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?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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?