WPC1 ?*UȻ$7O!6PBSY|94`WsD֨k`#|# !UY5Z'{?V{%3Q_Aa$?;{mbKco$W:<){ݴ;wj9IC0gM6^ ۺrvC.e,!?IRYR>Zy*Fĥ?nj=X{IJ g>XΑxOM Bma6RrUIBՏJ'8 QzeIƉ2Ȭx?)єL[`\c5YrjTp#SH%gX02>L7xJKvD[(gDlZE 4Yl'?p7:o٦npk HwIŴE ]·{UL*:&P*C5s6[&O b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN; =GEOQ0#####################b&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 0.... B 06 D3 D-  0K:: AS 0 0DB AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0h+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularWF]+.bk8 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(I Z6Times New Roman Regular  R$      1    _Boganretiredthreeweeksbeforehissixtiethbirthday;therefore,Iagreethathisdecisiontoretireshouldbe  subjecttothemajorityanalysis.Iconcurseparately,however,becausethereachofthemajorityholdingwillmakeit t difficult,ifnotimpossible,forthisCourttolaterrevisitthisissuetoavoidundulyburdeningolderworkers.  R$      2    _Majorityop.at___n.___. & R$      3    _IftheageforSocialSecurityeligibilityweretobechangedinthefuture,Iwouldofcoursemodifymyanalysis  totakethatnewageintoaccount.  R$      4    _Othercourtshavefollowedacomparableanalysis.SeeInreSinks,204Cal.App.3d586,588(Cal.Ct.App.  1983)( Weconcludethatthetrialcourtfound[theobligors]retirementwasmotivatedbyhisdesiretoavoidpaying t spousalsupport,and,therefore,therefusaltoterminatesupportwasnotanabuseofdiscretion.);Misinonilev. 8 Misinonile,645A.2d1024,1027(Conn.App.Ct.1994)( Ourreviewoftherecorddisclosesnobasisforafindingthat L thedefendantretiredforthepurposeofavoidingorreducinghisobligation....Onthebasisofthesefacts,weconclude  thatthefindingofthecourt,thattherewasasubstantialchangeofcircumstances,wasneitherunreasonablenor  constitutedanabuseofdiscretion.).- -(|G2$ !.8C dd8         0   d(|3r$ !.8C dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$ !.8C dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8C dd8     _   C 8 1XXdd8@ NC INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#C N #Ԉ &   September5,2001Session L X 1XC    #C XX 1#RICHARDTHOMASBOGANv.DORISMAEBOGANX 1XC   J   @@ AppealfromtheCourtofAppeals,EasternSection  J ChanceryCourtforSullivanCounty  6 @@No.21988(T)JohnS._McLellan_ԀIII,Chancellor  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199800060SCR11CVFiledNovember8,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #C X 1#X 1X.C _Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,concurringanddissenting. x  8 1XdXXd8  X 1XXX 1  Iwriteseparatelyinthiscasetoaddressasingleissueofparamountsignificancehere:the P decisiontoretireandjusthowmuchscrutinyitshouldreceiveinthefactualcontextofthecaseunder < submission.Assuredly,Iconcurintheresultreachedbythemajority,whichreinstatesthetrial (x courtsreductionofBoganssupportobligation.Idisagree,however,withthebreadthofthe d reasoningusedtoreachthatresult.Inmyview,thedecisiontoretire,particularlyamongworkers P nearingtheendsoftheircareers,ispersonal,private,andnearlysacrosanct.Thus,Iamcompelled < toclarifythatIwouldlimitthemajorityanalysistothosecasesinvolving_obligors_Ԁwhohavenotyet ( reachedtheageforSocialSecurityeligibility,presentlyage62.Incasesinvolving_obligors_Ԁwho  decidetoretireafterage62,Iwouldnotsubjecttheretirementdecisiontotheanalysisembracedby  themajority.  #  1      #X 1XXX 1#X 1XXX 1    Themajorityestablishestherulethataretirementdecisionmustbeobjectivelyreasonable t inorderforittoconstituteasubstantialandmaterialchangeuponwhichamodificationofsupport ` maybebased.Totheextentthemajorityholdsthat [_w]e_Ԁshouldnotrequireanyspecificstandard L  forshowingthattheretirementwastakeningoodfaith,otherthantorequirethattheprimary 8!  purposeoftheretirementcannotbetodefeatthesupportobligation,  #  2      ׀Iagree.Idiffer,however, $"t! withthemajoritypositionthatthose_obligors_Ԁwhohavereachedthefinalyearsoftheircareersshould #`" beartheburdenofshowingthattheirretirementsatisfiesanyobjectivestandard.ThoughIdisagree, #L# obviously,withJusticeHoldersultimateconclusioninherdissent,Ishareherconcernsthatthe $8 $ majorityinquiryintoobjectivereasonablenessmaybetoo nebuloustopromoteconsistencyand %$!% fairnessamongthetrialcourtswhowillbeexpectedtoapplyit,atleastincasesinvolvingworkers &"& nearingtheendsoftheircareers#X 1XXX 12 #X 1XXX 1.Amongthefactorsthatmotivateanindividualtoretiremaybe '"'g _considerationssointangible,emotional,personal,andintimatelysubjectivethatitwouldbe  impossibletoquantifythoseconsiderationsinanobjectiveanalysis.Thisisevenmorecertaintobe  trueastheindividualnearsthelongexpectedpromiseofretirement.    Inplaceofthe objectivelyreasonablestandard,Iwouldsubstitutea presumptively ` reasonablestandardincasesinvolvingretirementdecisionsmadebythosepersonsover62years L  ofage.  #  3      ׀Underthisstandard,retirementdecisionsmadebypersonsoverage62wouldbepresumed 8  reasonableinthealimonymodificationcontext,andtheburdenwouldbeontheobligeetomakea $ t thresholdshowingthattheobligorwasactinginbadfaithbyretiringsolelytodefeatpaymentof  ` alimony.Iemphasizethat,uponsuchathresholdshowing,thepresumptionofreasonablenesswould  L  berebutted,andbecausetheretirementdecisionconstitutesbutasinglepartofagreaterfabric,the  8  trialcourtwouldmoveontocompletetherestofthealimonymodificationanalysis.Throughthe $  useofthis presumptivelyreasonablestandard,theretirementdecisionsofworkersnearingthe   endsoftheircareers#X 1XXX 1#X 1XXX 1Ԁwouldnotbeundulyburdenedbybeingsubjectedto stricterscrutiny,whether   bywayofthemajority objectivelyreasonableanalysisorbyuseoftheninefactorsproposedin   JusticeHoldersdissent.     WhenthecaseundersubmissionwasbeforetheCourtofAppeals,JudgeSusano,writingin \ dissent,properlyandthoughtfullynotedthat thereisnotoneiotaofproofthatBoganretiredin H ordertoavoidhisobligationtopayalimonytohisformerspouse.Intheabsenceofsuchproof,our 4 inquiryshouldbelimitedtoBogansabilitytopay.TheSuperiorCourtofPennsylvaniareacheda  p similarconclusioninCommonwealthexrel.Burnsv.Burns,331A.2d768(Pa.Super.Ct.1974).  \ There,thecourtheldthatvoluntaryretirementwouldbeagroundforreductionofalimonyifnot H doneforthesolepurposeofreducingthefundsavailableforalimonypayments.Seeid.at770.The 4 courtstated, Iftheevidencedemonstratesthat[theobligor]retiredsolelytoextinguishorreduce   hisearningforthepurposeofavoidingsupportpayments...,thelowercourtwouldthenbe   justifiedinsettingasupportorderbasedonhispreretirementincome.Id.  #  4      ׀Iwouldapplythis  reasoninginTennesseecasesinvolvingobligorsoverage62.    BecauseIbelievethattheretirementofworkersnearingtheendsoftheircareers#X 1XXX 1#X 1XXX 1Ԁshouldbe l presumedreasonableintheabsenceofproofbytheobligeethatthesolepurposeoftheretirement X  wastoavoidthepaymentofalimony,Iamconstrainedtodissent.Beyondthegoodfaithinquiry, D! wehaveneithertherightnorthestandardbywhichtogaugewhethertheretirementofworkers 0"  nearingtheendsoftheircareers#X 1XXX 1#X 1XXX 1Ԁis objectivelyreasonable.Astandardofpresumptive  reasonablenesswouldavoidthisquandary.Additionally,itwouldfreetrialjudgesfromthecomplex  andunpleasanttaskoftellingapersonthathisorherbrightesthopeforthefuture,retirement,isnot  objectivelyreasonable. t #X 1XXX 1 #   `     h     ___________________________________ $ t    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE