WPC 1# UN % 0(4EYh 0lp 0Dw@ ` 0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0d AQg B 0D 0@ 0DY D/ U> B D3' B)Z DC AM U* = Q@v~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($n~<$)i)3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0   DDDeӀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 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 !"#%C<< C d(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ''' dxd<  9p`(&Times New RomanP Pd 'dxd% Line 7 d))))7Border 1dd "*C << G<  9p`(Arial !&  !"  ,,   YYY FILED,X June17,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.,AppellateCourtClerk  G !&   $       Rule10(CourtofAppeals). (b)MemorandumOpinion .TheCourt,withconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinion,itshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva ! . &  \RA'\ 򛜛 @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,@ ATJACKSON @ _________________________________________________________________` ` pX CONSTANCEANNEYANCE,  ) GibsonCountyChanceryCourt ) No.11522̀Respondent/Appellee. )  ) C.A.No.02A019710CH00275VS. )  ) Hon.GeorgeR.Ellis,Chancellor  R+-*A1-j|Q`  `@RߛJERRYLEEYANCE,  )  ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED ̀Petitioner/Appellant. ) ) OPINIONFILED: JeffreyA.Smith, Trenton,Tennessee,forPetitioner/Appellant. RobertKinton, Trenton,Tennessee,forRespondent/Appellee.______________________________________________________________________________@ MEMORANDUMOPINION .   ______________________________________________________________________________  FARMER,J.  ` ` X  ConstanceAnnYanceandJerryLeeYanceweredivorcedbydecreeenteredJune30,1995.Mr.Yancewasorderedtopayalimonyintheamountof$75perweekuntilthedeathorremarriageofMs.Yance. Mr.YancesubsequentlyfiledapetitiontosuspendalimonypursuanttoT.C.A.365101(a)(3)(A)whichprovidesasfollows:8  Inallcaseswhereapersonisreceivingalimonyinfuturoandthealimonyrecipientliveswithathirdperson,arebuttablepresumptionistherebyraisedthat:8  (A)Thethirdpersoniscontributingtothesupportofthealimonyrecipientandthealimonyrecipientthereforedoesnotneedtheamountofsupportpreviouslyawarded,andthecourtthereforeshouldsuspendallorpartofthealimonyobligationoftheformerspouse; ThepetitiontosuspendalimonyallegesthatMs.YancewasresidingattheformermaritalresidencewithMr.DavidLovellandthatheissupportingher.Ms.YancerespondedthatMr.Lovellwasnotsupportingherinanyway,thatshewasgainfullyemployedandduetotheclosingofherformeremployer,BrownShoeCompany,shelostnotonlyherjobbutinsurancebenefitsandwascurrentlyworkingparttimewithearningsofapproximately$300permonthandwasreliantuponthe$75perweekalimonypaymentstomeetherlivingexpenses. Attheconclusionofthehearing,thechancellorruledMr.YancehadmethisburdenofestablishingthestatutorypresumptionbutthatMs.YancehadrebuttedthepresumptionandMr.Yanceappeals.ThesoleissueaspresentedonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatMs.Yancehadrebuttedthestatutorypresumptioninfindingthatshestillneededthealimonypreviouslyawardedinthedivorcedecree. Onceithasbeenestablishedthatthealimonyrecipientislivingwithathirdperson,apresumptionisraisedthatthethirdpersoniscontributingtothesupportofthealimonyrecipientandthattherecipientthereforedoesnotneedtheamountofsupportpreviouslyawarded.Thepresumptionisrebuttable.Mr.YanceprovedtothetrialcourtssatisfactionthatMs.Yanceliveswithathirdpersonandthatfindingisnotcontestedonappeal.Hearguesthatitdefieslogicthatamanandwomancouldlivetogetherandnotcontributetoeachotherssupport.Hefurthercontendsthatherincomeisexceededbyherexpenses,thusleadingtotheinescapableconclusionthatMr.Lovellmustbecontributingtohersupport. Itisourdutytoreviewtheevidence denovo anddeterminewhetherornottheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Therecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindings.Rule13(d)T.R.A.P. BothMs.YanceandMr.Lovelltestifiedthatneithercontributestothesupportoftheotherandtheyeachmanagetheirownmoney.Ms.YancetestifiedthatsheiscurrentlyemployedatFamilyDollarStore,works40hoursperweekandrecentlyreceivedanincreasefrom$4.75perhourto$5.15perhour.Thiswouldresultinaweeklygrossof$206.Heraffidavitofincome,includingalimony,andexpensesrevealsanegativefigureofapproximately$350permonth.Shetestifiedthatshehasbeenmeetingtheshortfallbyusingmoneyfromherretirementfundfromherpreviousemployerandsavings.Shehadalsoreceivedapproximately$40,000fromhermothersestate.Thisevidenceisessentiallyunrefuted. Ms.Yancefurthertestifiedthatshestillsuffersfromthesamephysicalconditionwhichshesufferedatthetimeshewasawardedalimonyinthedivorcedecree.Shedescribedthisconditionaschronicurticaria.Shehasbeenunderadoctorscarefornineyearsandtakessteroidsinordertobeabletofunctionandtowork.Shetestifiedthatitwasstillnecessaryforhertoreceivethisamountofalimonyinordertotrytomakeendsmeet. Mr.YancecontendsthattheonlytestimonypresentedtorebutthestatutorypresumptionwasthatofMs.YanceandMr.Lovell.Itisapparentfromthetrialcourtsrulingthathefoundtheretestimonytobecredible.Thetrialcourt,havingtheopportunitytoobservethemanneranddemeanorofthewitnesses,isinabetterpositiontodeterminecredibility. Azbillv.Azbill ,661S.W.2d682,685(Tenn.App.1983). Havingreviewedthisrecord,wehavedeterminedthatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisthatMr.LovellisnotcontributingtothesupportofMs.Yanceandthatshecontinuestoneedtheamountofsupportpreviouslyawarded. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecostofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      ____________________________________      FARMER,J.______________________________HIGHERS,J.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)