WPC {Rj3ZRRQu A;ǂok͚ˏZeW?-u%;Ɠu 0mwI8}]Y8qe`}m֣ |Oq5Rʞ"D_F|:mQM~U&tAæ"wU8-8b~03ߴPFyC:M..Ӝd4 > xkujN]d?Lzd/,\Xa=5I?*8,<6`"_GuӱNgDA %{/c9Ѽ6ĀtL0Ӻ`'ebרC T4m2D^Ysmܰk],9V*Ռn_<&"[Xny1!ψ+zu}#~1mP4p"+R+lwI1<#>LiKQ$Ñ@`Gd#!xU: % 0wa 4e y 0& U: 6 0D 1ub 0cUN, mz 72YNU:BU :U:K^  B 0 D5RRRRR AQ 0 0DBHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`zZ$TRY,3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T  {Z='x3|x((2+$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T   XXXX4ߐXX   0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular , $  X՝XXX4 XX՝   3    ThisisconsistentwiththepowertomodifyanawardofrehabilitativealimonyunderTenn.  CodeAnn. S   XX  S#X՝XX X"## XX՝A#Ԁ365101(d)(2)(1996).Thepowertomodifyremainsinthecourtscontrolforthe  durationoftheaward.(#$  0  ##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)   $  X՝XXX4 XX՝   1    AtthetimeoftheWaddeysdivorcein1982,onlytwotypesofalimonywererecognized,  alimonyinfuturoandalimonyinsolido.Rehabilitativealimonywasnotintroducedbythe  legislatureuntilthefollowingyearin1983.See1983Tenn.Pub.Actsch.414,1;Tenn.Code | Ann.36-820(d)(Supp.1983);Amosv.Amos,879S.W.2d856,857(Tenn.App.1994)(noting B :  generaloverhaulfortheawardofalimonyinthemid1980sandestablishingapreferencefor   temporaryrehabilitativesupportandmaintenanceratherthanlongtermsupport).    Becausetheintroductionofrehabilitativealimonyin1983wasasubstantivechangein : 2 divorcelaw,thatprovisionisnotapplicabletodivorcespriortothepassageoftheact.Doddv.   Dodd,737S.W.2d286,288(Tenn.App.1987);Haysv.Hays,709S.W.2d625,627(Tenn.App.    1986).(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (uH Z 6Times New Roman RegularU  $  X՝XXX4 XX՝   2    In1984thestatutewasamendedtoprovidespecificallythatthelongtermsupportwould  terminateuponthedeathorremarriageoftherecipient.1984Tenn.Pub.Actsch.818,13;  Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(Supp.1994). i),kAZ"Arial Regular 8 b]"   _XXXX XX   Ad FILEDXX   September7,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular%'  d(|3]$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T    )!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3]$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T   ($$   1  zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T   _Ԛ4     "*US \\ (:!&)*XXXX8  XXdd8 TR[A'Legal ManualX3' LetterA' Legal3' LetterT_@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  x`2.jz`  `@E ` 8ttxP  x@rr)DATNASHVILLE   <      D   FORPUBLICATION    <      D   Filed: 򀀀September6,1999T$T$MT$ TL  VIRGINIAGRAFWADDEY,@##/D)   @##/D) PETITIONER/APPELLANT,@##/D)  DAVIDSONCIRCUIT  @##/D)v.@##/D)  Hon.RobertE.Corlew,III,Judge VN @##/D)IRACLINTONWADDEY,JR.,@##/D)  No.01S019811CV00198 " @##/D) RESPONDENT/APPELLEE.@##/D)  FORAPPELLANT: <      D FORAPPELLEE: $  CLINTONL.KELLY     D ALBERTF.MOORE %" Hendersonville <      D Nashville &# @oo)D 5XXOPINION #XX5 #Ԉ d2\+0 COURTOFAPPEALSAFFIRMEDASMODIFIED  CT$HOLDER,J.  h8`16   XXXX@,D OPINION   #X՝XX X # Wegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetherapartyreceivingperiodic   alimonymayobtainamodificationorextensionofalimonywhen:1)a   terminationdatewasagreedtobythepartiesintheirpropertysettlement `X agreement;and2)thepetitiontomodifywasfiledaftertheterminationdatebut ,$  priortotheexpirationofthirtydays.Weholdthatthealimonywasnotmodifiable   afteroneofthecontingencieslistedinthepropertysettlementagreement   occurred.WeaffirmtheCourtofAppeals,butwebaseourdecisionuponother  grounds. \T     BACKGROUND   E Theparties,VirginiaGrafWaddeyandIraClintonWaddey,Jr.,were  grantedadivorceonSeptember2,1982,inDavidsonCountycircuitcourt.The d \ divorcedecreeratifiedandincorporatedinfullthepartiesChildCustodyand 0"( PropertySettlementAgreement.Thepropertysettlementagreementprovided #  asfollows: %" 8 Mr.WaddeyagreestopaytoMrs.Waddeyasperiodicalimonyin `)X"& futurothesumofOneThousand($1,000)Dollarspermonthwith F*>#' thefirstofsaidpaymentsbeingmadeonorbeforeSeptember10, ,+$$( 1982,andsubsequentpaymentsatmonthlyintervalsthereafter , %) untilthedeathofMrs.Waddey,theremarriageofMrs.Waddey,or ,%* March1,1996,whichevereventshallfirstoccur.-&+ ! ! 2Theagreementalsoprovided: v1n*/ 8 Further,eachofthesepartiesreserve[sic]therighttopetitionthe 5.3 Courtforpropermodificationofprovisionsremainingwithinthe 5.4 jurisdictionoftheCourtuponachangeofcircumstance.6/5 ! !   706  OnMarch29,1996,subsequenttothedateofterminationlistedinthe   propertysettlementagreement,Mrs.Waddeyfiledherpetitiontomodify.The  petitionrequestedthatMr.Waddeyberequiredtocontinuehismonthlyalimony   obligationintheamountof$1,000fortheremainderofMrs.Waddeyslifeor l d untilsheremarries.Mrs.Waddeyallegedinherpetitionthatmodificationwas 80 warrantedbecauseshewasdiagnosedwithbreastcancerinJuly1995,thatshe   hadundergonesurgeryandchemotherapy,andthatherabilitytoworkandearn   alivinghadbeendiminishedasaresultofhercondition.    ThetrialcourtfoundthatMrs.Waddeyspetitionformodificationwasnot 4, timelyfiled.Initsopinion,thecourtnotedthatspousalsupportwouldterminate  upontheoccurrenceofanyofthreecontingencieslistedinthedivorcedecree.  Oneofthosecontingencies,theterminationdateofMarch1,1996,hadpassed  beforethepetitionwasfiled.Asthetrialcourtexplained: d\ 8 withregardtoastateddate,...therecanbenoargumentthatthe ! occurrenceoftheeventarosesuddenly,orwasnotanticipated. " Specificallywithregardtoanorderprovidingforspousalsupport,it #  appearstotheCourtthatwhenthetermsofthatsupportorder $! havebeenmet,andthatunderthetermoftheorderacontingency %" hasarisenwhichterminatessupport,thatorderisnotsubjectto z&r# furthermodificationaftertheoccurrenceofthateventor `'X $ contingency.F(>!% ! !  Inaffirmingthetrialcourt,theCourtofAppealsfoundthatthe unique +$) wordingofthepropertysettlementagreementanddivorcedecree[created]a -&+ uniquestatusoflumpsumalimony[oralimonyinsolido]...."Thecourt v/n(- explainedthatthealimonywasconsidered periodicandchangeableorinfuturo B1:*/ whilesupportpaymentswerebeingmade.Afterthedateofthelastscheduled 3,1 payment,however,thealimonybecamelumpsumalimonyoralimonyin 4-3 solidoandatthatpointbecamenonmodifiable. 6/5  r8j17     ANALYSIS   @ DConvertingAlimonyinFuturotoAlimonyinSolido    Weshallfirstaddresswhethertheoccurrenceofacontingencyinan D< awardofalimonyinfuturoconvertstheinfuturoawardtoanawardofalimonyin   solido.  #  1      ׀Mr.Waddeyarguesthathewasoriginallyorderedtopayalimonyin   futuroandthattheCourtofAppealserredinconvertinganawardofalimonyin   futurotoanawardofalimonyinsolido.Weagree. tl  Whetheralimonyisinfuturoorinsolidoisdeterminedbyeitherthe   definitenessorindefinitenessofthesumofalimonyorderedtobepaidatthe  timeoftheaward.McKeev.McKee,655S.W.2d164,165(Tenn.App.1983).  Alimonyinsolidoisanawardofadefinitesumofalimony.Spaldingv.Spalding, ph 597S.W.2d739,741(Tenn.App.1980).Alimonyinsolidomaybepaidin < 4 installmentsprovidedthepaymentsareorderedoveradefiniteperiodoftime " andthesumofthealimonytobepaidisascertainablewhenawarded.Id. #  Alimonyinfuturo,however,lackssumcertaintyduetocontingenciesaffecting %" thetotalamountofalimonytobepaid.McKee,655S.W.2dat16566(holding l'd $ alimonywasinfuturowherehusbandwasorderedtopaythemortgagenoteuntil 8)0"& eitherthesonturnedtwentytwoorthehousewassold).Itisthereforeclearthat +#( thedurationofanawardofalimonyinfuturomaybeaffectedbycontingencies ,%* agreeduponbythepartiesorimposedbycourts. .', Ї Thecontinuedpaymentofalimonyinthecasenowbeforeuswassubject  tothreecontingencies:remarriage,death,orthepassageofMarch1,1996.  Thesecontingenciesaffectedthedurationofthealimony.Accordingly,thesum   ofthealimonypayabletoMrs.Waddeywasnotdeterminablewhenthealimony l d wasawarded.Themerehappeningofacontingencydoesnotconvertanaward 80 ofalimonyinfuturotoanawardofalimonyinsolido.Theawardofalimonyin   solidomustbeascertainablewhenordered,notyearslaterwhenacontingency   terminatestheaward.TheCourtofAppeals,therefore,erredinholdingthatthe   occurrenceofacontingencyconvertedanawardofalimonyinfuturotoanaward h` ofalimonyinsolido. 4,     ModificationoftheAward  + Awardsofalimonyinfuturoaresubjecttomodification.Tenn.CodeAnn. d\  XXXX՝#X՝XX X+#Ԁ36820X՝XXX՝(Supp.1982)#X՝XXX՝,#Ԁ(theforerunnertoTenn.CodeAnn. XXXX՝#X՝XX X,#Ԁ365101); 0 ( Spaldingv.Spalding,597S.W.2d739,741(Tenn.App.1980).Thestatutein "  effectwhenthepropertysettlementagreementwasexecutedbetweenthe #  partiesinthiscaseprovidedthatthetrialcourtmayorderalimony accordingto %" thenatureofthecaseandthecircumstancesoftheparties.Tenn.CodeAnn. x'p $  XXXX՝#X՝XX X.#ԁ36-820(a)(Supp.1982).ThisCourthaspreviouslyrecognizedthatTenn. D)<"& CodeAnn. XXXX՝#X՝XX X^/#Ԁ36820wascodified togivethetrialcourtelasticityofaction (+ $( necessarytomeettheequitiesofthecase.Rogersv.Rogers,795S.W.2d667,  -&* 668(Tenn.1990).Thiselasticityhasallowedtrialcourtstoapproveororderthat .', alimonywouldterminateonthedeathorremarriageoftherecipientoronthe 0). deathorremarriageoftheobligor.  #  2      ׀SeeLigonv.Ligon,556S.W.2d763,767 p2h+0 (Tenn.App.1977)(appellatecourtimposedterminatingcontingenciesbased <44-2 uponremarriageandcontinuedminorityofparties'children);seegenerally  Connorsv.Connors,594S.W.2d672,673(Tenn.1980)(terminating  contingencieswereincludedinpropertysettlementagreement);Brayv.Bray,   631S.W.2d136,138(Tenn.App.1981)(recognizingthatcourtshaveauthority l d toorderterminationofalimonyuponremarriageofwife).Thesameelasticity 80 permitstheinclusionofaspecificterminationdateinapropertysettlement   agreement.    Theissuenowbeforeusiswhetheratrialcourtmaymodifyanalimonyin h` futuroobligationwhich,bythetermsoftheparties'agreement,hasalready 4, terminated.X՝XXX՝Theappellantarguesthatatrialcourthasthecontinuingstatutory  authoritytomodifyalimonyinfuturoobligations.Herargumentispremised  primarilyuponthedecisionsinThomasv.Thomas,330S.W.2d583(Tenn.App.  1959),andAndersonv.Anderson,810S.W.2d153(Tenn.App.1991).Her d\ reliance,however,onbothThomasandAndersonismisplaced. 0 (  InThomas,thepartieshadenteredapropertysettlementagreementthat #  requiredMr.ThomastopaysupportuntilAugust18,1963.Mrs.Thomasfileda %" petitionrequestingthatthetrialcourtextendthealimonybeyondtheAugust18, `'X $ 1963terminationdate.Mrs.Thomas'petition,however,wasfiledapproximately ,)$"& fiveyearspriortotheAugust18,1963terminationdate#X՝XXX՝5#X՝XXX՝.Thetrialcourtgranted *#( Mrs.Thomas'request.TheCourtofAppealsheldthatthetrialcourtretained ,%* controlofthesupportagreementbutthatthedecisiontoextendthesupport .', periodfiveyearspriortoitsterminationwaspremature#X՝XXX՝9#X՝XXX՝ԀsinceMrs.Thomas \0T). situationmightchange.330S.W.2dat586.Andersoninvolvedawifespetition (2 +0 toincreasealimonyafteradivorcedecreeindicatedshewouldnotseekany 3,2 increases.810S.W.2dat154. 5.4  706  TheappellantarguesthatbothThomasandAndersonsupportthe  propositionthatatrialcourthasthecontinuingauthoritytomodifyasupport  agreementafterthedateofterminationsetforthintheagreement.Inboth   cases,however,thepetitionersattemptedtomodifythesupportobligationswhile l d obligationswereinforceor"ongoing."Inthecasenowbeforeus,thesupport 80 obligationhadalreadyterminatedbyagreement.Moreover,thecourtin   Thomasspecificallyreservedtheissueofwhetheralimony"canorshouldbe   continued"aftertheterminationdatelistedintheagreement,statingthatthe   issue"isreservedandwearenottobeunderstoodasexpressinganyopinionon h` thatquestion."330S.W.2dat586#X՝XXX՝J;#X՝XXX՝.#X՝XXX՝@#X՝XXX՝Ԁ#X՝XXX՝@# 4,  WhilethisissueisoneoffirstimpressioninTennessee,onestatehas  addressedthisissuedirectly.InX՝XXX՝Ethridgev.Ethridge,604S.W.2d789(Mo.App.  1980),thecourt#X՝XXX՝A#heldthattheauthoritytomodifyanawardofalimonycoincides d\ withtheexistenceofthesupport.Asinthiscase,Ethridgeinvolvedanawardof 0 ( spousalsupportthatterminatedupontheoccurrenceofacontinency.Afterthe ! contingencyoccurred,Ms.Ethridgepetitionedthecourttomodifytheawardof #  support.Theintermediateappellatecourtheld, Themaintenanceprovisionsof %" thedecreewerefullyexecutedandthecourthadnopowerunderappellants `'X $ motiontomodifytoreinstitutethepaymentofmaintenance.Id.at791. ,)$"&  Otherjurisdictionshaveconsideredtheissueofthecourtspowerto ,%* modifyasupportawardinthecontextofanawardforafixedtermestablishedat .', thetimeofthedecree.Inthosecaseswhereadefiniteperiodofsupportis \0T). establishedattheoutset,courtshavereachedtheconclusionthatoncetheterm (2 +0 forthesupporthasexpired,courtslosepowertomodifythataward.   #  3      ׀Mercerv. 3,2 Mercer,641P.2d1003,1005(Idaho1982)( Atrialcourt...iswithoutpowerto  modifyanalimonyawardbeyondthedurationofthetimefixedbytheoriginal  decreeforpaymentofalimonyprovidedthatthosepaymentshavebeenmade   andtherehasbeennoappealfromthefinaldecreewhichdeclaredthe l d obligationsandfixeditslimitedduration.);Eckertv.Eckert,216N.W.2d837 80 (Minn.1974)(Whenatrialcourtterminatestheobligationtopayalimonyitis   withoutpowertoreinstatealimonyunlessthatauthorityisreserved.);Welkev.   Welke,288N.W.2d41,42(Neb.1980)(Sincetheentireamountofalimonyhad   accruedpriortothepetitionformodification,theoriginaldecreecouldnotbe h` modified.);Parkv.Park,602P.2d1123,1124(Or.Ct.App.1979)( [T]hesupport 4, requirementsmaybemodifiedsolongasthedutytosupportexistsbutnot  thereafter.);Brownv.Brown,507P.2d157,158(Wash.Ct.App.1973)( A  provisionofalimonydoesnotgiveoneaperpetuallienonthefutureearningsof  aformerspouse.);Harshfieldv.Harshfield,842P.2d535,539(Wyo.1992)(A d\ trialcourtmaynotmodifyafixedtermawardofalimonyafterfullpaymentunless 0 ( thedivorcedecreespecifiesso;otherwise, thefinalityofdivorcewouldbe ! illusory.). #   Inreachingthisconclusioncourtsreasonedthatifanoriginaldecree `'X $ providedfornosupport,supportcouldnotbeaddedatalatertime. ,)$"& SeeEthridge,604S.W.2dat790;seealsoMercer,641P.2dat1004;Eckert *#( 216N.W.2dat840;Park,602P.2dat1124.AsthecourtexplainedinEckert: ,%* 0   T$ T$ 8 Therationalefor[that]rule...isthattherecanbenomodification v/n(- ofsomethingthatneverexisted,andthebasisfortheruleherein \0T). announcedissimilarlythattherecannotbemodificationof B1:*/ somethingthathasceasedtoexist.(2 +0 ! ! PӀ 3,1 Eckert,216N.W.2dat840.Wefindthisreasoningpersuasive.Weholdthata 4-3 trialcourt'sabilitytomodifyanawardofalimonyinfuturoterminatesuponthe 6/5 occurrenceofacontingencywhentheawardceasestoexist.X՝XXX՝ r8j17 #X՝XXX՝S# Inthecasenowbeforeus,Mrs.Waddeywasawardedalimonyinfuturo.  X՝XXX՝B#X՝XXX՝yT#X՝XXX՝othpartiesagreedtothestructureofthealimonyaward,includingthe   contingencieslimitingtheaward.#X՝XXX՝T#ԀSeveralyearslater,acontingencysetforthin l d theoriginaldecreeoccurredandterminatedthealimony.Thetrialcourt'sability 80 tomodifyMs.Waddey'sawardterminatedonthedatethatthecontingency   occurredinthiscase.Accordingly,X՝XXX՝weholdthatthetrialcourtwaswithout   authoritytomodifytheawardaftertheoccurrenceofthecontingency.    Lastly,Mrs.Waddeyarguesthatshehadthirtydaysfollowingthe 4, terminationofsupportwithinwhichtoseekamodificationofthealimonyaward.  Althoughshedoesnotciteaspecificruleinsupportofherposition,sherefersto  rulesthatrelate#X՝XXX՝V#X՝XXX՝tothestayingandappealingoffinaljudgments.Theoccurrence  ofthecontingencyterminatingsupportinthiscasewasnota"finaljudgment" d\ subjecttotheprovisionsofTenn.R.Civ.P.62.01andTenn.R.App.P.3(a)and 0 ( (4).Thetimetoperfectanappealfromtheoriginaldecreeorderingalimonyin ! futurohadexpired,andneitherpartychosetoappealthedecree.#X՝XXX՝X#X՝XXX՝ԀThe #  appellant'scontentionisdevoidofmerit.#X՝XXX՝Z# %"     CONCLUSION  ,)$"& [ X՝XXX՝Weholdthattheoccurrenceofacontingencyterminatingsupportdidnot ,%* converttheawardofalimonyinfuturotoanawardofalimonyinsolidoandthat#X՝XXX՝[#X՝XXX՝ .', thetrialcourtwaswithoutauthoritytomodifytheawardaftertheoccurrenceof h0`). thecontingency.ThedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingthetrialcourtis 42,+0 affirmedasmodified.#X՝XXX՝\#ԀThecostsofthisappealshallbetaxedagainstthe 4,2 appellantforwhichexecutionshallissueifnecessary. 5.4  706 Ї   <      D T$T$MT$   <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE    Concurring:  R J Anderson,C.J. $  Drowota,Birch,andBarker,J.J.