presume€the€correctness€of€these€findingsÐ ¸'#& Ðso€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$Ôlong€as€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€them.€€See,€e.g.,€òòCrabtree€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐCrabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€360€(Tenn.€2000);€òòsee€also€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ð)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBoganóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€727.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Woodall€argues€that€Ms.€Woodall€significantly€contributed€to€Mr.€BishopððsÐ ° Ðsupport€and,€because€of€that,€her€right€to€alimony€should€be€eliminated€entirely.€€He€also€argues€thatÐ œì Ðsince€she€no€longer€has€expenses€related€to€their€son,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$;#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôher€alimony€should€be€reduced€accordingly.€Ð ˆØ ÐFinally,€he€argues€that€she€could€work€more€and/or€rent€a€chair€in€her€shop€(for€$150„$175€per€monthÐ tÄ Ðhe€estimates)€and€that€he€ð ðshould€not€be€punished€for€[her]€idleness.ðð€Ð `° ÐÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$Ö=#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÓ  Óò òòòII.€€Ô#†Xî$XàXî$4?#Ô€Change€of€CircumstancesÔ‡Xî$XàXî$ԀР8 ˆ ÐÌÓS?Óóóó óÔ#†Xî$XXXî$¥?#Ôà  àAs€stated€above,€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€must€be€something€thatÐ  ` Ðwas€unforeseeable€or€unanticipated€by€the€parties€at€the€time€of€divorce€and€must€affect€either€theÐ ü L  Ðobligor€spouseððs€ability€to€pay€or€the€obligee€spouseððs€need€for€support.Ô‡Xî$XXXî$Ôòò€€Bóóesides€Ms.€WoodallððsÐ è 8  Ðcohabitation€with€Mr.€Bishop,€Mr.€Woodall€alleges€two€other€changes€of€circumstances.òòò òÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àóóó óWith€regard€to€the€assertion€that€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$VA#ÔMs.€Woodallððs€discontinuation€of€support€of€the€partiesððÐ ¬ü  Ðyoungest€son€since€he€finished€college,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€sonððs€leaving€homeÐ ˜è  Ðfollowing€college€and€no€longer€needing€Ms.€Woodallððs€financial€support€was€not€unforeseeable€orÐ „Ô  Ðunanticipated€at€the€time€the€initial€award€of€alimony€was€set€in€1997€and€was,€therefore,€not€aÐ pÀ Ðmaterial€change€of€circumstances.€€We€affirm€that€holding.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€the€trial€court€found€Mr.€Woodallððs€argument€that€his€former€wife€couldÐ 4„ Ðimprove€her€financial€situation€by€simply€renting€chairs€in€her€beauty€salon€to€other€beauticiansÐ  p Ðfailed€to€establish€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances.€€Ms.€Woodall€explained€thatÐ  \ Ðit€is€difficult€to€find€the€right€person€to€work€in€the€salon€and€that€her€long€standing€renter€had€movedÐ øH Ðprior€to€the€divorce.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€she€occupied€the€salon€alone€and€was€limited,€dueÐ ä4 Ðto€her€medical€problems,€in€the€amount€of€time€she€could€spend€standing€and€cutting€hair.€€The€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourt€found€that€because€Ms.€Woodall€was€not€renting€chairs€in€the€salon€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,Ð ¼  Ðit€was€neither€unforeseeable€nor€unanticipated€that€she€would€continue€her€practice€of€working€alone.€Ð ¨ø ÐWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€Mr.€Woodall€failed€to€prove€a€substantial€and€material€changeÐ ”ä Ðof€circumstances€with€respect€to€the€way€Ms.€Woodall€chose€to€run€her€business.€€Ð €Ð ÐÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôò òòòÌóóó óà  àThus,€the€success€of€Mr.€Woodallððs€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$'I#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôallegations€that€a€substantial€and€material€change€ofÐ X ¨ Ðcircumstances€occurred€since€the€divorce€that€justified€elimination€or€reduction€of€his€alimonyÐ D!” Ðpayments€must€depend€on€the€cohabitation€statute€and€its€application€to€the€facts€of€this€case.Ð 0"€  ÐÐ  #l! Ðò òòòÓ  ÓIII.€Cohabitation€óóó óÐ ° ÐÓKÓÌà  àThere€is€no€dispute€that€Ms.€Woodall€lived€with€Mr.€Bishop€beginning€in€2001€but€ended€Ð ˆØ Ðthe€arrangement€shortly€after€her€former€husband€filed€his€petition€for€modification€of€alimony.Ô#†Xî$XXXî$¨I#Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ԀРtÄ ÐThere€is€also€no€dispute€that€when€Ms.€Woodall€first€moved€in€with€Mr.€Bishop,€their€relationshipÐ `° Ðwas€romantic€in€nature,€but€changed€to€one€of€caretaker/patient€following€Mr.€Bishopððs€cancerÐ L œ Ðdiagnosis€and€treatment.€€Indeed,€Mr.€Bishop€credits€Ms.€Woodall€as€saving€his€life€during€his€illnessÐ 8 ˆ Ðsince€he€had€no€family€to€care€for€him.€€As€the€trial€court€correctly€pointed€out,€the€nature€of€theÐ $ t Ðrelationship€is€irrelevant€to€the€statute.€€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$¬L#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3)€provides:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àÔ#†Xî$XXXî$O#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô(3)€In€all€cases€where€a€person€is€receiving€alimony€in€futuro€and€the€alimonyÐ è 8  Ðrecipient€lives€with€a€third€person,€a€rebuttable€presumption€is€thereby€raised€that:€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àÔ#†Xî$XXXî$ O#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô(A)€The€third€person€is€contributing€to€the€support€of€the€alimony€recipient€and€theÐ ¬ü  Ðalimony€recipient€therefore€does€not€need€the€amount€of€support€previously€awarded,Ð ˜è  Ðand€the€court€therefore€should€suspend€all€or€part€of€the€alimony€obligation€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðformer€spouse;€or€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àÔ#†Xî$XXXî$ÇP#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô(B)€The€third€person€is€receiving€support€from€the€alimony€recipient€and€the€alimonyÐ H˜ Ðrecipient€therefore€does€not€need€the€amount€of€alimony€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$€R#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôpreviously€awarded€and€theÐ 4„ Ðcourt€therefore€should€suspend€all€or€part€of€the€alimony€obligation€of€the€formerÐ  p Ðspouse.€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$cS#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$CT#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔThis€subdivision€(a)(3)€shall€in€no€way€be€construed€to€create€any€common„Ð  \ Ðlaw€marriage€obligation€as€to€third€parties.Ô#†Xî$XXXî$†T#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†Xî$XXXî$SU#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÌà  àBoth€Mr.€Bishop€and€Ms.€Woodall€testified€as€to€their€financial€arrangement.€€Ms.€WoodallÐ Ð  Ðmoved€out€of€a€rented€apartment€into€Mr.€Bishopððs€house.€€She€insisted€on€paying€her€way,€and€theyÐ ¼  Ðagreed€that€she€would€contribute€to€the€household€expenses€$500€per€month.€€She€paid€this€amountÐ ¨ø Ðin€cash,€giving€Mr.€Bishop€differing€amounts€on€a€weekly€basis.€€He€used€this€money€to€pay€utilitiesÐ ”ä Ðand€to€help€defray€other€household€expenses.€€Mr.€Bishop€never€gave€Ms.€Woodall€any€money€orÐ €Ð Ðhelped€her€in€any€way€financially.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€while€Ms.€Woodall€had€lived€with€Mr.€Bishop€in€the€past,€she€noÐ D!” Ðlonger€did€so.Ô#†Xî$XXXî$´U#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ô€€She€had€moved€out€of€Mr.€Bishopððs€house€and€rented€an€apartment,€for€which€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$ Y#ÔsheÐ 0"€  Ðpaid€$€450€in€rent,€with€utilities€averaging€$€50.€€Thus,€the€$500€per€month€she€paid€to€Mr.€BishopÐ #l! Ðappears€to€have€been€in€line€with€the€rents€and€expenses€paid€in€the€area.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWe€must€first€address€what€impact,€if€any,€the€cessation€of€the€cohabitation€has.€€Mr.€WoodallÐ à%0!$ Ðargues€that€since€Ms.€Woodall€lived€with€Mr.€Bishop€for€a€few€months,€Mr.€Woodall€should€beÐ Ì&"% Ðentirely€and€permanently€relieved€of€his€obligation€to€pay€alimony€that€was€ordered€at€the€dissolutionÐ ° Ðof€a€twenty„six€year€marriage.Ð œì ÐÌà  àWe€begin€by€holding€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÐ tÄ Ðthat€Ms.€Woodall€was€not€living€with€Mr.€Bishop€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€This€finding€isÐ `° Ðimportant€because€the€situation€that€existed€at€the€time€of€trial€must€be€considered€in€applying€theÐ L œ Ðstatute.€€That€is€because,€first,€the€statute€uses€the€present€tense,€ð ðIn€all€cases€where€a€person€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðreceiving€alimony€in€futuro€and€the€alimony€recipientò ò€livesó ó€with€a€third€person€.€.€.€.€€ðð€€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ÔTenn.€CodeÐ $ t ÐAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3)Ô#†Xî$XXXî$z^#Ô(emphasis€added).€€Second,€even€if€the€presumptions€of€support€and€lack€ofÐ  d Ðneed€arise€and€are€unrebutted,€the€courtððs€remedy€is€to€ð ðò òsuspendó ó€all€or€part€of€the€alimonyÐ  P  Ðobligation,ðð€not€terminate€the€alimony.€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3Ô#†Xî$XXXî$ù_#Ô)(A)€and€(B)€(emphasisÐ ð @  Ðadded).€€The€clear€implication€is€that€if€the€situation€justifying€suspension€ceases€to€exist,€theÐ Ü,  Ðalimony€recipient€may€seek€reinstatement€of€support€from€the€former€spouse.€òò€Seeóó€òòAzbillóó,€661€S.W.2dÐ È  Ðat€687€(ordering€suspension€of€alimony€payments€from€the€date€of€the€filing€of€the€modificationÐ ´  Ðpetition€ð ðuntil€such€time€as€a€change€of€circumstances€warrants€reinstatement€in€whole€or€in€partðð).€òòÐ  ð  ÐId.óó€at€687.Ð ŒÜ  ÐÌà  àThus,€a€cohabiting€alimony€recipient€whose€alimony€is€suspended€in€whole€or€in€part€on€theÐ d´ Ðbasis€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3)€could€later€seek€a€reinstatement€or€modification€basedÐ P  Ðon€changed€circumstances,€specifically€that€he€or€she€is€no€longer€living€with€a€third€person€and€isÐ <Œ Ðno€longer€receiving€any€support€from,€or€contributing€support€to,€that€person.€€We€can€see€noÐ (x Ðauthority€for,€and€no€purpose€to€be€served€by,€requiring€a€ruling€based€on€past€cohabitation€and€theÐ d Ðfiling€and€hearing€of€a€subsequent€request€for€reinstatement€when€cohabitation€ceases€before€the€trialÐ P Ðon€the€original€modification€petition.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€should,€as€did€the€court€herein,€consider€theÐ ì< Ðsituation€that€existed€at€trial.Ð Ø( ÐÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÌà  àEven€though€the€court€found€that€Ms.€Woodall€was€no€longer€living€with€Mr.€Bishop,€itÐ ° Ðnonetheless€determined€that€the€burden€had€shifted€to€Ms.€Woodall€to€prove€she€still€needed€theÐ œì Ðamount€of€alimony€originally€awarded.€€The€court€apparently€considered€her€expenses€at€the€time€ofÐ ˆØ Ðtrial,€not€during€the€cohabitation,€as€reflective€of€her€needs.€€This€procedure€is€inconsistent€with€theÐ tÄ Ðprovisions€of€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(3).Ð ` ° ÐÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$rf#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$ÔÐ 8"ˆ  Їà  àThe€statute€makes€clear€that€the€only€basis€for€an€examination€of€continuing€need€in€thisÐ ° Ðsituation€is€because€of€the€presumption€that€the€alimony€recipient€is€either€contributing€to€the€supportÐ œì Ðof€the€other€person€or€is€receiving€support€from€that€person€and€ð ðò òthereforeó óðð€no€longer€needs€theÐ ˆØ Ðamount€of€alimony€awarded.€€The€statute€requires€a€connection€between€the€presumptive€supportÐ xÈ Ðfrom€or€to€the€cohabitating€third€party€and€the€lack€of€need.€€No€such€connection€was€explicitly€foundÐ d´ Ðin€this€case.€€Further,€since€the€cohabitation€had€ended€by€the€time€of€the€trial,€the€wifeððs€current€needÐ P   Ðwas€not€put€at€issue€absent€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances.Ð < Œ ÐÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$Úh#Ôà  àWith€regard€to€the€time€Ms.€Woodall€lived€with€Mr.€Bishop,€the€trial€court€did€state€that€ð ðMr.Ð  d ÐBishop€provided€relatively€little€support€for€Ms.€Woodall.ðð€€That€finding€is€supported€by€theÐ  P  Ðevidence.€€On€appeal,€Mr.€Woodall€argues€that€Ms.€Woodall€contributed€to€the€support€of€Mr.Ð ì <  ÐBishop;€that€is,€that€her€$500€per€month€contribution€to€expenses€allowed€Mr.€Bishop€to€use€hisÐ Ø(  Ðmoney€for€other€things.Ô‡Xî$XXXî$Ô׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†Xî$XXXî$pn#Ô€€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ÔThe€trial€court€did€not€make€an€explicit€finding€that€Ms.€Woodall€wasÐ Ä  Ðcontributing€to€the€support€of€Mr.€Bishop€during€their€cohabitation.Ð °  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€before€us€is€less€than€convincing€either€way.€€However,€Ms.€Woodall€had€theÐ ˆØ  Ðburden€of€offering€proof€to€rebut€the€statutory€presumption.€€In€addition,€the€trial€courtððs€holding€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€burden€of€proof€had€shifted€to€Ms.€Woodall€to€prove€her€continued€need€implies€that€the€courtÐ `° Ðfound€that€the€presumption€had€not€been€overcome.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidenceÐ Lœ Ðpreponderates€against€that€implied€finding€or€that€Ms.€Woodall€overcame€the€presumption€that€herÐ 8ˆ Ðcontribution€to€the€household€expenses€contributed€to€the€support€of€Mr.€Bishop.€€He€owned€theÐ $t Ðhouse€they€lived€in,€and€no€proof€was€offered€to€show€that€the€$500€per€month€she€paid€him€wasÐ ` Ðoffset€by€additional€expenses€attributable€only€to€her.Ð üL ÐÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$o#Ôà  àEven€if€the€court€had€found€that€Ms.€Woodall€was€living€with€Mr.€Bishop€and€was€supportingÐ Ô$ Ðhim,€those€findings€would€have€merely€shifted€to€her€the€burden€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€sheÐ À Ðdid€not€need€the€amount€of€alimony€previously€awarded.€€Although€the€trial€court€based€its€decisionÐ ¬ü Ðon€her€continuing€need€on€post„cohabitation€circumstances,€there€was€similarity€between€the€amountÐ ˜è Ðshe€paid€Mr.€Bishop€monthly€and€the€amount€she€paid€in€rent€and€utilities€after€she€moved€out.€€TheÐ „Ô Ðamounts€were€essentially€equal.€€Ms.€Woodall€has€not€argued€that€her€expenses€were€significantly€Ð pÀ Ðdifferent€while€she€lived€with€Mr.€Bishop.׃ Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \ ¬ Ðâ âÐ H!˜ Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€Ms.€Woodall€had€a€continuing€need€for€alimony€to€supplement€herÐ ° Ðbeauty€salon€business€income€in€order€to€meet€her€expenses.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô‡Xî$XXXî$ÔBased€upon€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ œì Ðâ âof€fact,€which€we€find€are€supported€by€the€evidence€in€the€record,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€holdingÐ ˆØ Ðthat€Ms.€Woodall€was€in€need€of€continuing€alimony€payments.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ#†Xî$XXXî$ x#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€Ô#†Xî$XXXî$gy#ÔÔ‡Xî$XXXî$Ôin€declining€toÐ L œ Ðeliminate€or€reduce€further€the€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€While€we€have€questions€about€the€basis€for€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðprospective€reduction€ordered€by€the€court,€Ms.€Woodall€specifically€waived€any€objection€to€orÐ $ t Ðappeal€of€the€reduction.€€Consequently,€we€affirm€the€courtððs€judgment.Ð  ` ÐÔ#†Xî$XXXî$ÿy#ÔÌà@ÀÀ%ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Mr.€Woodallððs€petition€for€elimination€of€spousalÐ À  Ðsupport.€€òòóóCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Harry€Michael€Woodall.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE