ÿWPCX h|¡$»ö˜`­ÕJ毋 TŒ¸*¾´×L®í !sK°bO Ã_˜-bãGW5Íg³jî.#/ZdæÒØ»½/ª œ{Þˆü˜™qö…È2,_^¸lª>(‘=6mÚ£;¥|¿“Ì`àƒX"+_²Muåô¿{" ¸¥m`ùÖ¬Û)º¹<•c³pxÂ[‡Ôùl3‹i±%’h`½$ÈW Õ\ÊÖA¸àLl»¡^©;;·Ò³`tŸ ²½küß„ðÓ[´wêå|‚¶@*é¬ :¾ªñ6­§xÄã.0™&ñöwŒ™§ç¨³þ5Št @"³Ó™|_3–k09å$2ÜVïé¾¾'ƒ‘Èa¯º´m=×ú¾•†Ì× ñggn‰gÍWcù\òDýÏõI×ôYbôÔ ò0<–³¿ȶ 7<nü:öîLþ½À3øæi-`z‰NêÂHÀPÍ‘dê’Ñè+Üc0érŸ‹ÂÕ¨ú뿉E+Á©1JæªÛüà?îÆ¾9&o¬a§—`rë|Ü Z¼]óðcB'JØ(›àe^^X^½ÄOÁ>¬Ü ÷pÝ2õÜÐc ‰¾äô­¢ýÿècÉÚô@9» ™‡ÂƼФSË ƒÈ×M3-…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ Ù UN÷ U:E  U: UB× %           B     D3< < < 0Do o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o AO³ Æ 0DÈ D/  B;ýhµ&ÔøÔô3|x:($¡¡ $%D&D'D(D)D*D+,Ó€8 Ô€Xo|XXXÔÔ€îiõîXXo|ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€WÇîîiõÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€28,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô˜ôWÇÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€ Xo|XXXÔÔ€ îiõîX Xo|ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ WÇî îiõÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€25,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô˜ô WÇÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ,ñ›ñ,ñѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÚmXXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X€)XXXÔÔ€ŠôÝŠXX€)Ôñ8ññ,ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ,ññ8ññ8ñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ8ññ,ñ›ñ,ñ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌœÌÌñ%ñÌ›Ìñ%ñANGELA›€MAE€ARP,à < àà ” àà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9808„CV„00273Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellee,à < àà ” àà ì à)€POLK€CIRCUITÐ  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€LAWRENCE€PUCKETT,Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÌRICHARD€LEE€ARP,à < àà ” àà ì à)Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED›Ìà 4 àDefendant„Appellant.à ” àà ì àœ)€AND€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌœÌñ&ñÌ›Ìñ&ñROBERT›€S.€THOMPSON,€LOGAN,€THOMPSON,€MILLER,€BILBO,€THOMPSONÏ&€FISHER,€P.C.,€Cleveland,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌÌB.€PRINCE€MILLER,€JR.,€Cleveland,€for€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌ̛̜Ìà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ ! ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌà 4 àà Œ àÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€divorce€action,€the€husband€was€dissatisfied€with€theÏclassification€of€property,€the€division€of€marital€property,€and€the€custodyÏarrangement€ordered€by€the€Trial€Judge,€and€has€appealed€numerous€issues€to€thisÏCourt.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€parties€were€married€on€January€6,€1990,€and€two€children€wereÏborn€to€the€marriage.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€trial€of€the€divorce€was€heard€on€March€13,€1998,€and€the€wifeÏtestified€that€when€she€was€eighteen€she€met€the€husband€and€they€immediately€startedÏdating.€€They€dated€for€six€years€before€marriage,€and€lived€together€for€œfour€of€thoseÏyears.€€During›€that€time,€the€wife€took€care€of€the€house€and€did€œcooking,›€and€œworked›Ð :þ23ýG Ðat€Goodyððs€Family€Clothing€Store€as€assistant€œmanager.€€She›€also€helped€the€husbandÏwith€his€businesses,€by€cleaning€Peoples€Bank€and€picking€up€money€or€washing€theÏbays€at€the€car€œwash.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe›€Trial€Court,€in€resolving€the€issues,€noted€that€the€marriage€was€anÏeight€year€marriage,€and€found€both€œin€good›€health€and€to€have€the€ability€andÏvocational€skills€necessary€to€maintain€a€business.€€The€Court€found€that€neither€partyÏcontributed€to€the€education,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other,€but€bothÏparties€worked€in€the€businesses,€contributing€œto›€one€anotherððs€enhanced€financialÏstate.€€The€Court€found€the€husband€to€be€the€motivator€behind€the€businesses,€andÏfurther€that€the€wife€made€significant€contributions,€both€as€a€homemaker€andÏbusiness€partner,€toward€acquisition,€preservation€and€appreciation€of€marital€andÏseparate€properties.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband€presents€eight€issues€for€review,€as€follows:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à1.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€the€determination€of€separate€property.€€TheÐ ! Ðevidence€does€not€support€the€Courtððs€finding€that€the€parties€had€beenÏin€a€partnership€for€six€years€prior€to€their€marriage.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à2.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€its€valuation€and€division€of€ProfessionalÐ % ÐJanitorial€Supply€Corporation.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à3.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€finding€that€there€was€a€$108,000.00€cashÐ (!! Ðasset€which€is€a€separate€asset€of€the€parties.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à4.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€the€tax€liabilities€for€theÐ +$$ Ðreal€estate,€commercial€and€business€properties,€is€a€liability€that€shouldÏhave€been€addressed€in€the€division€of€the€assets€and€liabilities.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à5.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€assessing€Mr.€Arp€with€one„half€of€theÐ /(( Ðelective€orthodontic€procedure€that€Mrs.€Arp€incurred€immediatelyÏbefore€trial€and€for€credit€card€debt€which€she€incurred€after€an€order€forÏTemporary€Maintenance€and€Support.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à6.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€the€division€of€the€marital€estate.Ð4--Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à7.à ä àAppellant€respectfully€submits€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€theÐ 6// Ðdivision€of€the€property€attempted€by€the€trial€court€cannot€be€compliedÏwith€because€of€the€cross„collateralization€agreement€that€the€partiesÏexecuted€to€the€Peopleððs€bank€of€Fannin€County,€Georgia.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÐ :33 Ðà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à8.à ä àThe€Court€erred€in€placing€the€care,€custody€and€control€of€theÐ  Ðpartiesðð€two€minor€children€with€their€mother,€Angela€Mae€Arp.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àOur€standard€of€review€in€this€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€theÐ   ÐTrial€Court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€Trial€CourtððsÏfindings,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).Ìà 4 àà Œ àFirst,€the€husband€insists€the€Court€erred€in€the€determination€of€separateÏproperty.Ìà 4 àà Œ àAt€the€time€of€the€marriage,€the€husband€owned€œan€interest›€in€severalÏpieces€of€property.€€Under€T.C.A.€ðð36„4„121(2)(A),€all€of€these€properties€would€beÏconsidered€separate€property,€because€they€were€owned€before€marriage.€€The€CourtÏfound€some€of€these€properties€to€be€separate€property,€some€to€be€both€separate€andÏmarital€property,€and€some€to€be€marital€property.€€Accordingly,€the€issue€thusÏbecomes€whether€the€property€owned€before€marriage€became€marital€property€due€toÏtransmutation,€commingling,€or€increase€in€value€due€to€substantial€contribution€byÏthe€spouse.Ìà 4 àà Œ àTwo€of€the€husbandððs€several€parcels€consist€of€land€in€Turtletown,ÏTennessee.€€The€Trial€Court€awarded€part€of€this€property€to€the€husband€as€separateÏproperty,€and€the€rest€to€the€husband€as€marital€property.€€At€trial,€the€wife€did€notÏdispute€that€all€of€the€Turtletown€property€was€separate€property,€and€the€Trial€CourtÏwas€in€error€in€dividing€a€portion€of€this€property€œas€part€of€the›€marital€estate.€€Thus,Ïthe€award€as€marital€property€to€the€husband€of€11.92€acres€in€Turtletown,€valued€atÏ$30,000.00,€must€be€excluded€from€the€marital€estate€and€awarded€to€the€husband€asÏseparate€property.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Campbell€property€consists€of€2.2€acres€of€unimproved€propertyÏwhich€the€husband€purchased€for€$45,000.00€before€the€marriage.€€The€Trial€CourtÏassigned€a€value€to€this€property€at€the€time€of€trial€of€$265,000.00,€and€awarded€one„Ð Ì8Ä11 Ðfifth€of€the€property€to€the€husband€as€separate€property,€and€four„fifths€of€theÏproperty€to€the€husband€as€marital€property.€€The€evidence€at€trial€revealed€that€theÏparties€had€done€nothing€to€this€property,€but€it€had€increased€in€value€due€to€itsÏlocation€and€extension€of€public€utilities.€€Accordingly,€there€is€no€basis€to€classifyÏthis€as€marital€property,€since€the€wife€made€no€contribution€to€the€propertiesðð€increaseÏin€value.€€œThe›€increase€in€value€was€not€due€to€any€contributions€by€either€the€husbandÏor€wife,€but€was€due€to€the€location€and€the€economy.€€This€is€similar€to€the€situationÏin€òòHarrison€v.€Harrisonóó,€912€S.W.2d€124€(Tenn.€1995),€where€the€husbandððs€separateÐ @8 Ðproperty€increased€substantially€in€value€due€to€the€construction€of€an€interstateÏhighway.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€valued€the€Cherokee€Hills€house€at€$120,000.00,€andÏawarded€half€of€it€to€the€husband€as€separate€property,€and€half€of€it€to€the€husband€asÏmarital€property.€€The€husband€states€in€his€brief€that€this€was€pre„owned€property,€butÏdoes€not€set€forth€any€reason€why€the€property€was€wrongly€classified€as€partialÏmarital€property.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÏfinding€that€fifty€percent€of€the€value€of€this€property€is€marital,€because€the€partiesÏdid€live€in€this€house€for€a€period€of€time,€and€wife€made€contributions€to€its€increaseÏin€value€as€a€homemaker,€and€as€a€partner€in€the€business.€€This€is€both€direct€andÏindirect€substantial€contributions€to€the€propertiesðð€increase€in€value.€€The€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€Ìà 4 àà Œ àHusband€was€operating€all€of€his€car€washes€before€marriage,€being€68ÏCar€Wash,€Tri„State€Car€Wash,€and€Appalachian€Car€Wash.€€It€appears€that€he€onlyÏowned€half€of€the€68€Car€Wash€at€the€time€of€the€marriage,€and€he€purchased€hisÏpartnerððs€interest€after€the€marriage.€€The€Trial€Court€treated€these€businesses€asÏmarital€property.Ìà 4 àà Œ àIn€these€pre„owned€properties,€the€proceeds€and€debts€have€beenÐ Ð9È22 Ðintermingled€with€those€of€marital€property,€and€the€husband€treated€the€property€inÏsuch€as€way€as€to€evince€a€transmutation€into€marital€property.€€The€financialÏtransactions€involving€these€parties€and€these€businesses€are€not€clearly€delineated,€butÏthe€record€indicates€that€the€debts€on€the€properties€were€consolidated€with€otherÏproperties€in€1992,€after€the€marriage,€so€that€only€one€payment€was€made.€€TheÏrefinancing€produced€new€debt€which€was€used€to€renovate€the€Hillcrest€Motel,€whichÏis€undisputed€marital€property.€€Later,€the€husband€used€these€properties€as€cross„¼collateral€for€the€Ocoee€œChevron,›€œCar›€Wash,€and€Inn.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWife€did€the€bookkeeping€for€the€car€washes€and€other€businesses.€ÏHusband€testified€that€he€is€now€doing€all€of€the€bookkeeping€for€the€businesses,€andÏthat€it€is€a€difficult€job€which€takes€a€great€deal€of€time.€€Both€husband€and€wife€hadÏaccess€to€all€of€the€business€accounts,€and€they€took€money€out€of€these€accountsÏwhenever€they€needed€it.€€Husband€stated€that€while€he€and€the€wife€were€married,Ïð ðeverything€we€did€was€„„€we€was€together,€I€mean,€husband€and€wife.€€I€mean,€IÏnever€done€anything€without€talking€to€her€about€it.€€But€she€did€things€without€talkingÏto€me.€€But€we€never€made€any€ventures€in€anything€unless€we€talked€about€it€andÏprayed€about€it.ððÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€husbandððs€actions€establish€a€partnership€œtype€of€arrangement›Ïbetween€the€husband€and€œwife,€in›€all€of€their€business€ventures.€€The€proceeds€andÏdebts€of€these€businesses€were€extensively€intermingled€with€marital€proceeds€andÏdebts,€blurring€any€distinction€between€the€properties.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€classification.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€husband€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€evaluation€andÏdivision€of€the€Professional€Janitorial€Supply€Corporation.€€We€conclude€the€Court€didÏnot€err€in€its€evaluation€and€division€of€the€Corporation,€though€it€erred€in€ordering€theÏrelease€of€a€CD€securing€the€debts€of€the€Corporation.€€The€value€assigned€by€the€TrialÐ Ð9È22 ÐCourt€to€the€respective€interest€in€the€Corporation€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€€InÏthis€distribution€the€Trial€Court€ordered:€€ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àHusband€shall€have€sixty€days€to€secure€the€release€of€the€Certificate€ofÏDeposit€and€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€jeep€.€.€.€or€shall€payÏAngela€Mae€Arp€the€sum€of€$11,432.60.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓWe€find€no€error€in€the€award€of€the€Certificate€of€Deposit€œto›€the€wife,€but€the€CourtÏdid€err€in€ordering€that€the€CD€be€released.€€Since€the€wife€is€responsible€for€one„halfÏof€the€debt€attributable€to€a€one„third€stock€interest€in€the€Corporation,€this€CD€whichÏsecured€the€debt€and€was€awarded€to€the€wife,€should€remain€as€security€for€this€debt.€ÏWe€accordingly€vacate€that€portion€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€Order€that€directs€that€the€CDÏbe€released.Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€it€is€asserted€that€the€Court€erred€in€finding€there€was€$108,000.00Ïcash€assets,€which€was€a€separate€asset€of€the€parties.€€We€agree€that€the€Trial€CourtððsÏfinding€was€in€error.€€On€October€1,€1997,€the€date€of€the€deposition€of€the€loan€officerÏof€Peopleððs€Bank€of€Fannin€County,€Georgia,€it€was€established€that€the€husband€hadÏon€that€day€a€total€of€$108,173.26€in€his€personal€and€business€accounts€with€the€bank.€ÏThe€husband€testified€the€account€reflected€the€operating€revenues€of€the€business,€andÏthat€on€any€given€date€they€varied€dramatically,€depending€on€income€and€expenses.€ÏOn€the€date€of€trial,€February€13,€1998,€the€accounts€had€a€balance€of€$68,645.64.€€TheÏTrial€Court€properly€distributed€these€accounts€as€marital€property,€but€erred€in€theÏevaluation.€€Marital€property€must€be€ð ðvalued€as€of€a€date€as€near€as€reasonablyÏpossible€to€the€final€divorce€hearing€date.ðð€€T.C.A.ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(A).€€The€value€onÏthe€date€of€the€divorce€hearing€should€have€been€the€value€utilized€by€the€Court,€andÏthat€amount€must€be€substituted€in€the€Courtððs€judgment€for€ð ðcash€on€handðð.Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€it€is€argued€that€the€Court€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€the€taxÏliabilities€for€the€real€estate€commercial€and€business€properties€is€a€liability€thatÏshould€have€been€addressed€in€the€division€of€the€assets€and€liabilities.€€The€evidenceÐ Ð9È22 Ðestablished€the€amount€of€business€tax€liabilities€in€the€State€of€Georgia,€and€businessÏtaxes€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Apparently,€these€assessments€were€introduced€atÏtrial,€but€are€not€in€the€record€before€us.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€determine€what€taxÏamount€is€attributable€to€each€of€the€parties.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àð ðMarital€debt€should€be€allocated€as€are€marital€assets,€and€should€beÏconsidered€when€making€an€equitable€division€of€property.ðð€€òòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,€944Ð 0(  ÐS.W.2d€379,€390€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€In€this€case,€the€tax€debt€was€incurred€by€virtueÏof€property€ownership,€and€while€both€parties€might€argue€that€taxes€are€notÏbeneficial,€both€parties€did€benefit€from€the€property€ownership.€€The€parties€wereÏawarded€substantial€assets€in€the€property€division,€though€the€husband€was€awardedÏthe€greater€share.€€Since€the€husband€was€awarded€most€of€the€marital€property,€heÏshould€be€responsible€for€most€of€the€tax€attributable€to€that€property.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€hold€that€the€equitable€way€to€distribute€the€tax€liability€is€to€require€each€party€toÏpay€the€debt€on€the€property€which€he€or€she€received€in€the€œdistribution,€which€weÏcannot›€determine€without€the€tax€assessments.€€Accordingly,€upon€remand,€the€TrialÏCourt€is€directed€to€determine€œthe›€allocation€of€tax€liability€to€each€party.Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€husband€seeks€relief€from€an€assessment€of€one„half€of€an€electiveÏorthodontic€procedure€that€the€wife€incurred€immediately€before€trial,€and€for€creditÏcard€debt€she€incurred€after€the€Order€of€Temporary€Maintenance€and€Support.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€found€the€debt€for€the€orthodontic€procedure€to€be€aÏmarital€debt,€which,€with€the€exception€of€the€debts€on€the€real€property,€the€CourtÏassessed€œthe€marital€debts€almost›€equally€between€the€parties.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àOn€April€25,€1997,€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€Order€granting€wifeÏtemporary€custody€of€the€two€children,€and€ordering€the€husband€to€pay€$200.00€perÏweek€as€temporary€child€support,€as€well€as€providing€that€husband€ð ðfurther€maintainÏpayment€on€the€other€bills€and€indebtedness€including,€but€not€limited€to,€the€homeÐ Ð9È22 Ðand€utilities.ðð€€After€this€time,€the€wife€had€orthodontic€surgery€on€her€jaw,€and€sheÏtestified€the€surgery€was€for€health€reasons.€€The€husband€and€wife€had€discussed€theÏwife€having€the€surgery€five€years€earlier,€but€had€put€it€off€due€to€the€wifeððsÏpregnancy,€and€their€lack€of€insurance€coverage.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€also€incurred€credit€card€debts€after€the€Order€went€into€effect.€ÏShe€testified€that€part€of€the€debt€was€due€to€transfers€of€earlier€debts€to€cards€withÏlower€interest€rates,€and€part€was€due€to€new€purchases.€€She€testified€she€needed€theÏcards€because€husband€was€no€longer€providing€her€with€any€money,€other€than€theÏstated€child€support.Ìà 4 àà Œ àHusband€argues€that€since€the€wife€created€this€debt,€she€should€pay€forÏit.€€However,€debt,€like€property,€is€considered€marital€if€acquired€during€the€marriage.€ÏòòSee€Herreraóó,€p.389;€òòMondelli€v.€Howardóó,€780€S.W.2d€769,€773€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€Ð `X ÐThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€theÏindebtedness.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€the€husband€insists€the€Court€erred€in€the€overall€division€of€theÏmarital€estate.€€As€we€have€noted,€the€Trial€Court€made€incorrect€classifications€ofÏseparate€property€and€the€marital€property,€and€adopted€an€incorrect€value€of€cash€onÏhand€and€failed€to€include€the€tax€assessment€as€liabilities.€€However,€afterÏconsidering€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€and€the€factors€for€equitable€distribution€set€outÏin€T.C.A.€ðð36„4„121(c),€the€division€made€by€the€Trial€Court,€after€our€modifications,Ïremains€a€fair€and€equitable€division€of€the€marital€estate.€€œAs›€trial€courts€are€givenÏwide€discretion€in€the€division€of€marital€property,€their€division€is€entitled€to€greatÏweight€on€œappeal,€and€wñ+ñeñ+ñ€affirm€the€property€division,€as€modified.›€€œòòSee€Watters›€v.Ð ¸3°,, ÐWattersóó,€959€S.W.2d€585,€590€(Tenn.€App.€1997).Ð À5¸.. Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband€argues€that€the€division€of€the€marital€property€ordered€byÏthe€Trial€Court€cannot€be€effected€because€of€the€cross„collaterization€agreement€thatÐ Ð9È22 Ðthe€parties€executed€at€the€Peopleððs€Bank€of€Fannin€County,€Georgia.€€While€theÏcross„collaterization€agreement€complicates€the€property€division,€it€does€not€renderÏthe€division€inoperable.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Peopleððs€Bank€of€Fannin€County,€Georgia,€loaned€the€husbandÏ100%€of€the€construction€costs€of€the€Ocoee€Convenience€Store,€Car€Wash,€and€MotelÏproject.€€The€project€was€built€and€had€been€operating€for€about€a€year€at€the€time€ofÏtrial.€€The€remaining€loan€balance€on€the€project€was€$1,550,000.00,€at€the€time€ofÏtrial,€and€the€Ocoee€property€was€valued€at€$1,750,000.00.€€The€Ocoee€property€isÏcollateral€for€the€loan,€but€so€is€all€the€other€real€property€owned€by€either€the€husbandÏor€husband€and€wife€together.€€In€the€distribution,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€the€wifeÏproperty€that€is€collateral€for€the€Ocoee€project.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€President€of€the€Bank€testified€that€œthe›€husbandððs€total€obligation€toÏthe€Bank€under€this€cross„collateral€agreement€and€under€prior€loans€is€approximatelyÏ$2,400,000.00.€€The€husbandððs€past€business€successes€and€his€personal€involvementÏin€the€venture,€were€the€factors€in€the€Bankððs€decision€to€loan€the€husband€this€amountÏof€money€for€the€Ocoee€project,€according€to€the€Bankððs€president.€€The€presidentÏstated€œthe€Bank›€would€not€release€any€of€the€collateral€that€secures€the€loan,€andÏfurther€that€he€would€consider€a€transfer€from€the€husband€to€the€wife€as€a€sufficientÏtransfer€to€trigger€a€due€on€sale€clause,€though€the€transfer€of€a€residence,€as€opposedÏto€commercial€property,€generally€would€not€trigger€such€action.€€He€testified€that€theÏBank€could€waive€the€due€on€sale€clause,€but€he€would€have€to€analyze€the€situation€atÏthe€time€of€the€Courtððs€transfer€of€property€as€to€whether€or€not€there€was€sufficientÏcollateral€to€cover€the€loan.€€œÌà 4 àà Œ àAny›€possible€ramifications€that€may€flow€from€the€property€divisionÏcannot€be€a€basis€for€denying€the€wife€her€equitable€share€in€the€marital€estate.€€TheseÏcontractual€relationships€œdo›€not€prevent€the€Court€from€awarding€interest€in€propertiesÐ Ð9È22 Ðin€a€divorce€case,€and€the€transfer€of€the€properties€to€the€wife€does€not€œimpairñ"ññ ñtñ ññ"ñ›€theÏBankððs€collateral€interest.€€However,€œas€the€Trial€Court€ordered,€the›€husband€will€beÏrequired€to€hold€the€wife€harmless€for€any€possible€losses€as€a€result€of€the€husbandððsÏindebtedness€to€the€Bank.Ìà 4 àà Œ àFinally,€we€conclude€that€the€Court€properly€placed€the€minor€childrenÏwith€their€mother,€which€was€in€the€Trial€Judgeððs€discretion.€€òòSuttles€v.€Suttlesóó,€748Ð 0(  ÐS.W.2d€427,€429€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€evidence€preponderates€strongly€in€favor€ofÏplacement€of€the€children€with€the€mother,€as€being€in€their€best€interest.Ìà 4 àà Œ àIn€sum,€the€Trial€Courtððs€distribution€of€property€œwill€be€modified,›€asÏindicated.€€Also,€œñ#ñtheñ#ññ$ñañ$ñ›€tax€liability€will€be€assessed€to€each€party€upon€remand,€dependingÏupon€the€tax€liability€attributable€to€the€property€that€each€party€was€awarded,€and€theÏorder€of€the€Trial€Court€to€release€the€CD€from€the€sale€of€the€Nissan€truck,€as€securityÏto€the€loan€for€Professional€Janitorial€Service,€will€be€vacated.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€as€modified,€and€the€costsÏassessed€one„half€to€each€party€on€appeal.ÌÓÓÌœñ'ñÌ›Ìñ'ñ›ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ìà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌœñ(ñÌñ(ñ›ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.Ìœñ)ñÌñ)ñ›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌH.€David€Cate,€Sp.J.Ìœñ*ñÐ Ð9È22 Ðñ*ñ›