WPC :?d!>)X-h!>J/_$Lثߢ71݅Y{ћii^gwȩ6~RytZ=maper7Xk݀ QM};Jpkbo_eG I w>b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN; =GEOO0Qb 0 Bww 0 D38 D-k 0K AS6 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0T+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+.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  RS$      1    _Boganretiredthreeweeksbeforehissixtiethbirthday;therefore,Iagreethathisdecisiontoretireshouldbe  subjecttothemajorityanalysis.Iconcurseparately,however,becausethereachofthemajorityholdingwillmakeit t difficult,ifnotimpossible,forthisCourttolaterrevisitthisissuetoavoidundulyburdeningolderworkers.  & RS$      2    _IftheageforSocialSecurityeligibilityweretobechangedinthefuture,Iwouldofcoursemodifymyanalysis  totakethatnewageintoaccount.  RS$      3    _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.).- -(|G2S$ !.8IEdd8         0   d(|3{$ !.8IEdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3{$ !.8IEdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8IEdd8     _   IE8)XXdd8@ NIEINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#IEN #Ԉ &   September5,2001Session L X)XIE   #IEXX)#RICHARDTHOMASBOGANv.DORISMAEBOGANX)XIE  J   @@ AppealfromtheCourtofAppeals,EasternSection  J ChanceryCourtforSullivanCounty  6 @@No.21988(T)JohnS._McLellan_ԀIII,Chancellor  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199800060SCR11CVFiledNovember8,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #IEX)#X)X.IEAdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,concurringanddissenting. x  8)XdXXd8  X)XXX)  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)XXX)#X)XXX)    Themajorityestablishestherulethataretirementdecisionmustbeobjectivelyreasonable t inorderforittoconstituteasubstantialandmaterialchangeuponwhichamodificationofsupport ` maybebased.Totheextentthemajorityholdsthatweshouldnotrequireanyspecificstandardfor L  showingthattheretirementwastakeningoodfaith,otherthantorequirethattheprimarypurpose 8!  oftheretirementcannotbetodefeatthesupportobligation,Iagree.Idiffer,however,withthe $"t! majoritypositionthatthose_obligors_Ԁwhohavereachedthefinalyearsoftheircareersshouldbear #`" theburdenofshowingthattheirretirementsatisfiesanyobjectivestandard.ThoughIdisagree, #L# obviously,withJusticeHoldersultimateconclusioninherdissent,Ishareherconcernsthatthe $8 $ majorityinquiryintoobjectivereasonablenessmaybetoo nebuloustopromoteconsistencyand %$!% fairnessamongthetrialcourtswhowillbeexpectedtoapplyit,atleastincasesinvolvingworkers &"& nearingtheendsoftheircareers#X)XXX)2 #X)XXX).Amongthefactorsthatmotivateanindividualtoretiremaybe '"'  considerationssointangible,emotional,personal,andintimatelysubjectivethatitwouldbe (#( impossibletoquantifythoseconsiderationsinanobjectiveanalysis.Thisisevenmorecertaintobe  trueastheindividualnearsthelongexpectedpromiseofretirement.     Inplaceofthe objectivelyreasonablestandard,Iwouldsubstitutea presumptively t reasonablestandardincasesinvolvingretirementdecisionsmadebythosepersonsover62years ` ofage.  #  2      ׀Underthisstandard,retirementdecisionsmadebypersonsoverage62wouldbepresumed L  reasonableinthealimonymodificationcontext,andtheburdenwouldbeonthe_obligee_Ԁtomakea 8  thresholdshowingthatthe_obligor_Ԁwasactinginbadfaithbyretiringsolelytodefeatpaymentof $ t alimony.Iemphasizethat,uponsuchathresholdshowing,thepresumptionofreasonablenesswould  ` berebutted,andbecausetheretirementdecisionconstitutesbutasinglepartofagreaterfabric,the  L  trialcourtwouldmoveontocompletetherestofthealimonymodificationanalysis.Throughthe  8  useofthis presumptivelyreasonablestandard,theretirementdecisionsofworkersnearingthe $  endsoftheircareers#X)XXX)#X)XXX)Ԁwouldnotbeundulyburdenedbybeingsubjectedto stricterscrutiny,whether   bywayofthemajority objectivelyreasonableanalysisorbyuseoftheninefactorsproposedin   JusticeHoldersdissent.     WhenthecaseundersubmissionwasbeforetheCourtofAppeals,JudgeSusano,writingin p dissent,properlyandthoughtfullynotedthat thereisnotoneiotaofproofthatBoganretiredin \ ordertoavoidhisobligationtopayalimonytohisformerspouse.Intheabsenceofsuchproof,our H inquiryshouldbelimitedtoBogansabilitytopay.TheSuperiorCourtofPennsylvaniareacheda 4 similarconclusioninCommonwealthexrel.Burnsv.Burns,331A.2d768(Pa.Super.Ct.1974).  p There,thecourtheldthatvoluntaryretirementwouldbeagroundforreductionofalimonyifnot  \ doneforthesolepurposeofreducingthefundsavailableforalimonypayments.Seeid.at770.The H courtstated, Iftheevidencedemonstratesthat[the_obligor_]retiredsolelytoextinguishorreduce 4 hisearningforthepurposeofavoidingsupportpayments...,thelowercourtwouldthenbe   justifiedinsettingasupportorderbasedonhispreretirementincome.Id.  #  3      ׀Iwouldapplythis   reasoninginTennesseecasesinvolving_obligors_Ԁoverage62.    BecauseIbelievethattheretirementofworkersnearingtheendsoftheircareers#X)XXX)k#X)XXX)Ԁshouldbe  presumedreasonableintheabsenceofproofbythe_obligee_Ԁthatthesolepurposeoftheretirement l wastoavoidthepaymentofalimony,Iamconstrainedtodissent.Beyondthegoodfaithinquiry, X  wehaveneithertherightnorthestandardbywhichtogaugewhethertheretirementofworkers D! nearingtheendsoftheircareers#X)XXX)#X)XXX)Ԁis objectivelyreasonable.Astandardofpresumptive 0"  _reasonablenesswouldavoidthisquandary.Additionally,itwouldfreetrialjudgesfromthecomplex  andunpleasanttaskoftellingapersonthathisorherbrightesthopeforthefuture,retirement,isnot  objectivelyreasonable.  #X)XXX) #   `     h     ___________________________________ 8     `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE