WPC Hx&LJC\FcR- /bF] #QJDGh}ƉR/bp!2zfq9Ѻsd7wI@~M Ѭ[[Rbqv:ʓ]-?GkQ0-FW I"c:AnG2jZ#b#\ % ^ # 0/ U)N w 4 z  i x mz z  W   UNNU@9EAA 0DCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCb 0 Bzz 0 D3; D-n 0K AS9 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0h+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularWF]+.bk8 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(I Z6Times New Roman Regular(I Z(Times New Roman  (#$  0  - -(|G2Z$ !.8DdXXd8         0   d(|3 K$ !.8DdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 K$ !.8DdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _   D8YXXdd8@ Q4DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#DQ4 #Ԉ &   September5,2001Session L XYXD #DXXY#RICHARDTHOMASBOGANv.DORISMAEBOGANXYXD  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,EasternSection  J ChanceryCourtforSullivanCounty(_Blountville_)  6 @@No.21988JohnS._McLellan_ԀIII,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199800060SCR11CVFiledNovember8,_2001_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     #DXYf#XYX.DJaniceM.Holder,J.,dissenting. P 8YXdXXd8    ThemajorityholdsthatMr.Bogansabilitytoprovidesupporthasbeensignificantlyreduced (x basedsolelyuponaunilateral,voluntarydecisiontoretire.IfMr.Bogancurrentlyisunabletopay d Ms.Boganthealimonyshewasawardedatthetimeofthedivorce,itisonlybecauseMr.Bogan P becamedissatisfiedwithhisjobandvoluntarilydecidedtoleave.Hisemploymentwasnot < terminatedorindangeroftermination.Mr.Bogandecidedtoretiredespitehisexistingobligation ( tohisformerwife.IthereforecannotagreewiththemajoritysdecisiontoreduceMs.Bogans  alimonyandmustrespectfullydissent.    Themajorityholdsthatan_obligor_sretirementconstitutesasubstantialandmaterialchange  simplyiftheretirementis objectivelyreasonable.Nofactorsforconsiderationareprovidedto t guideourtrialcourtsindeterminingwhetheragivenretirementis objectivelyreasonable.Based ` uponthemajoritysanalysisofthecircumstancesinthiscase,however,itisapparentthatonlytwo L  factorshavebeenconsidered!the_obligor_smotiveinretiringandthe_obligor_sageatthetimeof 8!  retirement.BecauseMr.Bogansretirementwasnotmotivatedtoavoidhisalimonyobligationand $"t! becauseMr.Bogansagewas notnecessarilysoyoungastobeunreasonable,themajorityholds #`" thatMr.Bogansretirementwas objectivelyreasonable.Iquestionwhetheranyonewouldretire #L# solelytoavoidanalimonyobligation.Evenifthe_obligor_Ԁretireeweresomotivated,thesubjective $8 $ intentwouldbenearlyimpossibletoprove.Theresultofthemajoritysstandardisthata %$!% presumptionofasubstantialandmaterialchangeiscreatedforretirement,regardlessofthefinancial &"& positionsoftheparties. '"'   Theonlyotherfactorconsideredbythemajoritytodetermine objectivereasonablenessis )$) theageoftheretiree.Themajorityfails,however,toprovideanymeaningfulguidancetothetrial p*%* courtsindeterminingwhatareasonableageforretirementmightbe.Accordingtothemajority,it \+&+ isapparentlyreasonableforafiftynineyearoldmaningoodhealthtoretireduetojob H,', dissatisfactionregardlessofhisformerspousesobviousfinancialneed.Applyingthemajoritys 4-(- _holdingtofuturecases,itishardtoconceiveofafactsituationunderwhichretirementwouldnot  constituteasubstantialandmaterialchange.    ThemajorityopinesthatMr.Bogansretirementis somewhatofanentitlement.Inhis t dissent,JusticeBirchgoessofarastosaythatthedecisiontoretireis nearlysacrosanct.Idisagree ` withbothstatements.Retirementisaprivilegeenjoyedbythoseinafinancialpositiontoaffordit. L  AlthoughIrecognizetherightofeachindividualtopursuehappinessandtomakereasonable 8  employmentdecisions,thisrightmustbebalancedagainsttheneedforsupportandmaintenance. $ t Mr.Bogans entitlementtoretirementshouldbegivennogreaterweightthanMs.Bogans  `  entitlementtoamodeststandardofliving.  L    UnderTennesseelaw,analimonyawardmaybemodifiedifthepartyseekingmodification $  canprovethattherehasbeenasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstancessincetheentryof   thejudgmentofdivorce.Tenn.CodeAnn.36-5-101(a)(1);see,e.g.,Brewerv.Brewer,869   S.W.2d928,935(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Themajorityrecognizesthatachangeincircumstancesis   consideredtobesubstantialandmaterialonlyifitsignificantlyaffectseithertheobligorsabilityto   payortheobligeesneedforsupport.SeeBowmanv.Bowman,836S.W.2d563,568(Tenn.Ct. p App.1991).Initsownanalysis,however,themajorityfailstoconsiderneedandabilitytopayin \ reachingitsconclusionthatMr.Bogansretirementamountstoasubstantialandmaterialchangein H circumstances. 4   XYXXXYInTennessee,thetwomostimportantfactorsindecidingissuesofspousalsupportare#XYXXXYw#XYXXXYthe  \ needofthepartyreceivingsupportandtheabilityoftheobligortopay.#XYXXXY#XYXXXYԀBurlewv.Burlew,40 H S.W.3d465,472(Tenn.2001)#XYXXXY#XYXXXY.Abilitytopayisnotbaseduponactualincome,buttheearning 4 capacityoftheobligor.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.36-5-101(d)(1)(A)(statutegoverningalimonyrefers   tothepartiesrelativeearningcapacities);Storeyv.Storey,835S.W.2d593,596-97(Tenn.Ct.App.   1992)(alimonyawardedbaseduponearningcapacityinsteadofactualincome).Inthiscase,there  isnoevidencethatMr.Bogansearningcapacitydecreased,onlythathisactualincomedecreased  uponretirement.#XYXXXYC#XYXXXYInfact,Mr.Boganssalaryhadincreasedto$8,375permonthbeforehis  retirement.#XYXXXY#XYXXXYԀInothercasesinvolvingtheobligorsvoluntary#XYXXXY#XYXXXYreductionofincome,Tennesseecourts l haverefusedtoreducetheinitialawardofalimony.See,e.g.,Wattersv.Watters,22S.W.3d817, X  823(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).#XYXXXY#XYXXXYԀ D!   Iwouldfavoralessnebulousmethodfordeterminingwhetheranobligorsdecisiontoretire #l! constitutes#XYXXXY( #XYXXXYasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstanceswarrantingmodificationofanalimony $X" obligation#XYXXXY !#XYXXXY.Thefollowingfactorscouldbeconsideredbythetrialcourtinreachingitsdetermination: $D # #XYXXXY!#XYXXXY1)#XYXXXY|"#XYXXXYtheobligorsageandhealth;2)theobligorsfieldofemployment;3)thenormalageofretirement %0!$ forthoseinthatfield;4)theagewhentheobligorbecameeligibleforretirement;5)theobligors &"% motivesinretiring,includinganypressurestoretireappliedbytheobligorsemployer;6)theability '#& oftheobligortomaintainsupportpaymentsfollowingretirement;7)theobligeesleveloffinancial (#' independence;8)#XYXXXY"#XYXXXYԀtheopportunityoftheobligeetopreparetoliveonreducedsupport;and9)any )$( otherrelevantfactoraffectingtheobligorsdecisiontoretire#XYXXXY %#XYXXXYԀandthepartiesrespectivefinancial |*%) positions#XYXXXY%#XYXXXY.#XYXXXY&#XYXXXYԀSeeMisinonilev.Misinonile,645A.2d1024,1026-27(Conn.App.Ct.1994)#XYXXXY&#XYXXXY;Rahnv. h+&* Rahn,768So.2d1102,1105(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000)#XYXXXY\'#XYXXXY;Deeganv.Deegan,603A.2d542,546(N.J.  Super.Ct.App.Div.1992)#XYXXXY'#XYXXXY.#XYXXXY(#XYXXXYԀThesefactorstakeintoconsiderationthecircumstancessurroundingthe  obligorsretirement,includingthetouchstonefactorsofneedandabilitytopay.    ThemajorityacknowledgesthatMs.Boganstillhasfinancialneed.Infact,themajority ` acknowledgesthatMs.Bogansmonthlyincomewithoutalimonyisapproximately$1,614.75less L  thanthatneededtocoverhercurrentmonthlyexpenses.#XYXXXY(#XYXXXYMs.Boganisunabletosupportherself 8  withouttheoriginal awardofalimonyinfuturo.Cf.Crabtreev.Crabtree,16S.W.3d356,359 $ t (Tenn.2000)( [A]limonyinfuturoshouldbeawardedonlywhenthetrialcourtfindsthateconomic  ` rehabilitationisnotfeasibleandlong-termsupportisnecessary.)(quotingSelfv.Self,861S.W.2d  L  360,361(Tenn.1993))#XYXXXY+#XYXXXY.Ithereforefinditappallingthatthemajoritywouldapproveofadecrease  8  inhermonthlyalimonyfrom$2,300to$945.ThisreductionwillservetoimpoverishMs.Bogan, $  whileMr.Bogansstandardoflivingwillremainlargelyunaffected.Evenwithoutfurtherincreases   inhermonthlyexpenses,Ms.Boganwillexperienceashortfallof$8,000peryear.Iquestion   whetherMs.BoganwillreceiveanycomfortfromthefactthatamajorityofthisCourthaspermitted   heralimonytobeslashedbecausethemajorityhasheldthattheretirementwas objectively   reasonableand #XYXXXY--#takeningoodfaithandwithoutintenttodefeatthesupportobligationXYXXXY. p   Thisisasimplecase.Ms.Boganhasaneedforfurtherfinancialsupport,andMr.Boganstill H hastheabilitytoprovidethatsupport.Iwouldreversethetrialcourtsjudgmentmodifyingthe 4 alimonyawardinthiscaseandreinstatetheoriginal#XYXXXY0#XYXXXYalimonyawardtoMs.Boganof$2,300per  p monthasprovidedinthepartiesdivorcedecree#XYXXXY 2#XYXXXY.#XYXXXY2#  \    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE