James S. Schrade v. Cassandra Jean Ament Schrade, E2016-01105-COA-R3-CV

Parties divorced in 2008; their Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) required Husband to pay Wife 35% of monthly distributions from two investment accounts and guaranteed a $1,200/month minimum from the stock portfolio as periodic alimony.
Husband petitioned in 2013 to modify alimony, alleging investment income (Orange County Trust and a Knoxville stock account) had substantially declined and that he could not invade corpus or use other resources.
At trial Husband testified market downturns and reduced distributions left him unable to meet obligations without using separate property; Wife testified the MDA set the $1,200 floor and that adult children live with her and provide services.
The Trial Court denied modification, finding no material, unanticipated change in circumstances and that the MDA’s $1,200 floor anticipated market variance; it also declined to find the statutory rebuttable presumption of reduced need due to third‑party cohabitation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the no‑change ruling (market fluctuations foreseeable and the MDA unambiguous) but vacated the trial court’s disposition regarding the rebuttable presumption for cohabitation and remanded for a specific determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Husband showed a material, unanticipated change in circumstances warranting reduction of alimony	Market income from trust and portfolio declined dramatically since divorce, leaving Husband unable to pay without tapping separate property	MDA unambiguously imposed a minimum $1,200/month floor; market fluctuations were foreseeable and thus contemplated by parties	Court affirmed trial court: no material, unanticipated change — MDA plain language and $1,200 floor show parties contemplated market variance
Whether statutory rebuttable presumption from third‑party cohabitation (adult children living with Wife) suspends or reduces alimony	Husband: Wife’s adult children living with her raises rebuttable presumption that they contribute to her support so alimony should be suspended or reduced	Wife: Issue not properly pled; children provide only services, not monetary support; Wife paid some expenses for child (e.g., $5,000 for schooling)	Court vacated trial court’s ruling on this point and remanded for specific findings whether the statutory presumption is rebutted; if not, suspend all or part of alimony as appropriate

Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review and requirement to show change in circumstances to modify spousal support)
Wiser v. Wiser, 339 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (cohabitation statute results in suspension, not termination, of alimony)
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2000) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings)
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 107 (Tenn. 2011) (definition and purpose of alimony in futuro)