1. Did the Appellate Court of the State of Tennessee err, as a matter of law, when
it concluded that Wife did not obtain a vested, nonmodifiable property interest in her
share of Husband's marital retirement benefits as of the date of the entry of the
parties' Final Decree of Divorce, in direct conflict with longstanding Tennessee
Supreme Court case law, Towner v. Towner, 858 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1993) and
Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892 (Tenn. 2001)?

2. Did the Appellate Court of the State of Tennessee err, as a matter of law, when
it failed to distinguish between Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892 (Tenn. 2001), in
which the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a nonemployee spouse obtains a vested
interest in his or her spouse's retirement benefits as the date of the entry of the
parties' divorce decree, which is not subject to modification or termination due toa
post-decree change in circumstances unilaterally imposed by the employee spouse,
and Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017), in which the United States Supreme
Court held that a state court cannot order a veteran to indemnify or reimburse his
former spouse for the loss of her share of his military retirement pay caused by the
receipt of disability benefits?

3. Did the Appellate Court of the State of Tennessee err (and thereby compound
the error in the first and second issues) when it reversed the trial court's denial of
Husband's request for attorney fees and held that Husband is entitled to his
reasonable attorney fees at both the trial and appellate level, which ultimately
allowed Husband to reap a windfall from his willful obstruction of the parties' Marital
Dissolution Agreement, in spite of the fact that Wife was the prevailing party during
the first appeal of the present matter?

Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that Wife did not obtain a vested, nonmodifiable property interest in her share of Husband's marital retirement benefits?