### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Jul y 13, 200 5 S es sio n NA NC Y F AY E LES TERMC DA NIEL , v. HA ROL D E DWA RD MC DA NIEL

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Washin gton County No. 28587 Hon. G. Richard Johnson , Chancellor

No. E2004-02996-COA- R3-CV - F ILED AUGU ST 16, 2005

Th e T r i a l C o u r th e l d ap p e l l a n t ’ s r e t i r e m e n tw a s n o ta m a t e r i a l c h a n g e o f

c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o a s to enable appellant to re duce his a limonypayments. On appe al, we r ever se.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined. John P. Ch ile s, Ki ng sp ort, T e nn e sse e , a ndTh oma s F

. B loo m, N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or app e lla nt. Gene H. Tunnell, King sport, Tenne ssee, f or appe llee.

OP IN ION

I n this action t h e appellant a sked the Trial Court to reduce his periodic alimony pay me nts of $7 50 .0 0 ev e ry tw o we e ks to ap pe lle e , on the g ro un ds that he ha d r e tir e d a ndhis inc ome had been s u b s t anti ally

reduc ed. The Trial Court re fused to find a chang e of c ircumstance s, and order ed the e x isting periodic alimony pay ments continued. Appellant has a

ppeale d, insisti n g that under the authority of Bogan v. Bogan , 60 S.W .3d 721 (Tenn. 2001), he established a material chang e of circ umstances whic h would allow a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e a m o u n to f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t h a th e w a s r e q u i r e d t o p a y. The parties wer e divorce d in Septe mber of 1993, and since that time the appellant ha s faithfully paid the alimony

payments require d to appellee

.-2- I n April of 2003, appe llant retired f rom his job at Artica G raphics. He wa s a fe w months shyof hi s 62 birthday and wa s bey ond the company ’s minimum age for r etireme nt. 2002 nd was the last full y ear appellant worke d for his e mploy er, and his total compensation for that y ear was $43,591.60. I n t h e y ea r o f appellant’s retire ment, his total compensation from the e mploy er w as $13,631.76. Following appellant’ s retire ment and at the t i m e o f t rial, appe llant was re ceiving $1,24 0

. 0 0 per month in social sec urity benef it pay ments and at the time of his re tirement fr om Artica , he re ceive d a lump sum in the amount o f ap p ro x i m ately $156,000.00, which has be en invested, and it wa s anticipated that the investments would earn $3,000.00 or more pe r y ear .

At tr ia l, a pp e llant su bm itt e d in c ome a nde xpe ns e state me nts re fl e c tin g mon thl y e xpe ns e s o f $ 2, 30 0. 00 , $ 1, 50 0. 00 a lim on y a nd$8 50 .7 5 o f hou se ho ld expe ns e s. He lis te d h is i nc ome at $1,240.00. Ap pe lle e fi le d h e r i nc ome a nde xpe ns e state me nt, wh ic h s ho ws a mon thl y inc ome of $2,198.00, $1,625.00 alimony and $573.00 of social se curity (her share of her

former husband’s social sec urity

benef its). Her state ment ref

lects monthly

expenses of $2,021.65.
I n the hu sb a nd ’s app lic a tio n fo r r e du c e d a lim on y pa y me nts , h e e sse nti a lly

g a ve a s a ba sis , h is h e a lthpr ob le ms, a ndhis ina bil ity to d o h is w or

k, wh ic h ne c e ssi ta te d his re tir e me nt. Mo st of the e vidence at the trial revolve s around this c laim. A t the conclusion of the pr oof, the Trial Court sa id a s to thi s r e a so n f

or re tir e me nt: The Court finds that this s ubjective, these subjective stateme nts on the part of the movant ar e inadequate. The y do not rise to the level of a pre ponderance of

the evidence. This C ourt would have certainly appre ciated a

health ca re pr ovider or a no the r e xpe rt re la tin g that, in fa c t, the mov a nt do e s ha ve c a tara c ts a nd , in fa c t, the se cata rac ts prevent him from doing his previous job and, in fact, these c atar acts pre vent h i mfr o mwo rk i n g. The Trial Cou rt fo und appellant’ s subjective testimony not to be cre dible on his health condition, and we defe r to the Trial J udg e on this finding

. Howeve r, under Bogan this circumstance is not the complete a naly sis. I n Bogan , 60 S.W .3d 725, the Supreme Court he ld:

That a bona fide retire ment need only be objectively rea sonable under the totalityof the c ir c ums ta nc e s to c on sti tut e a su bs ta nti a l a ndma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums ta nc e s. The Bogan Cou rt

we nt o n to ou tli ne the a na ly sis to d e te rm ine wh e the r a re tir e me nt w a s o bje c tiv e ly rea sonable. The Court instructed the Tria l Court to de termine whether the re tirement wa s motivated to esca pe spousal support oblig ations; whether the employ er ha d encour ag ed the e mploy ee to r etire, e.g ., if the employ er w as downsizing; whethe r the e mploy ee w as dissatisfied w i t h his or her job; whether the e mp lo y e e w a s e li g ib le to r e ti r e a n d r e c e iv e f u ll b e n e f it s ; an d f in a ll y w h e th e r the e mpl oy e e ha d r e a c he d r e tir e me nt a g e , w hic h th e Cou rt qua lif ie d b y sa y ing that e arl y

re tir e me nts would not nece ssarily

be unre asonable on the fa cts of the g iven ca se.-3- I n th is case ou r r e vie w i s de novo w ith a p r e s u mp ti o n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s o f

th e T r ia l Cou rt ’s fi nd ing of fa c t, un le ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s a g a ins t th os e fi nd ing s. Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 13(d).
Th e re c or d d oe s n ot s up po rt a fi nd ing that app e lla nt r e tir e d to e scape pay ing his support obligations. The rec ord does not esta blish that the employ er e ncoura g ed appe llant to retire, but the rec ord does establish that the number of employ ees a

t the plant wher e appe llant worked ha d decr ease d signific antly

afte r appe llant’s retire ment. Whil e the employ ee te stified he wa s dissatisfied wi th h i s j o b a n d u n ab l e t o d o i t p r o p e r l y , t h e T ri a l C o u r t f o u n d a g a i n s t h i m o n t h is i ssu e . A s to elig ibilit y to retire, the appellan t wa s ful ly elig ible to retire w hen he r etired, a nd was just a fe w months short of a traditional re tirement ag e whe n he off icially retire d. Whil e we are constraine d to ag ree with the Trial Court that appellant’s hea lth did not e sta bli sh a n o bje c tiv e ly

re a so na ble ba sis fo r r e tir e me nt, we are of the op ini on that “ un de r the tot a lit y of the c ircumstance s” appe llant’s retire ment was “ objectively rea sonable”

. As to appellant’s a

bilityto p aythe periodic alimony previously

order ed, the Trial Court found the appe llant’s testimonyas to his financia l condition n o t to be cr edible. The Court explained: Upon questioning the movant stated that the differ ence in w hat he made and what he

was pay ing out wa s cover ed by his present wife , but t h o s e numbers do not add up. I f y ou take he r income and his inc ome, it’s still not enoug h to pay what he say s . . . the mon thl y bil ls tim e s 2, a nd pay the a lim on y . . . . T his Cou rt fi nd s f ro m th e tot a lit y of the re cord that, in fact, the movant has the financ ial ability to pay the order ed, the a g re e d s um o f s po us a l su pp ort.
I n Bowman v. Bowman , 8 3 6 S. W. 2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 7 ( T e n n . Ct

. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , w e s a idthat c re dib ili ty is a n iss ue fo r the Tria l Cou rt wh o s a w andhe ardthe wi tne sse s te sti fy , a ndwe de fe r t o his determination of c redibility . Howeve r, we said that if there i s o t her c redible e vidence in the rec ord, after discounting t he witnesses’ testimony , we are require d to consider all cre dible evidenc e in the re co rd to make f

indings on issues of f

act. In this case, doc umentary evidenc e esta

blishes appellant’ s re t i re ment income. It is undisput ed that the husba nd rec eived a n inheritanc e of $132,000.00 from his mother’s estate in 2002. He testified that he had spe nt all of that inheritanc e, including pay ing two y ear s of appe llee’s a limony . The Tr i al Court rejec ted the husband’ s explanation that he was borr owing funds from his wife to make up the d ef i ci t s in his financial statement, since the wife’ s monthlyincom e wa s $800.00 per month. As to the husband’ s inheritanc e, his testimony acc ounted for spe nding a

pproxi mately

$90,000.00 of that inheritanc e. He g ave no c reditable explanation of what happene d to the rema ining $42,000.00. De fer ring to the Trial J udg e on the cre dibilit y of appellant’ s oral testimony , the evidenc e establishes that the husband has not disposed of $42,000.00 of his inheritanc e, and has appr ox imately $156,000.00 in his retirement acc ount, plus his m onth l yincome fr om social security . The e vidence preponde rate s ag ainst the finding that ap p el l an t h as the fina ncial ability to continue to pay

the alimony

previously

order ed.-4-

Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

I n e sta bli sh ing or

a dju sti ng a lim on y , th e princ ipa l fa c tor s to c on sid e r are the abil ity of one to pay and the need of the other. Bogan further teac hes that the Court should g ive the re duced ability of the re tired o b l i go r to pay support “at lea st equal consider ation” with the nee d of the rec eiving spouse. Id. a 734. Taking into acc ount the s epar ate assets of ea ch party , Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101( E)(vii), a nd the re lative nee d of appe llee and the appellant’ s abilityto pay , we c onclude that the appe llant’s periodic a limonyobligation should be reduce d to $900.00 per month.

We reve rse the Judgme nt of the Trial Court and re mand, for the purpose of entering a n O rd e r a s r e qu ir e d h e re in f or c on tin uin g the pe ri od ic a lim on y pay me nts

. In o u r d i s c r e t i o n , t h e c o s to f

t h e ap p e a l i s a s s e s s e d o n e - h a l f t o e a c h p ar t y.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.