ÿWPC– …# VUFa %§ 07­äO 4R f u wu 0J… 0TÏ 0^# 0h 0ré 0|[ 0†× 0] 1uí U,b 0dŽ U,ò U6B)TDC} AMÀU*  B7 0UTý©‡¦v~- D3«vÓÞ 0@± AOñÆ@ 0D D/J By˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&âõ$¡Ñ€²Ñ Ö€ÿÿÖ EÝ ƒ&¦)ÝÝ  Ýà@°°*ìàÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú÷}± 3|x‰}Ó€‰2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d(-3¦$©©Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  Ý óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMay€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó }Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ&)ÝÝ  Ýà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  ÚPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€#'";+'h|½½` Å `€€L߀€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌÌELIZABETH€B.€MORRISON€€€€€€€€€:€€€€HAMBLEN€CHANCERY€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€CA€No.€03A01„9510„CH„00347€Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€HON.€DENNIS€H.€INMAN€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€CHANCELLOR€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌRICHARD€T.€MORRISON€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€MODIFIED€IN€PART,€andÌ€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€€€€:€€€€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDENISE€S.€TERRY,€WITH€TERRY,€TERRY€&€STAPLETON,€OF€MORRISTOWN,ÏTENNESSEE,€andÌD.€SCOTT€HURLEY,€WITH€HURLEY,€SHARP€&€ATTANASIO,€OF€KNOXVILLE,ÏTENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANTÌÌRICHARD€C.€JESSEE€and€MARK€A.€COWAN,€WITH€BACON,€JESSEE,€PERKINSÏ&€SWANSON,€OF€MORRISTOWN,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sp.J.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Plaintiff€appeals€from€a€divorce€decree€insofar€asÏit€relates€to€a€division€of€marital€property,€alimony,€€childÏsupport,€and€attorneys'€fees.€We€modify€the€decree€and€remand.ÌÌà àà àThe€Plaintiff„Appellant,€Elizabeth€Morrison,€andÏDefendant„Appellee€Richard€T.€Morrison€were€married€in€1972.€€AtÏthe€time€of€marriage€the€Plaintiff€wife€was€18€years€of€age€andÏthe€Defendant€husband€was€22€years€of€age.€€They€each€had€a€highÏschool€education€but€owned€no€material€assets.€€At€the€time€ofÏtheir€marriage,€the€husband€was€employed€in€his€father'sÏbusiness,€Morrison€Communications€Inc.,€and€the€wife€Ö€(Öwas€workingÏas€a€co„op€student€for€Berkline€Corporation.€€She€continued€toÏwork€at€various€jobs€outside€the€home€until€about€three€monthsÏbefore€their€child,€James€Richardson€Morrison,€was€born€inÏJanuary,€1981.€After€their€son€was€born,€the€wife€did€not€returnÏto€work€outside€the€home,€but€devoted€her€time€to€being€aÏhousewife€and€mother.€€The€parties€had€a€modest€life€style.€€TheÏhusband€remained€in€the€employ€of€Morrison€Communications€andÏthe€wife€did€all€the€housework,€maintained€the€lawn€andÏshrubbery€around€the€house,€looked€after€James's€needs€and€tookÏcare€of€all€family€chores.€In€1978€the€husband€was€promoted€toÏpresident€of€Morrison€Communications.€€His€salary€was€increasedÏand€the€parties€began€enjoying€a€comfortable€life€style€and€anÏautomobile€was€purchased€for€the€wife€for€the€first€time.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband's€father,€J.€C.€Morrison,€Sr.,€was€theÏowner€and€apparently€the€founder€of€Morrison€Communication,€Inc.€ÏIt€is€a€corporation€which€owns€all€the€stock€and€serves€as€aÍmanagement,€or€holding€company,€of€two€other€corporations,ÏMorrison€Printing€Co.€and€School€Calendar€Company,€Inc.€€TheÏprinting€company€does€printing€and€lithographic€work.€€It€does€aÏlot€of€business€for€the€recreation€and€travel€industry.€€ItÏproduces€color€brochures,€travel„related€materials,€and€short„run€monthly€publications€for€that€industry.€€The€calendarÏcompany€mainly€produces€posters€for€schools€and€universitiesÏnationwide.€€The€two€corporations€employ€between€175€and€200Ïpeople€and€have€annual€sales€of€between€$16,000,000€andÏ$18,000,000.ÌÌà àà àMr.€J.€C.€Morrison€had€three€children.€€In€addition€toÏthe€Defendant€husband,€he€had€another€son,€J.€C.€Morrison,€Jr.,Ïand€a€daughter,€Maudie€Morrison€Trent€[now€Briggs]€and€they€areÏall€employees€of€Morrison€Communications.€€In€1982€Mr.€J.€C.ÏMorrison,€Sr.,€and€his€wife,€Mary€H.€Morrison,€sold€all€of€theÏcapital€stock€of€Morrison€Communications,€Inc.,€to€their€threeÏchildren.€€The€purchase€price€was€$500,000.€€It€was€representedÏby€an€installment€note€payable€in€monthly€installments€over€aÏperiod€of€10€years.€€The€sale€of€the€stock€was€memorialized€by€aÏwritten€agreement,€but€the€record€before€us€does€not€contain€aÏcopy€of€the€agreement€or€the€note.€€There€was,€however,€filed€asÏan€exhibit€a€document€purporting€to€be€an€agreement€among€theÏthree€children€dated€January€3,€1983.€€As€pertinent,€theÍagreement€provides€they€will€set€aside€funds€from€the€profits€ofÏthe€corporation,€apparently€to€supplement€the€payments€to€beÏmade€on€the€note,€to€give€their€parents€the€standard€of€livingÏto€which€they€had€become€accustomed.€€The€payments€"will€beÏdistributed€to€them€[the€parents]€beginning€January€1,€1983,Ïuntil€their€death."€€The€full€contents€of€the€document€are€asÏfollows:Ì"On€this€the€third€day€of€January,€1983€J.€C.€Morrison,€Jr.,ÏRichard€T.€Morrison,€and€Maudie€M.€Trent€[now€Briggs],€theÏchildren€of€J.€C.€Morrison,€Sr.€and€Mary€H.€Morrison€do€make€theÏfollowing€agreement:ÌÓÓ"That€jointly€we€will€see€that€our€parents„€J.€C.€Morrison,€Sr.Ïand€Mary€H.€Morrison€will€always€be€financially€taken€care€of€inÏthe€manner€to€which€they€have€become€accustomed.€ÌÌ"Through€the€profits€of€our€corporation,€we€will€set€aside€fundsÏto€insure€their€livelihood.€€These€accumulated€funds€andÏinterest€earned€will€be€distributed€to€them€monthly€beginningÏJanuary€1,€1983€until€their€death.ÌÌ"Should€only€one€parent€be€surviving,€that€parent€will€beÏsupported€as€above.ÌÌ"Should€both€parents€have€demised,€the€funds€will€be€used€toÏenhance€the€net€worth€of€the€individual€children€or€theÏcorporation€by€a€joint€decision€of€the€individuals.ÌÌ"Should€any€of€the€individual€children€have€demised€at€the€endÏof€this€agreement,€their€portions€will€be€distributed€to€theirÏheirs€as€specified€by€their€wills.ÌÌòò"/s/€J.€C.€Morrison,€Jr.óóÌJ.€C.€Morrison,€Jr.€ÌÌòò"/s/€R.€T.€MorrisonóóÌRichard€T.Morrison€ÌÌòò"/s/€Maudie€M.€TrentóóÌMaudie€M.€Trent"ÌÌÓÓThe€parents€were€not€parties€to€this€instrument€and€the€recordÏshows€the€buy„sell€agreement€between€the€parties€did€not€containÏsuch€provision.€€Also,€the€husband€did€not€introduce€theÏdocument€into€evidence€or€rely€upon€it€in€any€way.€€Neither€isÏthere€affirmative€proof€in€the€record€that€it€was€in€factÏexecuted€by€the€parties.€€It€was€introduced€into€the€record€by€aÏMr.€Warren€Luhn,€an€attorney€specializing€in€estate€planning.€ÏHe€represented€the€Morrisons€at€the€time€of€the€sale€of€theÏstock€to€the€children.€€There€is€no€proof€he€prepared€theÏdocument€or€had€any€knowledge€of€its€execution.€€In€introducingÏthe€document€into€evidence,€he€was€asked€and,€as€pertinent,Ïanswered€as€follows:€€"Q.€Can€you€identify€that€document€as€oneÏyou€are€familiar€with?"€€"A.€This€isn't€a€document€that€I€amÏvery€familiar€with."ÌÌà àà àThere€is€no€proof€the€children€ever€set€aside€anyÏportion€of€the€profits€of€the€corporation€for€the€benefit€ofÏtheir€parents€as€provided€in€the€agreement,€nor€is€there€anyÏevidence€in€the€record€that€between€January,€1983,€and€the€timeÏthe€note€was€paid€in€1992€or€1993€any€amount€of€money€was€paidÏto€the€parents€by€either€the€corporation€or€the€children€otherÏthan€the€payments€owed€on€the€note.€€It€was€the€contention€ofÏthe€husband,€however,€upon€the€trial€of€the€case,€that€after€theÍnote€was€paid€he€and€his€brother€and€sister€each€beginÏpersonally€paying€their€father€and€mother€$2,000€per€month€for€aÏtotal€of€$6,000€per€month.€€It€was€also€the€contention€of€theÏhusband€upon€the€trial€of€the€case€and€upon€this€appeal€that€heÏis€entitled€to€a€deduction€of€$2,000€per€month€from€his€salaryÏfor€the€purpose€of€fixing€child€support€and€alimony.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€were€separated€in€1994€and€the€wife€filedÏfor€divorce,€alleging€the€husband€was€guilty€of€inappropriateÏmarital€conduct.€€She€also€alleged€irreconcilable€differences.€ÏShe€asked€for€a€divorce,€the€custody€of€their€14„year„old€son,ÏJames,€child€support,€a€division€of€marital€property,€alimony,Ïand€attorneys'€fees.€ÌÌà àà àThe€husband,€for€answer,€as€pertinent,€filed€a€generalÏdenial.ÌÌà àà àUpon€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€parties€informed€theÏcourt€they€had€reached€an€agreement€on€a€number€of€issues.€€TheyÏhad€divided€their€personal€property€including€householdÏfurnishings.€€They€were€each€to€keep€the€personal€property€inÏtheir€possession.€€There€was€very€little€debt€and€each€was€goingÏto€assume€the€debt€they€had€created.€€They€agreed€a€divorceÏshould€be€granted€and€the€wife€was€to€have€the€custody€of€James,Ítheir€14„year„old€child,€with€liberal€visitation€by€the€husband.€ÏThey€agreed€the€equity€in€their€residence€was€$45,000€and€theÏwife€would€take€the€residence€as€part€of€her€marital€propertyÏand€assume€the€balance€of€the€mortgage.€€The€record€fails€toÏdisclose€the€amount€of€the€unpaid€mortgage,€but€it€appears€theÏpayments€on€the€mortgage€are€$769€per€month.ÌÌà àà àThere€was€left€for€determination€by€the€court€theÏvalue€of€the€one„third€interest€in€the€capital€stock€of€MorrisonÏCommunications,€which€was€marital€property;€the€amount€of€childÏsupport€to€be€paid€by€the€husband;€the€amount€of€alimony€to€beÏpaid€to€the€wife;€and€who€should€pay€the€wife's€attorneys'€fees.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€determination€of€the€issues,€the€court€foundÏthe€value€of€the€stock€in€Morrison€Communications€was€$350,000.€ÏHe€fixed€child€support€at€$1,225€per€month.€€He€awarded€the€wifeÏtemporary€rehabilitative€alimony€of€$300€per€month€and€declinedÏto€require€the€husband€to€pay€her€attorneys'€fees€and€litigationÏexpenses.€ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€has€appealed,€saying€the€court€was€in€errorÏin€fixing€the€value€of€the€Morrison€Communications€stock€atÏ$350,000,€in€excluding€from€the€husband's€income€the€$2,000€perÏmonth€which€he€gave€to€his€parents€for€the€purpose€ofÍcalculating€child€support,€in€awarding€$300€per€month€asÏalimony,€and€in€denying€her€attorneys'€fees.€€We€must€agree,€andÏmodify€the€decree.ÌÌà àà àWe€first€consider€the€issue€of€fixing€the€value€of€theÏMorrison€Communications€stock€at€$350,000.€€Upon€the€trial€ofÏthe€case,€the€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€each€offered€the€testimonyÏof€an€expert€witness€for€the€purpose€of€expressing€aÏprofessional€opinion€as€to€the€market€value€of€the€MorrisonÏCommunications,€Inc.,€stock.€€Both€witnesses€were€certifiedÏpublic€accountants€and€were€qualified€in€their€respectiveÏprofessions.€€In€reviewing€the€testimony€of€the€experts,€we€findÏeach€considered€the€appropriate€factors€for€arriving€at€theÏmarket€value€of€stocks€in€closely€held€corporations.€€It€was,Ïhowever,€a€judgment€call€by€each€of€them€as€to€how€those€factorsÏshould€be€applied€in€the€case€at€bar.€€For€example,€there€is€aÏ"rule€of€thumb"€in€arriving€at€the€market€value€of€stock€beingÏsold,€traded€or€transferred,€by€which€25%€to€40%€of€the€value€ofÏthe€stock€is€deducted€if€the€purchaser€of€the€stock€will€be€aÏminority€stockholder.€€Since€there€was€no€sale€or€transfer€ofÏthe€stock€involved€in€the€case€at€bar,€Mr.€Holt,€the€expertÏwitness€for€the€Plaintiff,€took€the€position€this€principle€wasÏnot€applicable€in€the€case€at€bar.€€Mr.€Bacon,€the€expert€forÍthe€Defendant,€however,€did€apply€this€rule€and€deducted€30%Ïfrom€the€base€value€he€fixed€on€the€husband's€stock.ÌÌà àà àIn€fixing€the€value€of€the€stock,€Mr.€Holt€testifiedÏhe€valued€the€stock€of€Morrison€Communications€at€$3,587,865€andÏthe€husband's€one„third€of€the€stock€at€$1,195,955.€€Mr.€BaconÏtestified€he€valued€the€stock€at€$1,491,000€and€the€husband'sÏshare€at€$497,000.€€He€then€subtracted€30%€from€that€value,Ïleaving€a€value€of€$348,000.ÌÌà àà àIn€addressing€the€issue€of€determining€the€value€ofÏstock€under€circumstances€such€as€the€case€at€bar,€theÏchancellor€appropriately€said:€€"Valuing€stock€in€a€closely„heldÏ[sic]€corporation€is€a€difficult€proposition€at€best.€€When€theÏstock€represents€a€minority€interest,€the€problems€areÏexponentially€increased€because€there€is€no€true€market€for€suchÏstock.€€Accordingly,€the€accounting€industry€has€developed€(orÏat€least€has€attempted€to€develop)€various€methods€for€valuingÏstock€in€a€closely„held€[sic]€corporation€that€is€part€science,Ïand€part€art,€applied€to€a€plethora€of€assumptions,€some€or€allÏof€which€may€prove€to€be€untrue."€€The€chancellor,€in€fixing€theÏvalue€of€the€stock,€found€the€testimony€"of€Mr.€Bacon€whoÏtestified€as€an€expert€on€husband's€behalf,€was€more€persuasiveÍthan€the€wife's€expert,€Mr.€Holt,"€and€fixed€the€value€of€theÏhusband's€stock€at€$350,000.ÌÌà àà àWe€cannot€fault€the€court's€choice€of€the€testimony€ofÏMr.€Bacon€over€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Holt€insofar€as€Mr.€Bacon'sÏfixing€the€value€of€the€husband's€stock€at€$497,000€instead€ofÏthe€$1,195,955€fixed€by€Mr.€Holt.€€We€cannot€agree,€however,Ïthat€under€the€circumstances€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€value€ofÏthe€stock€should€be€reduced€by€30%€to€$348,000€based€on€theÏminority€stockholder€rule.ÌÌà àà àThe€life€insurance€on€the€lives€of€the€stockholdersÏand€the€way€the€payment€of€the€proceeds€of€the€policies€relatesÏto€the€ultimate€transfer€and€ownership€of€the€stock,€theÏcontracts€between€the€parties€to€make€reciprocal€wills€to€eachÏother,€the€provisions€of€the€wills€of€the€respective€parties€asÏthey€now€exist,€and€the€binding€contracts€between€the€partiesÏnot€to€sell€or€transfer€any€of€the€stock€without€the€mutualÏconsent€of€all€the€parties€were€not€considered€by€Mr.€Bacon,€Mr.ÏHolt,€or€the€court€in€their€evaluations€of€the€stock.€€We€holdÏthis€completely€removes€the€reason€and€rationale€for€applyingÏthe€minority€stockholder€rule.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€shows€that€in€the€early€1980's,€apparentlyÏwhen€the€children€acquired€the€stock€of€Morrison€CommunicationsÏin€1982,€the€corporation€purchased€policies€of€life€insurance€ofÏ$1,250,000€on€the€life€of€each€of€the€children,€and€the€spouseÏor€estate€of€each€of€the€insured€was€named€as€the€beneficiary€ofÏthe€policy.€€The€corporation,€however,€was€the€owner€of€theÏpolicies€and€paid€the€premiums.€€There€was€an€agreement€betweenÏthe€three€stockholders€that€if€one€desired€to€sell€his€or€herÏstock,€the€other€two€had€the€option€to€purchase€the€stock.€€ForÏtax€reasons,€in€April,€1993,€the€corporation€transferred€theÏownership€of€the€policies€to€the€respective€insureds.€€TheÏinsureds€became€liable€for€payment€of€the€premiums€on€theÏpolicies€but€the€corporation€gave€salary€increases€to€each€ofÏthe€parties€commensurate€with€the€amount€of€the€premiums€plusÏthe€increased€liability€for€income€tax.€€ÌÌà àà àSimultaneously€with€the€transfer€of€the€ownership€ofÏthe€insurance€policies€to€the€insureds,€they€entered€into€anÏagreement€to€which€Morrison€Communications,€Inc.,€was€also€aÏparty,€in€which€they€agreed€that€to€insure€that€all€of€the€stockÏof€Morrison€Communications€would€remain€in€the€ownership€of€theÏshare€holders€(1)€Each€stockholder€agreed€to€not€sell,€encumberÏor€otherwise€transfer€or€dispose€of€any€of€his€or€her€stock€nowÏowned€or€later€acquired€in€the€corporation,€during€his€or€herÍlifetime€without€the€consent€of€all€the€parties€to€the€contract;Ï(2)€The€shareholders€agreed€to€execute€a€last€will€and€testamentÏbequeathing,€upon€their€deaths,€all€their€stock€in€theÏcorporation€to€the€surviving€shareholders€who€are€parties€to€theÏagreement;€(3)€This€agreement€shall€terminate€upon€the€date€ofÏthe€last€to€survive€of€the€shareholders€who€are€parties€to€thisÏagreement.€€A€copy€of€the€agreement€is€attached€as€Appendix€"A"Ïto€this€opinion.€ÌÌà àà àEach€of€the€parties€executed€a€will€simultaneouslyÏwith€the€agreement€bequeathing€his€or€her€stock€to€the€otherÏstockholders€in€accordance€with€their€agreement.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€also€another€compelling€reason€why€the€valueÏof€the€husband's€stock€should€not€be€reduced€by€30%.€€The€stockÏin€this€corporation€is€marital€property€and€the€wife€is€entitledÏto€her€share€of€the€increased€benefits€the€owner€of€the€stockÏstands€to€gain€as€a€result€of€its€ownership.€€As€a€direct€resultÏof€his€ownership€of€the€stock,€the€husband€has€life€insuranceÏpolicies€on€his€life€for€$1,250,000€which€has€never€cost€himÏanything€and€the€corporation€is€still,€indirectly,€paying€theÏpremiums.€€Should€the€husband€survive€his€brother€or€sister,€heÏwill€acquire€one„half€of€that€person's€stock€without€charge€andÏshould€he€survive€both€of€them,€he€will€own€all€of€the€corporateÍstock€without€additional€cost.€€In€addition€to€these€benefits,Ïhe€receives€a€salary€in€excess€of€$125,000€per€year€from€theÏcorporation.ÌÌà àà àWe€modify€the€decree€of€the€chancellor€and€fix€theÏvalue€of€husband's€stock€in€Morrison€Communications,€Inc.,€atÏ$500,000.€Ì€Ìà àà àThe€€Appellant€says€it€was€error€for€the€court€toÏexclude€from€the€husband's€income€$2,000€per€month€inÏcalculating€child€support.€€The€court's€purpose€in€making€thisÏdeduction€was€to€allow€the€husband€to€be€exempt€from€payingÏchild€support€out€of€the€$2,000€he€testified€he€was€giving€toÏhis€parents€each€month.€€The€proof€shows€the€corporationÏincreased€the€husband's€salary€in€1993€to€compensate€him€for€theÏpayments€he€was€making€to€his€parents.€€In€fixing€the€childÏsupport€payments,€the€court,€as€pertinent,€said:€"For€purposesÏof€computing€the€amount€of€husband's€gross€monthly€income,€theÏreimbursement€from€the€corporation€for€the€insurance€policyÏpremiums€should€be€included,€since€husband€obviously€isÏreceiving€a€tangible€benefit.€€However,€the€amount€of€theÏreimbursement€for€the€payment€to€his€parents€should€not€beÏincluded€because€it€is,€in€effect,€a€payment€from€theÏcorporation€to€husband's€parents€in€the€nature€of€a€retirementÍbenefit.€€Thus,€husband's€monthly€gross€income€is€$8,395.00.€ÏUnder€the€Guidelines,€his€child€support€obligation€is€$1,225.00Ïper€month."ÌÌà àà àIn€excluding€the€$2,000€per€month€from€husband'sÏincome€when€calculating€the€husband's€gross€income€for€fixingÏchild€support,€the€chancellor€apparently€overlooked€the€1994Ïamendment€to€the€child€support€guidelines€which€requires€theÏcourt€to€"order€child€support€based€upon...all€net€income€of€theÏobligor"€as€opposed€to€the€$6,250€ceiling€formerly€contained€inÏthe€guidelines.ÌÌà àà àThe€Support€Guidelines€IV„D,€Chapter€1240„2„4(3)€whichÏwere€amended€and€became€effective€December€14,€1994,Ïprovide:à àÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€court€must€order€child€support€basedÏupon€the€appropriate€percentage€of€all€net€income€ofÏthe€obligor€as€defined€according€to€1240„3„4„03€ofÏthis€rule€but€alternative€payment€arrangements€may€beÏmade€for€the€award€from€that€portion€of€net€incomeÏwhich€exceeds€$6,250.€€When€the€net€income€of€theÏobligor€exceeds€$6,250€per€month,€the€court€mayÏestablish€educational€or€other€trust€funds€for€theÏbenefit€of€the€child(ren)€or€make€other€provisions€inÏthe€child(ren)'s€best€interest;€however,€all€of€theÏsupport€award€amount€based€on€net€income€up€throughÏ$6,250€must€be€paid€to€the€custodial€parent.Ì....ÌÌà àÌÌà à1240„2„4„.03(a)€provides€as€pertinent:ÌÌGross€income€shall€include€all€income€from€any€sourceÏ(before€taxes€and€other€deductions),€whether€earned€orÍunearned,€and€includes€but€is€not€limited€to€theÏfollowing:€€wages,€salaries,€...ÌÌà àand€1240„2„4„.02(7)€provides:ÌÌThese€guidelines€shall€be€applied€as€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€in€all€child€support€cases.€€If€the€courtÏfinds€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€theÏpresumption€that€the€application€of€the€guidelines€isÏthe€correct€amount€to€be€awarded,€then€the€court€mustÏmake€a€written€or€specific€finding€that€theÏapplication€of€the€child€support€guidelines€would€beÏunjust€or€inappropriate€in€that€particular€case.€ÏFindings€that€rebut€these€guidelines€must€state€theÏamount€that€would€have€been€required€under€theÏguidelines€and€include€a€justification€for€deviationÏfrom€the€guidelines€which€take€into€consideration€theÏbest€interest€of€the€child.ÌÌÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àWe€hold€it€was€error€for€the€chancellor€to€fail€toÏinclude€all€of€the€husband's€income€pursuant€to€1240„2„4„.03€forÏcalculating€the€child€support€award€or,€in€the€alternative,€if€heÏfound€the€evidence€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption€theÏguidelines€were€correct€and€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate,€thenÏto€make€a€written€or€specific€finding€to€that€effect€pursuant€toÏ1240„2„4„.02(7)€of€the€guidelines.€ÌÌà àà àThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€to€fix€childÏsupport€in€accordance€with€the€child€support€guidelines€as€amendedÏin€1994.€ÌÌà àà àThe€Appellant€says€the€court€erred€in€awarding€her€onlyÏ$300€per€month€as€alimony€and€failing€to€require€the€husband€toÏpay€her€attorneys'€fees€and€litigation€expenses.€€We€must€agree.ÌÌà àà àIn€addressing€the€issue€of€alimony€in€divorce€cases,€TCAÏðð€36„5„101(5)(d),€as€pertinent,€states:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓà àIt€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€aÏspouse€who€is€economically€disadvantaged€relative€to€theÏother€spouse€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€theÏgranting€of€an€order€for€payment€of€rehabilitative,Ïtemporary€support€and€maintenance.€....€In€determiningÏwhether€the€granting€of€an€order€for€payment€of€supportÏand€maintenance€to€a€party€is€appropriate,€and€inÏdetermining€the€nature,€amount,€length€of€term,€andÏmanner€of€payment,€the€court€shall€consider€all€relevantÏfactors,€including:ÌÌà à1.€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,Ïneeds,€and€financial€resources€of€each€party,€includingÏincome€from€pension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plansÏand€all€other€sources;€....ÌÌÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àIn€considering€the€relative€earning€capacity€of€theÏparties,€the€record€shows€the€husband€has€an€income€of€betweenÏ$125,000€and€$135,000€per€year.€€While€there€is€no€copy€of€anÏincome€tax€return€of€the€husband€in€the€record,€the€figures€usedÏby€the€chancellor€in€fixing€child€support€establish€an€income€ofÏapproximately€$125,000€per€year.€€An€affidavit€of€the€wife€showsÏhusband's€weekly€income€to€be€approximately€$2,607.95,€which€is€inÏexcess€of€$135,000€per€year.€€The€wife€is€unemployed€and€has€noÏincome€except€what€she€receives€from€the€Defendant,€nor€does€theÍwife€have€any€employable€skills€which€would€qualify€her€forÏearning€more€than€the€minimum€wage.ÌÌà àà àThe€affidavit€filed€by€the€wife€as€to€her€monthly€needsÏfor€household€and€living€expenses€is€$3,009.41.€€The€$300€perÏmonth€alimony€awarded€by€the€court€would€pay€less€than€half€of€theÏmonthly€mortgage€payment€on€the€residence€which€is€$769,€but€wouldÏpay€half€of€the€cost€of€food€which€is€$600€per€month.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÓ` °ŒX±!(#XÓÓÓà à2.€€The€relative€education€and€training€ofÏeach€party,€the€ability€and€opportunity€of€eachÏparty€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€andÏthe€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€furtherÏeducation€and€training€to€improve€such€party'sÏearning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àEach€of€the€parties€had€a€high€school€education€at€theÏtime€of€marriage.€€During€the€22€years€of€marriage,€the€husbandÏhas€been€improving€his€skills€and€training€until€he€is€nowÏsecretary€and€treasurer€of€the€three€family€corporations€andÏearning€a€top€salary.€€The€wife,€however,€has€devoted€her€time€andÏtalents€to€being€a€homemaker€and€rearing€their€son.€€€Also,€she€isÏwholly€dependent€on€the€husband€for€her€income.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€parties€had€limited€education€at€the€timeÏof€marriage,€in€1990€the€wife€began€college€training€on€a€part„time€basis€at€Carson€Newman€College.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorceÍshe€had€almost€completed€the€second€semester€of€her€sophomore€yearÏat€Carson€Newman€and€had€hopes€of€graduating€in€March,€1998.€€TheÏtuition€for€attending€Carson€Newman€is€$9,000€for€each€fourÏsemesters,€but€that€does€not€include€books€or€other€collegeÏexpenses.€€She€was€indebted€to€the€college€at€the€time€of€trialÏfor€$4,000.€€€To€pay€that€indebtedness€and€six€more€semesters€ofÏtuition€would€be€$26,500.€€The€record€fails€to€show€an€estimate€ofÏadditional€expenses€needed€before€graduation,€at€which€time€theÏwife€could€become€self„supporting;€perhaps€$3,500€would€be€aÏconservative€amount,€making€total€college€expenses€ofÏapproximately€$30,000.ÌÌà àà à3.€€The€duration€of€the€marriage;ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€were€married€in€May,€1972,€and€divorced€inÏMay,€1995.€€The€duration€of€the€marriage€was€23€years.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà à4.€€The€age,€and€physical€and€mental€conditionÌà à€of€each€party;ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€husband€was€44€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce,€which€should€be€the€prime€of€his€professional€career.€ÏThe€wife€is€40€years€of€age,€which€gives€her€a€late€start€in€lifeÍfor€a€professional€career.€€Both€parties€are€in€good€mental€andÏphysical€condition.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à5.€€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€aÏparty€to€seek€employment€outside€the€home€because€suchÏparty€will€be€custodian€of€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;ÌÌÌÓÓÌÒ Ü ÒÒ X Òà àà àSince€the€son€was€14€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce,€this€should€not€be€a€major€problem.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à6.€€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€andÏpersonal,€tangible€and€intangible;ÌÌÌÌÒ F ÒÒ X ÒÓ á ÓÓÓà àà à€It€appears€that€neither€of€the€parties€owns€any€separateÏassets.€€All€of€their€assets€have€been€acquired€during€the€marriage.ÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à€7.€€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€maritalÏproperty€as€defined€in€ðð€36„4„121;ÌÌÌÌÒ ' ÒÒ X ÒÓ jÿ ÓÓÓà àà à€à àThe€marital€assets€have€been€divided€equally€between€theÏparties.€€The€principal€asset€is€the€stock€in€MorrisonÏCommunications,€Inc.,€which€is€awarded€to€the€husband.€€The€value€ofÏthe€stock€has€been€fixed€at€$500,000;€the€equity€in€their€residenceÏhas€a€stipulated€value€of€$45,000;€a€401„K€savings€account€has€aÏvalue€of€$6,000,€making€a€total€of€marital€assets€of€$551,000,€or€anÏequity€of€$275,500€each.€€It€is€stipulated€the€residence€shall€beÍconveyed€to€the€wife€at€a€value€of€$45,000€and€she€will€assume€theÏbalance€of€the€mortgage.€€She€is€also€awarded€one„half€of€the€401„KÏat€a€value€of€$3,000,€leaving€a€balance€of€$227,500€due€the€wifeÏfrom€the€husband€for€her€remaining€equity€in€the€stock.€€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà à8.€€The€standard€of€living€of€the€partiesÌ€established€during€the€marriage;ÌÌÌÌÒ ' ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€proof€shows€the€parties€maintained€a€comfortableÏstandard€of€living€in€the€latter€years€of€their€marriage€„€perhapsÏmuch€better€than€the€wife€will€be€able€to€maintain€in€the€future.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ µÿ ÓÓÓà à9.€€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangibleÏand€intangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetaryÏand€homemaker€contributions,€and€tangible€and€intangibleÏcontributions€by€a€party€to€the€education,€training€orÏincreased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;ÌÌÌÌÒ ' ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àThe€proof€shows€the€husband€was€a€hard€worker€andÌ€the€sole€financial€contributor€to€the€family.€€The€proof€also€showsÏthe€wife€did€her€full€share€as€a€housewife€and€mother.€€NeitherÏparty€can€be€faulted€for€not€fulfilling€his€or€herÌfull€responsibility.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à10.€€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€inÌcases€where€the€court,€in€its€discretion,€deems€itÏappropriate€to€do€so;ÌÌÌÌÒ ' ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àThe€parties€stipulated€a€divorce€should€be€grantedÌ€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€fault€shouldÌ€be€a€factor€in€fixing€alimony.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à11.€€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€toÏeach€party,€as€are€necessary€toÌ€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties;ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÒ ' ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àConsidering€the€income€of€the€husband,€he€is€noÌ€doubt€in€an€income€tax€bracket€of€at€least€38%€and€should€be€grantedÏthe€son€as€a€dependent€for€tax€purposes.€ÌÌà àà àTCA€ðð€36„5„101(d)€makes€it€clear€the€economicallyÏdisadvantaged,€relative€to€the€other€spouse,€should€be€rehabilitatedÏwhere€possible€by€awarding€"rehabilitative€temporary"€alimony€asÏopposed€to€permanent€alimony.€€We€think,€under€the€facts€in€the€caseÏat€bar,€this€is€a€classic€case€for€such€an€award.€€While€the€trialÏcourt€awarded€the€"wife€as€temporary€and€rehabilitative€spousalÏsupport€Three€HundredÌ€Dollars€($300.00)€per€month,€for€a€total€of€thirty„sixÌ€months,"€we€are€at€a€loss€to€understand€how€the€wife€couldÌ€even€live€on€such€a€meager€amount,€much€less€becomeÌ€rehabilitated€to€the€point€she€could€become€self„supporting.€Ì€It€appears€the€court€was€of€the€opinion€the€husband,Ì€considering€his€other€obligations€such€as€child€support,€obligationsÏto€his€parents€and€payments€to€his€wife€for€her€interest€in€theÏmarital€property,€did€not€have€sufficient€Ìfunds€to€pay€more€alimony.€€We€do€not€concur€in€this€Ìconclusion.ÌÌà àà àIt€appears€the€cardinal€rule€in€fixing€alimony€and€adjudicatingÏother€expenses€which€the€advantaged€spouse€shouldÌ€pay€to€or€for€the€disadvantaged€spouse€is€governed€by€theÌ€need€of€the€obligee€and€the€ability€of€the€obligor€to€pay.Ì€ò òBarker€v.€Barkeró ó,€671€S.W.2d€843€(Tenn.App.1984);€ò òFisher€v.ÏFisheró ó,€648€S.W.2d€244€(Tenn.1983);€ò òWallace€v.€Wallaceó ó,Ì733€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.App.1987).ÌÌà àà àThe€wife,€in€an€affidavit€of€her€estimated€living€expenses,Ïshowed€a€need€for€$3,009.41€per€month.€€There€is€no€contention€byÏthe€Defendant€this€amount€is€excessive€or€notÌ€in€keeping€with€the€parties'€standard€of€living.€€This€statementÌ€of€living€expenses€does€not€include€tuition€or€other€expensesÌ€now€owed€or€to€be€incurred€in€the€wife's€obtaining€a€degreeÌ€from€Carson€Newman€college,€nor€does€it€include€theÌ€$12,191.30€for€attorneys'€fees€and€litigation€expenses€whichÌ€the€wife€has€incurred€in€this€litigation.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband,€in€his€affidavit€as€to€monthlyÌ€expenses,€listed€$4,219.35.€€This€did€not€include€any€alimonyÌ€for€the€wife€or€child€support€as€fixed€by€the€court,€nor€didÌ€it€include€the€sum€of€$1,205.59€per€month€which€the€courtÌ€ordered€husband€to€pay€on€the€judgment€for€the€wife'sÌ€remaining€interest€in€the€Morrison€Communication€stock.Ì€It€did,€however,€include€as€an€expense€$2,000€per€month€forÌ€payments€to€his€parents.ÌÌà àà àWe€hold€the€payment€of€$2,000€per€month€to€theÌ€husband's€parents€is€not€a€deductible€expense€for€the€purposeÌ€of€fixing€alimony€for€the€wife€or€in€determining€husband's€liabilityÏfor€wife's€attorneys'€fees€and€litigation€expenses.Ì€We€hold€the€payment€of€$2,000€per€month€to€his€parents€to€be€Ì€a€voluntary€payment€and€not€a€contractual€obligation.€€ThereÌ€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€show€the€husband€ever€had€anÏagreement€with€his€parents€to€make€such€payments,€nor€is€thereÌ€any€evidence€in€the€record€to€show€he€has€any€legal€obliga„Ì€tion€to€personally€make€these€payments.€The€husband's€test„Ì€imony€on€cross„examination€with€reference€to€this€issue€wasÌ€as€follows:Ì"Q.à àà àNow,€Mr.€Morrison,€the€payments€that€you€have€madeÌ€and€that€your€brother€and€sister€have€made€to€your€parents€inÌ€the€past€few€years€have€been€done€of€your€own€accord.Ì€Is€that€correct?€Ì"A.à àà àHave€been€done€of€our€own€accord?€Ì"Q.à àà àOf€your€own€desire.€€Are€you€contractually€Ìobligated€to€make€those€payments?€Ì"A.à àà àWe€made€an€agreement€with€them€early€on€into€theÌ€buyout€that,€in€the€event€that€they€were€still€living€at€theÌ€end€of€the€buyout,€that€that€would€never€stop.€€And€thatÌ€agreement€was€an€obligation€that€was€committed€to€manyÌ€years€ago.€Ì"Q.à àà àWas€that€agreement€in€writing?€Ì"A.à àà àNo,€sir.€Ì"Q.à àà àWas€there€any€of€the€buyout€agreement€in€writing?Ì"A.à àà àAny€of€the€buyout€agreement?€Ì"Q.à àà àLike€when€you€and€your€brother€and€sister€purchasedÌyour€father's€interest€in€the€company€or€companies?€Ì"A.à àà àYes.Ì"Q.à àà àWas€any€of€that€reduced€to€writing?€Ì"A.à àà àYes.Ì"Q.à àà àAnd€my€question€is€....If€the€agreement€to€purchaseÌwas€in€writing,€was€the€five€hundred€thousand€or€so€purchaseÌprice€recited€in€that€agreement?€Ì"A.à àà àYes,€sir.€Ì"Q.à àà àTo€your€knowledge,€was€the€agreement€to€continueÌmaking€payments€to€your€parents€for€as€long€a€time€as€theyÌlived,€was€it€also€in€writing?€Ì"A.à àà àNo,€sir.€Ì"Q.à àà àAre€you€aware€of€any€writing€that's€in€existenceÌbetween€you,€your€brother€and€sister€and€your€parent€orÌparents,€where€a€writing€addresses€the€fact€that€you€will€Ìcontinue€to€make€payments€as€long€as€they€live?€€Is€there€anyÏwriting?€Ì"A.à àà àNo,€sir."ÌÌà àà àEven€if€we€should€be€mistaken€as€to€husband'sÌ€legal€liability€or€if€the€husband€feels€he€has€a€moralÌ€obligation€to€make€these€payments,€we€don't€think€it€is€tooÌ€much€for€the€husband€to€suspend€these€payments€or€make€otherÏarrangements€to€take€care€of€them€pending€his€obligations€toÌ€his€wife€for€alimony€and€child€support.ÌÌà àà àWe€modify€the€decree€of€the€chancellor€and€increaseÌ€the€temporary€rehabilitative€alimony€to€$2,500€per€month€forÌ€36€months.€€In€addition€thereto,€the€husband€shall€pay€theÌ€wife's€college€expenses,€including€tuition,€books,€and€anyÏadditional€out„of„pocket€expenses€to€Carson€Newman€College,Ïincluding€past€accrued€unpaid€college€expenses,€so€long€asÌ€the€wife€carries€at€least€12€hours€of€credits€up€to€her€dateÌ€of€graduation,€but€not€to€exceed€30€months.ÌÌà àà àUpon€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€wife€stipulated€she€wasÏagreeable€to€the€judgment€against€the€husband€for€her€interest€inÏthe€corporate€stock€to€be€paid€in€installments.€€The€chancellor,Ïaccordingly,€entered€a€decree€ordering€the€husband€to€pay€$1,205.59Ïper€month€on€the€judgment€until€his€child€support€obligations€wereÏterminated.€€Thereafter€he€was€to€pay€the€unpaid€balance€in€monthlyÏinstallments€within€seven€years.ÌÒ ' ÒÒ û ÒÌà àà àThe€decree€of€the€chancellor€is€further€modified€toÏrelease€the€husband€from€the€obligation€of€making€any€paymentsÏon€the€$227,500€judgment€for€36€months€but€the€judgment€shallÏbear€10%€interest€pursuant€to€TCA€ðð€47„14„121.€€After€36€monthsÏthe€husband€shall€begin€payments€on€the€judgment€at€the€rate€ofÏnot€less€than€$2,000€per€month€for€36€months.€€The€paymentsÏshall€be€applied€first€to€interest€and€the€balance€toÏprincipal,€after€which€the€husband€shall€pay€not€less€thanÏ$5,000€per€month€for€36€months,€and€after€that€shall€pay€notÏless€than€$7,500€per€month€until€the€judgment€and€accruedÏinterest€are€paid€in€full.€€Husband's€life€insurance€policyÏshall€also€cover€the€unpaid€portion€of€the€judgment.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€modified€decree,€the€husband€will€have€inÏexcess€of€$5,000€per€month€income€with€which€to€pay€his€livingÏexpenses€and€other€obligations.€€The€wife€has€no€extra€fundsÏwith€which€to€pay€attorneys'€fees€and€legal€expenses.€€TheÏdecree€of€the€chancellor€is€accordingly€modified€to€require€theÏhusband€to€pay,€as€additional€alimony€to€the€wife,€attorneys'Ïfees€and€legal€expenses€in€the€amount€of€$12,191.30.ÌÌà àà à€To€the€extent€the€decree€of€the€chancellor€is€notÏmodified,€it€is€affirmed.€The€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€toÏthe€Appellee€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏthe€entry€of€a€decree€in€keeping€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.J.ÌCONCUR:€ÌÌ______________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.€ÌÌ______________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.