ÿWPC³ éHCq2Ù·‹báp㶓{­ÈÖ°ÿü¶5@¡‰Ä—1fFpó½(µr>Èe™\0¼$†-¯úWbzO¥Š¯uËjOPˆ›7µ‘vN¨·†”ÆK«5Ó84»‚}‘,Ã¥š°qºY0{ˆÂUk_DËçò~ê~:í%€µB~¡¨Çç<ò‘Îc¥é»e7T~ØåÅ4ÎÏ‚éé08LRÒ‘%L&¼.1ìh?_¹÷j¦œ\[ŠÿVë­|õ„m(ÒeCOµK@O÷|¤94÷—TÀ^âf‡žþ/…ˆ2¨Ò;Cæ¹ørzÔm'æÏ´¤ ä¦&Ñ<¥R•–ÔnU éy(ß ¸¬ÁñÄ…MtH¤”7…­@õé×9¸Ó> šv­Ñ戻x2æüb¨ cB “™o.= }ãªÍɷꥨD¸ÚypðP˜©LrpŽŸ—®‘ÛÑ/гëð†–|®²“‡»z€¿pfm·%R²Ï$LÿÆ3ª¢Ÿ5õN«Vƒ_*ïü®'î¼û6û³ªAdl!¥.OiŽ\û—4ßæ ñ·Öþ¼7ÝJiM=ÔrõŒm"ªLv¾’€P‘‚Dœ&²²åø$´sàÓ±´ühúø]ÀAaIÏ`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  .* X b` :h ¢ 0P¥ U:õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ AQ/ Æ€ 0DF F 0DŠ Š D/Î Bý B D37 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0Dj j j j j j j j j A® D?- BGl˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¹º»¼½D¾D¿DÀÁÓ€ËÕcl&tttttt3|xËwaiverspousal- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XéXXXÔÔ€&XXéÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XéX&ÔÐ  ÐÌMarch€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼ 8¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑÓ'€Ð‡XÚè“X°œX'ÓœñËññËññËññÁñœñÁñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñËññÁññÁñLINDA›€TRUEBLOOD€STURDIVANT,à Ú à)Ð ° ÐñËññËñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà Ú à)ÌÓ9€ü(‚XÚ2ðX€Ð‡XÚè“X9ÓñËñœßt€ )>.*jxÿ` `€€@EuÓ` 8ttxP­ ð È tß›ñËñà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  àà Ú à)à 2 àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà  àà Ú à)à 2 à01„A„01„9804„CH„00198Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà  àà Ú à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà  àà Ú à)à 2 àWilliamson€ChanceryÐ  P ÐROBERT€WILLS€STURDIVANT,€JR.,à Ú à)à 2 àNo.€23395Ð  ` Ðà Ø àà  àà Ú à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à  àà Ú à)à 2 àÐ 0 € Ðà Ø àà  àÌÌÌÔ#†X¦X¼¼ 88#ÔÔ‡»Œ;»XX¦ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ pÀ  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€CHANCELLORÌÓ<°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚XÚ2ðX<ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓROBERT€TODD€JACKSONÌJackson€Law€OfficeÌ222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€419ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201ÌÔ#†X¦X»»Œ;<#ÔÔ‡¼ 8¼XX¦Ôà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÐ °&"  ÐÌÌÌÌÌM.€T.€TAYLOR,€JR.Ì339€Main€StreetÌFranklin,€Tennessee€€37064Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌAND€REMANDEDÌÌÓ  ÓÌñÁñÑ foÑÑ7€¦XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñÁñÌñÁñÑ foÑÑ7€¦XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÁñà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:063Q ÐÑ foÑÑ7€¦XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÁñÑ foÑÑ7€†gXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÁñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X¦X¼¼ 8F#ÔÔ‡°‘N°XX¦ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X¦X°°‘Në #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼ 8¼XX¦Ôà  àThis€is€an€appeal€from€a€divorce€decree€in€which€the€only€issue€raisedÐ T¤ Ðby€the€appellant€œhusband€is›€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€granting€permanentÏalimony,€rather€than€rehabilitative€œalimony.€€ñ¼ñIn€addition,€tñ¼ññ½ñTñ½ñhe›€œappellee€wife›€seeksÏattorney€fees€relative€to€the€œappeal.€€While€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€courtÏto€grant€permanent€alimony,€we€vacate€the€amount€set€by€the€trial€court€for€reasonsÏwhich€follow.›ÌÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€œdivorce,›€the€parties€had€been€married€for€seventeenÏyears€and€had€two€minor€children,€ages€fourteen€and€ten.€€Appellant,€Robert€W.ÏSturdivant,€œJr.›€œ("the€Husband"),€was›€49€years€of€age€and€Appellee,€LindaÏTrueblood€œSturdivant›€œ("the€Wife"),€was›€48€years€of€œage.€€The›€parties€stipulated€asÏto€many€of€the€issues€before€the€trial€œcourt,›€and€these€stipulations€reflected€by€theÏtrial€œcourt's›€œñ¿ñ"ñ¿ñinterim›€œorderñ¾ñ"ñ¾ñ›€entered€February€12,€1998€œare€as€follows:›ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€ü(€ z è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà8  à1.à z àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„129€the€wife€is€granted€anÐ  \ Ðabsolute€divorce€from€the€husband€on€grounds€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à2.à z àCustody€of€the€two€minor€children€of€the€parties€isÐ < Œ Ðawarded€to€Wife.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à3.à z àVisitation€scheduled€for€Husband.Ð\"¬! Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à4.à z àChild€support€is€set€at€$1,330€per€month€consistentÐ l#¼" Ðwith€Tennessee€Child€Support€Guidelines.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à5.à z àHusband€must€provide€Wife€with€copies€of€his€taxÐ Œ%Ü $ Ðreturns€and€wage€statements€and€has€an€affirmative€duty€toÏnotify€the€wife€in€writing€should€he€receive€as€much€as€a€15%Ïincrease€in€his€income.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à6.à z àHusband€will€not€allow€anyone€with€whom€he€isÐ Ì)%( Ðromantically€involved€to€spend€the€night€with€him€duringÏchild€visitation.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à7.à z àHusband€will€not€use€tobacco€or€wood€burningÐ ü,L(+ Ðfireplace€nor€consume€alcoholic€beverages€in€the€presence€ofÏthe€children€nor€shall€he€allow€the€minor€children€on€theÏhouseboat€or€to€go€swimming€without€additional€adultÏsupervision.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à8.à z àHusband€shall€provide€health€insurance€for€the€benefitÐ L2œ-0 Ðof€the€minor€children€and€pay€all€medical,€dental€andÏorthodontic€expenses€not€covered€by€insurance.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à9.à z àHusband€shall€keep€in€effect€a€$200,000€life€insuranceÐ |5Ì03 Ðpolicy€with€Wife€as€irrevocable€beneficiary€for€the€use€andÏbenefit€of€the€minor€children€during€the€minority€of€theÏchildren.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à10.à z àEach€party€will€receive€all€items€of€householdÐ ¼9 57 Ðfurnishings€and€other€personal€property€presently€in€theirÏrespective€possession.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à11.à z àWife€shall€receive€$10,325€as€her€interest€in€a€worker'sÐ Ð  Ðcompensation€settlement€for€Husband's€previous€injury.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à12.à z àHusband€will€pay€one„half€of€college€tuition,€room€andÐ ð@ Ðboard€for€the€minor€children€at€a€university€comparable€to€theÏUniversity€of€Georgia€at€Athens.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à13.à z àWife€receives€$28,193.50€judgment€against€HusbandÐ  p Ðfor€alimony€and€child€support€arrearages€under€pendente€liteÏorder.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à14.à z àWife€is€awarded€judgment€for€$2,309.73€againstÐ P   ÐHusband€for€unpaid€medical€expenses€under€pendente€liteÏorder.€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àAll€other€matters€were€reserved.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àOn€February€26,€1998,€œthe›€trial€court€adopted€the€marital€propertyÏdivision€proposed€by€the€œHusband,€and€entered€a€judgment€for€permanent€alimonyÏin€the€amount€of€$2,000€per€month€and€required€each€party€to€pay€their€ownÏattorney€fees€and€one„half€each€of€the€court€costs.€€The€Husband's€motion€to€alterÏor€amend€was€denied€and€he€has€appealed.ÌÌà  àSince€the€Husband€questions€only€the€award€of€permanent€alimony€theÏscope€of€the€appeal€is€quite€limited.€€In€addressing€this€question€this€court€hasÏheld:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà z àThere€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€determining€theÏextent€of€a€person's€obligation€to€support€a€former€spouse.€ÏòòStone€v.€Stoneóó,€56€Tenn.App.€607,€615„16,€409€S.W.2d€388,Ð °&"% Ð392„93€(1966);€òòWalden€v.€Waldenóó,€13€Tenn.App.€337,€344Ð À'#& Ð(1930).€€The€decision€is€factually€driven€and€calls€for€a€carefulÏbalancing€of€numerous€factors,€including€those€listed€inÏTenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€(Supp.1988).€€Accordingly,Ïappellate€courts€give€wide€latitude€to€a€trial€court's€alimonyÏand€maintenance€decisions.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà z àHowever,€spousal€support€decisions€are€subject€toÏappellate€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€Thus,€inÏorder€for€a€support€decision€to€be€upheld,€it€must€be€basedÏupon€the€proper€application€of€the€relevant€legal€principlesÏand€upon€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€.€.€.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà z àAn€award€for€spousal€support€cannot€be€modifiedÏunless€there€has€been€a€substantial€change€in€circumstancesÏsince€the€entry€of€the€previous€support€decree.€€òòSeal€v.€Sealóó,Ð 5à03 Ð726€S.W.2d€934,€935€(Tenn.Ct.App.1986);€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,Ð  6ð14 Ð659€S.W.2d€23,€24€(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).€€However,€once€aÏchange€has€been€shown€to€exist,€the€courts€should€weigh€theÏsame€factors€that€were€considered€in€making€the€originalÐ Ð9 57 Ðsupport€award.€€òòThreadgill€v.€Threadgillóó,€740€S.W.2d€419,Ð ° Ð422„23€(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà z àWhile€Tenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€authorizes€theÏcourts€to€consider€many€factors,€the€real€need€of€the€spouseÏseeking€the€support€is€the€single€most€important€factor.€ÏòòLancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671€S.W.2d€501,€503€(Tenn.Ct.App.Ð  P Ð1984).€€In€addition€to€the€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse,Ïthe€courts€most€often€consider€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouseÏto€provide€support.€€òòFisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244,€246„47Ð 0 € Ð(Tenn.1983);€òòBarker€v.€Barkeróó,€671€S.W.2d€843,€847Ð @  Ð(Tenn.Ct.App.€1984);€òòAleshire€v.€Aleshireóó,€642€S.W.2d€729,Ð P   Ð733€(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌòòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.App.1989)€(footnote€omitted).Ð €Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àAs€to€the€needs€of€the€Wife,€the€evidence€establishes€that€she€is€theÏalmost€exclusive€care€giver€for€the€parties'€two€minor€children.€€She€resides€withÏthe€children€in€Rome,€Georgia€and€is€employed€at€a€retail€store€earningÏapproximately€$6.00€per€hour€with€an€average€work€week€of€twenty€hours.€€SheÏhas€an€associates€degree€in€secretarial€science€dating€back€to€1971.€€She€suffersÏfrom€Crohn's€Disease€which€is€an€inflammatory€bowel€disease€for€which€there€isÏno€cure€and€which€is€very€debilitating.€€She€was€diagnosed€with€Crohn's€DiseaseÏin€1972€and€following€proctocolectomy€and€ileostomy€surgery€she€is€now€requiredÏto€use€an€ostomy€appliance.€€This€device€which€must€be€worn€at€all€times€must€beÏemptied€five€to€six€times€a€day€in€a€manner€that€is€difficult€and€embarrassing.€€InÏaddition,€the€wife€has€a€non„repairable€stomach€hernia€which€is€quite€painful€andÏwhile€not€altogether€disabled,€she€is€doing€about€the€best€she€can€to€be€at€least,€toÏsome€degree,€self„supporting.€€The€evidence€certainly€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€implicit€finding€of€the€trial€judge€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible.€€"InÏthis€state,€there€is€a€recognized€preference€for€rehabilitative€alimony.€€However,Ïwhen€the€court€finds€that€rehabilitative€alimony€is€not€feasible,€we€may€grantÏalimony€in€futuro."€€òòLong€v.€Longóó,€957€S.W.2d€825,€830€(Tenn.App.1997).Ð ¸/+1 ÐÌà  àTurning€to€the€husband's€ability€to€pay€the€amount€of€permanent€alimonyÏawarded€in€the€trial€court,€we€look€to€the€conditions€existing€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce€decree.€€These€parties€enjoyed€a€fairly€high€standard€of€living€in€theÏBrentwood€area€prior€to€the€serious€injury€of€Mr.€Sturdivant€in€a€plane€crash€inÏFebruary€1993.€€Thereafter,€he€suffered€from€depression€and€the€after€effects€ofÐ H9˜4= Ðhis€accident.€€The€parties€separated,€and€on€August€30,€1995,€an€agreed€pendenteÏlite€order€was€entered€whereby€the€Husband€would€pay€the€sum€of€$1,502€perÏmonth€as€child€support€and€$2,000€per€month€as€alimony€pendente€lite.€€At€thatÏtime€the€Husband,€although€disabled,€was€drawing€a€salary€of€$6,500€per€monthÏfrom€his€work€at€United€Healthcare€Corporation.€€Through€no€fault€of€his€own,€hisÏposition€with€United€Healthcare€Corporation€was€eliminated€effective€July€31,Ï1996.€€His€income€was€reduced€rather€dramatically,€at€least€on€a€temporary€basis,Ïwhen€he€accepted€employment€at€Asset€Investment€Manager.€€His€income€forÏ1997€was€$48,311.65,€and€his€anticipated€income€for€calendar€1998€wasÏapproximately€$64,000.€€His€contract€of€employment€with€Asset€InvestmentÏManager€had€a€ceiling€income€of€$125,000€per€annum€and€he€ventured€at€theÏdivorce€hearing€of€January€30,€1998€that€he€"would€like€to€think€in€a€year€or€two"Ïthat€he€would€be€earning€closer€to€$125,000€to€$150,000.€€Thus,€at€the€time€of€theÏtrial€court€memorandum€of€decisionñÀñ,ñÀñ€February€26,€1998,€Mr.€Sturdivant€wasÏbringing€home€between€$4,200€and€$4,400€net€per€month.€€By€this€memorandumÏfrom€which€he€appeals,€he€was€paying€$2,000€per€month€as€permanent€alimonyÏand€$1,300€per€month€in€child€support€which€effectively€represented€more€thanÏ75%€of€his€net€income.ÌÌà  àWe€hold€that€based€upon€the€record€as€it€appears€before€this€court€theÏHusband,€on€February€28,€1998,€simply€did€not€have€the€ability€to€pay€the€$2,000Ïper€month€in€permanent€alimony.€€While€we€agree€with€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€that€permanent€alimony€is€justified€in€this€case€rather€thanÏrehabilitative€alimony,€we€vacate€the€award€of€$2,000€per€month€in€permanentÏalimony€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€On€remandÏthe€trial€court€may€take€into€consideration€both€the€conditions€existing€FebruaryÏ26,€1998€and€conditions€existing€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€on€remand.€€In€essence,Ïthe€Husband€was€in€a€transition€stage€at€the€time€of€the€February€26,€1998€orderÏand€it€may€well€be€that€his€hopes€for€future€income€have€been€realized€and€theÏamount€of€permanent€alimony€should€be€set€accordingly.ÌÌà  àWe€thus€affirm€the€grant€of€permanent€alimony€but€vacate€the€amountÏthereof€for€reasons€set€forth€herein.€€On€remand€the€trial€court€is€free€to€addressÏanew€the€ability€of€the€Husband€to€pay€based€on€circumstances€developed€sinceÐ H9˜4B Ðthe€entry€of€the€February€26,€1998€decree.€€The€application€of€the€Wife€forÏattorney€fees€on€appeal€is€denied€and€costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÏHusband.ÌÌÌÌÓ€ÓÓ?€ü(€ z À@’X€ü(€ z è“X?Óà  àà z àà À à_________________________________________Ìà  àà z àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRñ·ñEñ·ñLñ¸ññ¶ñ4Eñ¶ññ¸ñLñ¹ñ,€P.J.,€Mñ¹ññºñ.ñºññ¹ñSñ¹ññ»ñ.ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEñ»ñ