ÿWPC“ …# VUFa %§ 07­äO 4R f u w u 0J 0TÉ 0^ 0h{ 0rã 0|U 0†Ñ 0W 1uç U,\ 0dˆ U,ì U6B)NDCw AMºU* B1 0UN£‡£v~* D3¨vÓÛ 0@® AOîÆ= 0D D/G Bv˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&âõ$¡Ñ€²Ñ Ö€ÿÿÖ EÝ ƒ&¦)ÝÝ  Ýà@°°*ìàÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú©U! (|3|x}rÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d(-3¦$©©Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  Ý öÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òAugust€20,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó }Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ&)ÝÝ  Ýà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  ÚPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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  ÝÑ € ÑÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÒ   ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€#'";+'h|` ¤ `€€LßÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEE€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌSUSAN€LEE€BARTLEY€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€HAMILTON€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€CA€No.€03A01„9511„CV„00420Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€HON.€SAMUEL€H.€PAYNE€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€JUDGE€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,ÌWILLIAM€EDGAR€BARTLEY,€III€€€:€€€€€€MODIFIED€IN€PART,€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€REVERSED€IN€PART,€ANDÌ€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€€€:€€€€€€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€M.€SIBLEY,€OF€CHATTANOOGA,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANT€ÌÌR.€DEE€HOBBS,€OF€CHATTANOOGA,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sp.J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Plaintiff€has€appealed€from€the€order€of€the€divisionÏof€marital€property€in€a€divorce€proceeding€where€a€divorce€wasÏgranted€to€the€parties€pursuant€to€TCA€ðð€36„4„129.ÌÌà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant€Susan€Lee€Bartley€filed€suit€forÏdivorce€against€the€Defendant,€William€Edgar€Bartley,€III,€after€Ö€(Ö19Ïyears€of€marriage,€alleging€irreconcilable€differences€andÏinappropriate€marital€conduct€by€the€Defendant.€€In€her€complaint,Ïas€amended,€she€asked€for€a€divorce,€custody€of€their€two€minorÏchildren€aged€nine€years€and€12€years,€child€support,€alimony,Ïattorney's€fees,€an€equitable€division€of€marital€property,€andÏsupport€for€herself€and€children.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€fails€to€show€the€husband€filed€an€answer€toÏthe€complaint.€€The€complaint€was€filed€on€April€20,€1994.€€On€JuneÏ24€an€order€was€entered€ordering€the€Defendant€to€pay€theÏPlaintiff,€as€support,€the€sum€of€$1,858€for€the€month€of€June€andÏ$2,750€for€the€month€of€July.ÌÌà àà àIn€August,€1994,€an€agreed€order€of€divorce€was€entered.€ÏAs€pertinent,€the€order€declared€the€parties€divorced€pursuant€toÏTCA€ðð€36„4„129(b).€€The€Defendant€was€to€pay€the€Plaintiff€$4,000Ïas€temporary€support€for€the€month€of€August€and€to€pay€PlaintiffÏ$5,000€as€an€advance€on€property€settlement;€€the€Defendant€was€toÏcarry€medical€insurance€on€the€children,€but€the€permanent€supportÏwas€to€be€fixed€later.€€The€wife€was€to€have€temporary€custody€ofÏthe€children€with€liberal€visitation€to€the€husband.€€PropertyÏvalues€were€to€be€determined€as€of€the€date€of€divorce,€July€26,Ï1994.€€All€other€issues,€including€permanent€child€custody,€theÏamount€of€permanent€child€support,€alimony,€attorney's€fees,€andÏthe€division€of€assets€and€liabilities€were€reserved€until€finalÏhearing€in€the€case.ÌÌà àà àAn€order€of€reference€was€entered€by€the€court€pursuantÏto€a€stipulation€of€the€parties.€€The€court€ordered€the€issues€ofÏfact€be€referred€to€Thomas€A.€Harris,€as€special€master€to€takeÏtestimony€and€report€recommended€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÏof€law€on€the€following€issues:€1.€permanent€custody€of€the€twoÏminor€children;€2.€the€amount€of€child€support€to€be€paid€by€theÏnon„custodial€parent;€3.€the€amount€of€alimony,€if€any,€to€beÏawarded;€4.€the€value€of€the€parties'€assets€as€of€the€date€ofÍdivorce€„€specifically:€A.€22.5%€interest€in€Diversified€PolymerÏCorporation,€B.€Southern€Adhesives€Co.,€C.€the€value€of€theÏresidence€of€the€parties;€and€5.€the€division€of€marital€assets€andÏliabilities€of€the€parties.€€The€special€master€conducted€anÏextensive€trial€on€all€issues.ÌÌà àà àThe€proof€showed€the€parties€were€married€in€1975,Ïshortly€after€they€were€both€graduated€from€the€University€ofÏTennessee€at€Chattanooga.€€After€the€marriage,€the€wife€workedÏoutside€the€home€as€a€chemist€for€various€companies€in€ChattanoogaÏuntil€the€birth€of€their€first€child€in€1982.€€After€the€birth€ofÏtheir€first€child,€the€wife€devoted€her€time€to€being€a€housewifeÏand€mother,€except€for€occasional€part„time€tutoring€in€the€home,Ïteaching€piano,€serving€as€organist€in€the€church,€and€doingÏstatistical€work€in€the€home.€€Her€income€was€estimated€to€be€notÏmore€than€$250€per€month.€€The€husband€was€employed€by€ALC€CompanyÏof€Georgia,€which€was€engaged€in€carpet„€backing€manufacturing€asÏwell€as€adhesives.ÌÌà àà àIn€January,€1985,€the€husband,€along€with€a€Mr.€HalyakÏand€Mr.€William€Ellis,€Jr.,€formed€the€Diversified€PolymersÏIndustries,€Inc.€(DPI)€which€manufactures€water„based€adhesives€andÍcoatings.€€They€are€the€sole€stockholders€and€principal€operatorsÏof€the€company.€€It€appears€Mr.€Ellis€furnished€the€financing€forÏthe€formation€and€start„up€costs€of€the€company.€€The€husband,€Mr.ÏBartley,€is€the€technician€for€the€company,€Mr.€Halyak€is€theÏsalesman€of€the€products,€and€it€appears€Mr.€Ellis€handles€theÏfinancial€affairs€of€the€company.€€Mr.€Bartley€owns€22.5%€of€theÏstock€in€the€corporation,€Mr.€Halyak€owns€22.5%€and€Mr.€Ellis€ownsÏ55%€of€the€stock.€€The€value€of€Mr.€Bartley's€22.5%€of€the€stock€inÏthe€corporation€is€the€principal€issue€in€this€litigation.ÌÌà àà àWhen€the€corporation€was€formed,€salaries€of€theÏstockholders€were€fixed€and€it€was€agreed€the€salaries€would€remainÏconstant€and€when€the€corporation€became€profitable€dividends€wouldÏbe€paid€on€the€basis€of€stock€ownership.€€The€base€salary€of€Mr.ÏBartley€was€fixed€at€$42,000€per€year.€€The€corporation€operated€atÏa€loss€for€the€years€of€1985€and€1986.€€Each€year€since€1986€it€hasÏbeen€increasingly€profitable€and€a€stockholders'€dividend€was€paidÏfor€the€first€time€in€December,€1991,€of€$61,000.€€In€1992Ïdividends€of€$216,500€were€paid;€in€1993,€$215,000;€and€for€theÏfirst€eight€months€of€1994,€January€through€August,€dividends€ofÏ$390,000€were€paid.ÌÌà àà àIn€1989€or€1990€DPI€was€changed€to€an€"S"€corporation€soÏthat€profits€and€losses€pass€directly€to€the€stockholders.€€Mr.ÏBartley's€share€of€the€dividends€in€1992€was€$66,080,€in€1993,Ï$82,638,€and€for€eight€months€of€1994€$87,750.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Bartley€also€has€an€interest€in€a€company€known€asÏSouthern€Adhesives.€€The€evidence€as€to€the€ownership€of€thatÏcompany€is€extremely€skimpy€but€it€appears€to€be€a€partnershipÏbetween€Mr.€Bartley€and€Mr.€Halyak,€the€other€minority€stockholderÏin€DPI.€€Aside€from€the€testimony€of€the€expert€witness€as€to€theÏvalue€of€Southern€Adhesives€and€Mr.€Bartley's€income€from€theÏcompany,€the€bulk€of€the€testimony€concerning€the€company€is€thatÏof€Mr.€Bartley,€as€follows:Ì"Q.à àà àExplain€to€Mr.€Harris€what€you€do€as€Southern€Adhesives,Ïwhat€you€do€and€then€how€that's€different€from€Diversified€Polymer?Ì"A.à àà àA€couple€of€things€at€Southern€Adhesives.€€Number€one,€IÏwill€analyze€products€for€other€people,€tell€then€what€they€are€toÏwhere€they€can€duplicate€it.Ìà àà àFrom€time€to€time€I€have€access€to€distressed€rawÏmaterials€primarily€given€to€me.€€I€find€a€home€for€them.€€And€Mr.ÏHalyak€and€I€find€a€home€and€sell€them.Ìà àà àWe€also€are€able€to€take€certain€things€and€turn€themÏinto€products,€take€scrap€and€resale€[sic]€it.€€So,€that'sÏprimarily€what€Southern€Adhesives€does.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*Ì"Q.à àà àAre€you€able€to€conduct€this€business€during€the€sameÏtime€you€are€involved€in€Diversified€activities?Ì"A.à àà àRight.€Ì"Q.à àà àThere€is€no€problem.€€Are€you€running€a€file€of€anyÏcorporate€or€employment€structure€with€Diversified€in€doing€thisÏwork?€Ì"A.à àà àThere€is€no€agreements€[sic]€between€us,€no,€sir,€thatÏsays€I€would€or€would€not€do€that.à àà àÌ"Q.€à àà àSo,€as€far€as€you're€concerned,€you€are€free€to€continueÏto€earn€income?€Ì"A.à àà àCorrect.€Ì"Q.à àà àAnd€frankly€you€have€no€desire€to€put€Southern€AdhesivesÏin€the€tank?Ì"A.à àà àNo.€Ì"Q.à àà àIs€there€any€objection€from€your€co„shareholders€aboutÏthe€time€you€spend€for€Southern€Adhesives€or€your€own€accounts?€Ì"A.à àà àThe€majority€shareholder€is€not€aware.€€The€minorityÏpartner€is,€and€he€is€a€part€of€what€I€do€or€what€we€do."Ìà àà àThe€record€shows€Mr.€Bartley€had€a€net€income€fromÏSouthern€Adhesives€of€$25,313€in€1992,€$22,655€in€1993,€and€$18,740Ïfor€the€first€eight€months,€January€through€August,€in€1994.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Bartley's€total€income€from€his€salary€and€dividendsÏfrom€DPI€and€Southern€Adhesives€was€$137,983€for€1992,€$153,134€forÏ1993,€and€$152,994€for€the€first€eight€months€of€1994.ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€called€as€her€expert€witness€Mr.€Mike€Costello,Ïa€certified€public€accountant,€(CPA)€with€the€firm€of€Costello,ÏStrain€&€Company.€€He€has€special€expertise€in€the€valuation€ofÏclosely€held€companies€and€corporations.€€He€testified€his€methodÏfor€appraising€the€value€of€Mr.€Bartley's€interest€in€both€DIP€andÏSouthern€Adhesives€was€the€"Delaware€Rule"€which€is€a€nationallyÏrecognized€rule€and€has€been€adopted€in€Tennessee.€€See€ò òBlasingameÏv.€American€Materials,€Inc.ó ó,€654€S.W.2d€659,€667€(Tenn.1983).€€HeÏappraised€the€value€of€DPI€stock€as€of€the€date€of€the€divorce€toÏbe€$2,270,335€and€the€value€of€Mr.€Bartley's€22.5%€ownershipÏinterest€to€be€$446,976,€rounded€to€$450,000.€€He€found€the€valueÏof€Southern€Adhesives€to€be€$28,118,€rounded€to€$25,000.ÌÌà àà àThe€testimony€of€Mr.€Costello€is€the€only€evidence€in€theÏrecord€as€to€the€value€of€DPI€stock€or€Southern€Adhesives.€€TheÏparties€stipulated€the€value€of€the€remaining€marital€assets€exceptÏfor€personal€and€household€furnishings€which€were€divided€byÏagreement.€€It€was€agreed€the€residence€had€a€value€of€$119,500Ïincumbered€by€a€mortgage€of€$53,612,€leaving€an€equity€of€$65,888.€ÏIt€was€also€agreed€they€had€a€checking€account€of€$26,506.84Ïtogether€with€the€following€securities:€€Kemper€Money€Market€FundÏ$17,362,€American€Capital€Mutual€Fund€$1,993,€Pioneer€II€MutualÏFund€$1,698,€Fidelity€(IRA)€$8,503,€Vanguard€Star€Fund€(IRA)Ï$18,305,€for€a€total€of€$74,367.€€It€was€further€agreed€the€wifeÏhad€drawn€an€advance€of€$9,000€and€the€husband€had€drawn€$6,000Ïfrom€the€marital€properties.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€rules€of€the€court,€both€parties€were€requiredÏto€file€an€estimate€of€future€monthly€income€and€householdÏexpenses.€€The€wife€estimated€her€monthly€income€at€$250€and€a€needÏof€$4,495€per€month€to€cover€household€expenses€for€herself€and€theÏtwo€minor€children.€€The€husband€filed€an€estimated€monthly€needÏfor€household€expenses€of€$6,139.62€but€did€not€file€an€estimate€ofÏmonthly€income.ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€testified€she€is€unemployed€but€is€attending€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee€at€Chattanooga,€studying€education€inÏpreparation€for€certification€as€a€teacher.€€She€is€taking€a€fullÏcourse€of€12€semester€hours€and€hopes€to€take€classes€in€studentÏteaching.€€It€appears€it€will€be€approximately€an€additional€yearÏbefore€she€is€qualified€for€a€salaried€position.€€She€estimated€herÏstarting€salary€will€be€$22,000€to€$23,000€per€year.€€She€hasÏelected€to€go€into€teaching€rather€than€chemistry€because€teachingÏwill€give€her€more€time€for€her€children€and€will€produce€a€betterÏincome.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Bartley,€in€his€testimony,€took€issue€with€Mr.ÏCostello€on€the€value€he€fixed€on€both€DPI€and€Southern€Adhesives.€ÏHe€insisted€the€value€fixed€by€Mr.€Costello€was€excessive,€butÏfailed€to€suggest€a€preferred€method€of€establishing€a€fair€value.€ÏHe€admitted€the€book€value€of€the€company€would€not€represent€aÏfair€value.€€He€suggested€consideration€of€comparable€sales.€€HeÏstated€several€companies€producing€the€same€type€of€products€hadÏbeen€sold€in€recent€years€but€offered€no€proof€as€to€their€salesÏprices.€€In€fact,€he€did€not€offer€any€evidence€to€contradict€orÏeven€challenge€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Costello.ÌÌà àà àThe€special€master€filed€his€report€in€November,€1994.€ÏHe€recommended€the€custody€of€the€two€minor€children€be€awarded€toÏthe€wife€with€reasonable€visitation€privileges€to€the€father.€€HeÏrecommended€the€husband€be€required€to€pay€$1,400€per€month€forÏeach€child€as€child€support€and,€since€he€has€an€annual€income€ofÏapproximately€$160,000,€he€be€required€to€establish€an€educationalÏand€medical€trust€fund€for€each€child,€into€which€he€should€beÏrequired€to€pay€$4,800€per€year€for€the€older€son€and€$3,600€perÏyear€for€the€younger€son€until€they€reach€their€majority.€€He€alsoÏrecommended€the€husband€be€required€to€pay€the€wife€$1,000€perÏmonth€for€12€months€as€rehabilitative€alimony.€€In€fixing€the€valueÏof€Mr.€Bartley's€interest€in€Diversified€Polymer€Industries,€theÏspecial€master€recommended€a€valuation€of€Mr.€Bartley's€22.5%€atÏ$300,000.€€In€his€recommendation€as€to€the€value€of€SouthernÏAdhesives,€the€special€master€apparently€considered€it€to€be€a€soleÏproprietorship€of€Mr.€Bartley€and€recommended€a€nominal€value€ofÏ$2,000.€€He€recommended€that€the€stock€in€DPI€and€the€assets€ofÏSouthern€Adhesives€be€awarded€to€Mr.€Bartley€as€a€part€of€hisÏmarital€property.€€He€also€recommended€the€residence€be€awarded€toÏthe€wife€as€a€part€of€her€marital€property€at€a€value€of€the€equityÏof€$65,888.€€He€recommended€these€properties€and€the€remainingÏproperties€be€divided€between€the€parties€as€follows:ÌÌTO€WIFE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ITEM€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€TO€HUSBANDÌÓÓ$€€€18,500.00€€€€€€€€$26,506.84€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$€€€€8,006.84Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Bank€Account€ÌÌ$€€€65,888.00€€€€€€€€Home€EquityÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$22.5%€interest€inÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Div'd€Polymers€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$€€€300,000.00ÌÌ$€€€17,362.00€€€€€€€€Kemper€MoneyÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Market€Fund€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Mutual€Funds€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$€€€€€3,691.00€ÌÌ$€€€€18,305.00€€€€€€€IRA's:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$€€€€€8,503.00Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€VanguardÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€FidelityÌÌ$€€€100,000.00€€€€€€€Cash€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€<$€€€100,000.00>ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Southern€Adhesives€€€€€€€€€€$€€€€€2,000.00ÌÌ$€€€€€9,000.00€€€€€€€Advances€from€Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€€€€Marital€Property€€€€€€€€€€€€òò$€€€€€6,000.00óóÌÌ$€€€229,055.00€€€€€€€€€€€€TOTALS€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$€€€228,200.84ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€division€would€leave€the€husband€owing€the€wifeÏ$100,000€to€equalize€a€division€of€the€marital€properties.€€TheÏmaster€recommended€the€husband€be€permitted,€if€he€so€desired,€toÏexecute€a€note€to€the€wife€for€the€$100,000€payable€at€the€rate€ofÏ$20,000€per€year,€bearing€interest€on€the€unpaid€balance€at€theÏrate€of€7%,€the€first€payment€on€the€note€to€be€due€July€10,€1995,Íand€future€payments€on€July€10€each€year€until€paid,€with€the€noteÏsecured€by€a€pledge€of€one„half€of€his€stock€in€DPI€and€covered€byÏlife€insurance€on€husband's€life.ÌÌà àà àThe€special€master€recommended€Mr.€Bartley€be€required€toÏcontinue€to€provide€major€medical€and€hospitalization€insuranceÏcovering€the€two€children€until€each€reaches€and€age€of€18.€€HeÏshould€also€pay€all€non„covered€medical,€dental,€orthodontist,Ïoptometrist,€prescription€drugs,€psychiatric€and€psychologicalÏexpenses€up€to€$1,500€per€year€per€child,€with€any€excess€to€beÏprovided€from€the€educational€and€medical€trust€fund€or€insuranceÏpurchased€through€the€fund.€€He€further€recommended€the€medicalÏcoverage€should€be€in€effect€while€the€children€pursue€higherÏeducation.ÌÌà àà àThe€special€master€recommended€Mr.€Bartley€be€required€toÏkeep€his€$350,000€term€life€insurance€policy€in€effect€until€theÏyounger€child€reaches€18€years€of€age,€the€proceeds€of€the€policyÏto€be€applicable€to€the€payment€of€any€indebtedness€owed€by€theÏhusband€to€the€wife€and€the€balance€to€be€used€for€the€benefit€ofÏthe€minor€children,€with€the€right€to€reduce€the€policy€by€50%€uponÏthe€older€son's€reaching€age€18€and€terminate€it€upon€the€youngerÍson's€attaining€majority.€€He€recommended€the€wife€keep€herÏ$250,000€term€life€insurance€policy€in€effect€for€the€benefit€ofÏthe€minor€children.€€He€also€recommended€that€each€party€pay€his€orÏher€own€attorney's€fees€and€retain€the€personal€property€as€dividedÏby€them.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband,€Mr.€Bartley,€filed€the€following€objectionsÏto€the€master's€report:€1.€òòChild€Supportó󀄀The€husband€did€notÏspecifically€object€to€the€amount€of€child€support,€education€andÏmedical€trust€fund€or€uncovered€medical€expenses,€but€asked€thatÏthe€date€of€paying€such€expenses€be€allocated€to€the€time€heÏreceived€his€salary€and€dividends€from€DPI€and€Southern€Adhesives.€Ï2.€òòAlimonyó󀄀He€asked€that€his€alimony€payments€be€adjusted€toÏtimes€he€received€dividends€from€DPI€and€income€from€SouthernÏAdhesives.€€3.€òò€Distribution€of€Assetsó󀄀As€his€objection€to€theÏvaluation€of€the€business€assets,€he€said€he€"objects€to€theÏvaluation€recommended€by€the€Special€Master€in€that€such€valuationÏconsiders€speculative€future€earnings€of€the€corporation.€....€TheÏSpecial€Master€has€recommended€a€sum€certain€payment€to€theÏPlaintiff€as€her€share€of€Mr.€Bartley's€business€interest.€€Mr.ÏBartley€avers€that€a€more€appropriate€method€for€realizing€theÏPlaintiff's€interest€in€this€business€is€to€simply€allow€her€aÍpercentage€of€the€corporation's€dividend€income,€therebyÏeliminating€speculation€regarding€the€worth€of€Mr.€Bartley'sÏstock."ÌÌà àà àUpon€the€hearing€of€husband's€objections€to€the€specialÏmaster's€report,€the€court€rejected€the€master's€report€in€part€andÏentered€a€judgment€on€the€following€issues.€€In€lieu€of€the€paymentÏof€monthly€child€support€payments€of€$1,400€for€each€child€and€theÏpayment€of€$8,400€per€year€into€an€educational€and€health€trust,€asÏrecommended€by€the€master,€the€court€ordered€the€husband€to€payÏ$1,400€in€semi„monthly€installments€plus€an€additional€$1,000€perÏmonth€in€quarterly€installments.€€He€was€also€ordered€to€pay€post„high€school€educational€expenses€at€a€state„supported€university.ÌÌà àà àAlimony€payments€were€changed€from€the€recommended€$1,000Ïper€month€rehabilitative€alimony€for€12€months€to€periodic€alimonyÏof€$900€per€month€for€18€months€and€for€such€other€period€of€timeÏas€the€court€may€order€in€the€future.ÌÌà àà àThe€foregoing€findings€by€the€court€are€not€at€issue€onÏthis€appeal€and€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àThe€following€findings€of€the€court€are€at€issue.€€AsÏpertinent,€the€court€made€the€following€findings€on€these€issues:Ì"The€Court€declines,€however,€to€accept€the€valuation€placed€by€theÏSpecial€Master€on€the€Defendant's€interest€in€Diversified€PolymerÏIndustries,€Inc.€since€any€realization€of€either€party's€portion€ofÏsuch€interest€must€come€from€future€earnings€rather€than€from€anyÏpresent€value€in€the€Defendant's€shares€themselves.€€Rather,€theÏCourt€finds€that€the€Plaintiff€should€be€awarded€a€portion€of€suchÏfuture€earnings€in€the€form€of€dividends€as€they€are€received€byÏthe€Defendant.€€The€Court€establishes€the€Plaintiff's€interest€inÏDiversified€Polymers€Industries,€Inc.€at€$100,000.00€and€theÏDefendant€shall€compensate€the€Plaintiff€for€her€interest€asÏprovided€below:€€'The€Plaintiff€shall€receive€as€her€portion€ofÏDiversified€Polymer€Industries,€Inc.,€the€sum€of€$100,000.00,€whichÏshall€be€paid€by€the€Defendant,€plus€interest€at€seven€percent€(7%)Ïfrom€the€date€of€entry€of€this€Order,€from€future€dividendsÏreceived€by€the€Defendant€from€this€business.€€The€Defendant€shallÏpay€at€least€one„third€of€the€net€income€from€each€dividend.€€ToÏinsure€a€proper€allocation€of€these€future€dividends€between€theÏparties,€the€Defendant€shall€provide€accountings€to€the€PlaintiffÏon€at€least€a€quarterly€basis€of€such€dividend€earnings.'€€TheÏCourt€also€finds€that€the€sole€proprietorship€operated€by€theÍDefendant€and€known€as€Southern€Adhesive€Consultants€has€any€[sic]Ïvalue€as€a€going€concern,€but€a€division€of€the€cash€assets€nowÏheld€by€the€company€will€be€made.€....€[T]he€Plaintiff€received€theÏparties'€Kemper€Money€Market€Account,€and€the€balance€ofÏapproximately€$7,300.00€should€now€be€awarded€to€the€Defendant.€€AsÏfor€the€personal€bank€account€held€by€the€Defendant€that€was€valuedÏat€approximately€$26,500.00€both€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€andÏagain€at€the€time€of€the€Special€Master's€hearing,€the€Court€findsÏthat€each€party€has€now€received€approximately€equal€portions€ofÏthose€funds."ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€says€the€court€was€in€error€in€its€holding€onÏeach€of€these€issues.€€We€must€agree,€and€remand€for€furtherÏproceedings€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€and€modify€in€part.ÌÌà àà àWe€first€consider€the€holding€that€the€wife€shouldÏreceive€only€$100,000€for€her€marital€interest€in€DPI€stock€andÏthat€should€be€paid€solely€from€the€dividends€of€the€corporation.Ïà àWe€cannot€agree€with€the€holding€of€the€trial€court€that€theÏvalue€of€the€stock€in€DPI€must€be€determined€from€its€market€valueÏand€consideration€of€future€earnings€is€inappropriate.€€To€acceptÏthe€court's€ruling€would€be€to€reject€out€of€hand€our€supremeÍcourt's€adoption€of€the€Delaware€Rule€as€the€proper€method€forÏevaluating€closely€held€corporations.€€See€ò òBlasingame€v.€AmericanÏMaterials,€Inc.ó ó€654€S.W.2d€659,€667.€€The€ò òBlasingameó ó€court€quotedÏwith€approval€extensively€the€case€of€ò òBrown€v.€Hedahl's„Q€B€&€R,ÏInc.ó ó,€185€N.W.2d€249€(N.D.1971)€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓà à"It€appears,€as€a€matter€of€general€law,€that€thereÏare€three€primary€methods€used€by€courts€in€determiningÏthe€fair€value€of€shares€of€dissenting€shareholders.€ÏThese€three€methods€are€the€market€value€method,€theÏasset€value€method,€and€the€investment€or€earnings€valueÏmethod.€€The€market€value€method€establishes€the€valueÏof€the€share€on€the€basis€of€the€price€for€which€a€shareÏis€selling€or€could€be€sold€to€a€willing€buyer.€€ThisÏmethod€is€most€reliable€where€there€is€an€establishedÏmarket€for€the€stock.€€The€asset€value€method€looks€toÏthe€net€assets€of€the€corporation€valued€as€a€'goingÏconcern',€each€share€having€a€pro€rata€value€of€the€netÏassets.€€The€net€assets€value€depends€on€the€real€worthÏof€the€assets€as€determined€by€physical€appraisals,Ïaccurate€inventories,€and€realistic€allowances€forÏdepreciation€and€obsolescence.€€The€investment€valueÏmethod€relates€to€the€earning€capacity€of€theÏcorporation€and€involves€an€attempt€to€predict€itsÏfuture€income€based€primarily€on€its€previous€earningsÏrecord.€€Dividends€paid€by€the€corporation€areÏconsidered€in€its€investment€value.€€Generally,€all€theÏelements€involved€in€these€methods€are€considered€inÏdeterming€the€value€of€the€dissenter's€stock.€...."ÌÌà àIn€ò òBrownó ó,€North€Dakota€adopted€the€Delaware€ruleÏrequiring€that€all€three€methods€be€used€in€determiningÏthe€fair€value€of€a€dissenter's€shares,€assigning€suchÏweight€to€each€method€as€may€be€appropriate€consideringÏthe€type€of€business,€the€objectives€of€the€corporation,Ïand€other€relevant€factors.ÌÌà àIn€ò òBrownó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€North€Dakota,€inÏassigning€the€percentage€of€weight€to€be€given€each€ofÏthe€three€valuation€methods€discussed€guidelines€to€beÍconsidered€as€follows:€'Normally,€where€there€is€anÏestablished€market€for€the€stock€of€a€corporation€theÏmarket€price€is€given€great€weight.€€In€other€casesÏwhere€there€is€no€reliable€market€and€none€can€beÏreconstructed,€market€price€is€not€considered€at€all.'Ï....€Normally,€a€higher€value€is€assigned€only€in€casesÏwhere€the€primary€purpose€of€the€corporation€is€to€holdÏassets,€such€as€real€estate,€for€the€purpose€of€allowingÏthem€to€appreciate€in€value.€....€In€other€words,€assetsÏare€weighed€more€heavily€when€they€are€held€forÏappreciation€purposes€rather€than€for€commercial€retailÏor€wholesale€purposes€designed€to€generate€earnings.Ï....€Normally,€in€a€commercial€business,€earnings€areÏgiven€great€weight€as€the€primary€purpose€of€theÏbusiness€is€to€generate€earnings€and€not€to€hold€assetsÏthat€will€appreciate€in€value.€....€[E]arnings€shouldÏordinarily€weigh€heavily€in€determing€the€true€value€ofÏthe€stock€in€a€commercial€corporation.ÌÌÒ ‘ ÒÒ Ü Òà àà àThe€court€then€said:ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌ€€€€There€are€numerous€other€factors€that€expertÏwitnesses€may€deem€relevant€on€the€question€of€theÏweight€to€be€given€each€of€the€three€methods,€but€theÏcourts€must€make€the€final€determination€of€theÏappropriate€weight€to€be€given€each€method€as€well€asÏthe€ultimate€value€of€the€stock€interest.ÌÌà àWe€adopt€the€Delaware€rule€requiring€the€use€ofÏall€three€methods€in€determining€the€fair€value€of€aÏdissenting€minority€stockholder's€shares.ÌÌÒ ‘ ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ‘ ÒÒ „ ÒId.€667.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€fixing€the€value€of€the€DPI€stock,€Mr.€CostelloÏapplied€the€Delaware€rule.€€He€considered€the€three€methodsÏrequired€by€the€rule€and€gave€each€one€proper€consideration.€€HeÏfound,€however,€the€market€value€of€the€stock€was€a€zero€factorÍbecause€there€was€no€market€value€for€the€stock.€€The€fixed€assetsÏfactor€was€also€considered€of€no€value€because€there€was€noÏrelationship€between€the€fixed€assets€of€the€corporation€and€itsÏearning€capacity.€€The€August,€1994,€balance€sheet€of€DPI€shows,Ïunder€fixed€assets,€as€follows:€€Machinery€&€Equipment€$99,687.22;ÏAccumulated€Depreciation€($84,808.23);€Undepreciated€valueÏ$14,878.99;€Current€Assets:€€Cash€$67,748.04,€Savings€CertificateÏ$2,000,€accounts€receivable€$179,162.19,€and€Inventory€$118,725.54,Ïfor€a€total€of€$367.635.87.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Bartley€testified€there€was€no€market€for€his€stockÏand€the€book€value€of€the€corporation€did€not€represent€the€valueÏof€his€stock.€€There€was€no€evidence€offered€by€the€husband€eitherÏbefore€the€special€master€or€the€trial€court€to€establish€the€valueÏof€the€22.5%€of€the€stock€held€by€him.€€Also,€the€trial€courtÏoffered€no€basis€for€fixing€the€value€of€the€wife's€interest€in€theÏstock€at€$100,000.€€He€did€not€offer€any€explanation€as€to€theÏvalue€he€placed€on€the€22.5%€of€the€stock€in€DPI.€€He€offered€anÏarbitrary€figure€at€which€he€established€the€value€of€the€wife'sÏinterest€in€DPI€stock€without€reference€to€any€evidence€orÏauthority€supporting€his€holding.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Appellee€cites€us€to€the€cases€of€ò òBarnhill€v.ó óÏò òBarnhilló ó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€449€(Tenn.App.1991)€and€ò òHarrington€v.ó óÏò òHarringtonó ó,€798€S.W.2d€244,€and€to€TCA€ðð€36„4„121(c)€which€requiresÏan€òòequitableóó€division€of€marital€property,€which€is€not€necessarilyÏan€equal€one.€€We€agree€this€is€the€rule€in€this€jurisdiction,€butÏlet€us€look€at€the€evidence€and€see€if€we€can€find€any€evidenceÏwhich€would€support€a€finding€that€òòequityóó€requires€the€wife's€awardÏfor€her€interest€in€this€marital€asset€to€be€limited€to€$100,000Ïand€that€that€amount€should€be€paid€to€her€at€the€rate€of€30%€ofÏthe€dividends€received€by€the€husband€from€DPI€each€year.€€We€findÏno€such€evidence.€€On€the€contrary,€we€find€the€evidence€shows€thisÏwould€be€unfair€and€inequitable.ÌÌà àà àThe€undisputed€proof€shows€the€parties€started€acquiringÏthis€stock,€with€its€attendant€increase€in€value,€in€January,€1985.€ÏThe€basis€of€this€acquisition€was€a€salary€to€the€husband€ofÏ$42,000€per€year€and€that€salary€would€not€be€increased,€but€heÏwould€share€in€the€profits€of€the€corporation€if€and€when€it€becameÏprofitable.€€It€was€seven€years€later,€in€December,€1991,€that€aÏdividend€was€declared€of€approximately€$118,000€from€which€theÏparties€received€22.5%,€or€approximately€$30,000.€€After€1991€theÏdividends€of€the€corporation€boomed.€€In€1992€the€corporation€paidÍ$293,080€in€dividends€and€in€1993,€$366,733.€€In€1994€we€have€theÏpayments€of€dividends€for€only€the€months€of€January€throughÏAugust,€which€were€as€follows:€€January€$75,000,€April,€$50,000,ÏJune€$35,000,€July€$130,000,€August€$100,000€„€total€$390,000.€€TheÏhusband€received€$87,750€in€dividends€for€this€eight„month€period.€ÏIf€we€assume€the€last€four€months€of€the€year€were€half€asÏproductive€as€the€first€eight€months,€the€husband's€dividends€forÏthe€year€would€be€equivalent€to€1€1/3€times€the€total€value€placedÏon€the€wife's€interest€in€this€extremely€valuable€marital€asset.€ÏIn€considering€the€equities€of€this€property€division,€we€must€alsoÏtake€into€consideration€that€the€wife€is€receiving€a€single€paymentÏwhile€the€husband€will€probably€continue€to€receive€these€paymentsÏfor€many€years€to€come.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€of€ò òWallace€v.€Wallaceó ó,€733€S.W.2d€102,€107Ï(Tenn.App.1987)€this€court,€in€addressing€the€determination€of€theÏvalue€of€closely€held€corporate€stock€as€marital€property,€said:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓà àA€public€corporation's€value€is€most€reliablyÏdetermined€using€the€market€value€method.€ò ò€Blasingameó ó€ò òv.ÏAmerican€Materials,€Inc.ó ó,€654€S.W.2d€659,€666Ï(Tenn.1983).€€This€method€presumes€that€there€is€anÏestablished€market€for€the€corporation's€stock€whichÏwill€enable€the€court€to€arrive€at€a€price€a€willingÏbuyer€would€pay€for€the€stock.€€The€stock€in€closelyÏheld€corporations€is€rarely€traded.€€Thus,€it€isÏimproper€to€attempt€to€place€a€value€of€a€closely€heldÏcorporation€using€the€method€generally€used€to€place€aÍvalue€on€a€public€corporation.€€ò òLotz€v.€Lotzó ó,€120ÏCal.App.3d€379,€384,€174€Cal.Rptr.€618,€621€(1981).ÌÌÒ ‘ ÒÒ Ü ÒThe€ò òWallaceó ó€court,€as€pertinent,€said,€at€107:€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ Ü Òà àThe€value€of€a€marital€asset€is€determined€byÏconsidering€all€relevant€evidence€regarding€value.€€ò òInó óÏò òre€Marriage€of€Rosenó ó,€126€Ill.App.3d€766,€81ÏIll.Dec.840,€846„47,€467€N.E.2d€962,€968„69€(1984)€andÏ27C€C.J.S.€òòDivorceóó€Secs.€566€&€569€(1986).€€The€burdenÏis€on€the€parties€to€produce€competent€evidence€ofÏvalue,€and€the€parties€are€bound€by€the€evidence€theyÏpresent.€€ò òIn€re€Marriage€of€Deemó ó,€123€Ill.App.3d€1019,Ï79€Ill.Dec.€542,€546,€463€N.E.2d€1317,€1321€(1984);€ò òInó óÏò òre€Marriage€of€Larkinó ó,€462€N.E.2d€1338,€1344Ï(Ind.Ct.App.1984);€and€ò òMartin€v.€Martinó ó,€358€N.W.2d€793,Ï798€(S.D.1984).€€Thus€the€trial€court€in€its€discretion,Ïis€free€to€place€a€value€on€a€marital€asset€that€isÏwithin€the€range€of€the€evidence€submitted.€€ò òInó ó€ò òreÏMarriage€of€Johnstonó ó,€Mont.€726€P.2d€322,€325€(1986)€andÏò òHein€v.€Heinó ó,€366€N.W.2d€646,€650€(Minn.App.1985).ÌÌÌÌÒ ‘ ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ‘ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àIn€fixing€the€wife's€value€in€the€DPI€stock€at€$100,000,Ïthe€court€failed€to€fix€its€value€within€a€reasonable€range€ofÏevidence€in€the€record.€€The€only€evidence€in€the€record€relatingÏto€the€value€of€the€22.5%€in€DPI€is€the€uncontradicted€testimony€ofÏMr.€Costello€who€fixed€its€value€at€$450,000.€€The€husband€offeredÏno€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€The€qualifications€of€Mr.€CostelloÏare€not€questioned€and€his€use€of€the€Delaware€rule€in€appraisingÏthe€closely€held€corporation€has€been€adopted€in€this€jurisdiction.ÌÌà àà àWe€hold€the€22.5%€of€the€stock€held€by€the€husband€in€DPIÏhas€a€value€of€$450,000.€€The€wife's€marital€interest€in€the€stockÏis€$225,000.€€The€order€of€the€court€in€fixing€the€value€of€wife'sÏinterest€in€the€stock€will€be€modified€accordingly,€with€interestÏas€hereinafter€fixed.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€the€wife€for€herÏinterest€in€the€stock€from€future€dividends€received€from€DPI.€€HeÏordered€the€husband€to€pay€her€1/3€of€the€net€income€from€eachÏdividend.€€No€minimum€amount€nor€time€limit€for€full€payment€wereÏset.€€We€see€many€pitfalls€in€the€order.€€The€stockholders€couldÏdecide€to€increase€salaries€and€greatly€reduce€or€cease€payingÏregular€dividends.€€We€hold€the€stock€in€DPI€shall€be€awarded€toÏthe€husband€as€part€of€his€marital€property.€€The€husband€shall€payÏthe€wife€for€her€interest€in€the€stock€as€follows:€€Upon€the€entryÏof€a€final€decree,€the€court€shall€award€the€wife€from€the€liquidÏassets€which€the€court€has€ordered€to€be€divided€equally€betweenÏthe€parties€$50,000€of€the€husband's€portion€of€these€assets;€orÏthe€husband€may€elect€to€pay€this€amount€in€cash.€€If€the€husband'sÏshare€of€the€liquid€assets€is€insufficient€to€allocate€this€amount,Ïthe€husband€shall€pay€the€difference€in€cash.€€A€judgment€shall€beÏentered€against€the€husband€for€$175,000€which€shall€bear€interestÍat€the€rate€of€10%€pursuant€to€TCA€ðð€47„14„121€and€ðð€47„14„123.€€OnÏthis€judgment,€the€husband€shall€pay€half€of€all€dividends,€afterÏtaxes,€as€received€by€him€from€DPI,€but€no€less€than€$25,000€perÏyear,€until€the€judgment€and€interest€have€been€paid.€€PaymentsÏshall€be€applied€first€to€€interest€and€then€to€principal.€€TheÏjudgment€shall€be€secured€by€life€insurance€on€husband's€life€and€aÏlien€on€one„half€of€the€DPI€stock.ÌÌà àà àIn€ordering€a€division€of€the€assets€of€SouthernÏAdhesives,€the€trial€court€presupposed€this€company€to€be€a€soleÏproprietorship€owned€by€Mr.€Bartley.€€The€testimony€of€Mr.€Bartley,Ïas€recited€above,€however,€indicates€the€company€is€a€partnershipÏwith€Mr.€Halyak.€€The€judgment€of€the€court€on€this€issue€is€setÏaside€and€vacated€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€further€hearing€onÏthis€issue.€€The€court€shall€determine€the€ownership€of€the€companyÏand€fix€the€value€of€the€respective€parties€in€this€property.ÌÌà àà àThe€Appellant€wife€also€says€the€court€was€in€error€inÏholding€she€received€$10,000€from€the€parties'€Kemper€Money€MarketÏaccount€prior€to€February€6,€1995.€€She€also€says€the€court€was€inÏerror€in€holding€she€had€received€approximately€one„half€of€theÏ$26,500€checking€account.€€The€wife€argues€there€is€no€proof€in€theÍrecord€to€support€these€findings€of€the€court.€€We€are€constrainedÏto€agree€with€the€Appellant's€insistence€on€this€issue.€ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€also€argues€that€if€she€did€receive€any€moneyÏwhich€was€extracted€from€these€accounts,€it€was€for€child€supportÏand€living€expenses€to€which€she€was€entitled€and€should€not€beÏcharged€against€her€share€of€the€marital€assets.€€Although€there€isÏno€proof€in€the€record€before€us€which€shows€this€was€or€was€notÏwhat€transpired,€the€Appellee's€brief€tends€to€support€thisÏargument.€€In€his€brief,€the€Appellee€points€out€that€the€partiesÏwere€divorced€in€August,€1994.€€As€pertinent,€he€further€states:Ï"Meanwhile,€for€the€month€of€August,€Mr.€Bartley€paid€the€AppellantÏ$4,000€as€child€support.€€òòNoóó€order€requiring€Mr.€Bartley€to€pay€anyÏfurther€child€support€was€made€until€a€hearing€took€place€onÏFebruary€6,€1995,€at€which€time€the€trial€court€directed€Mr.ÏBartley€to€pay€child€support€in€an€amount€totaling€$2,400€perÏmonth.€€From€September€of€1994€through€February€of€!995,€however,Ïthe€Appellant€received€a€substantial€sum€of€money€from€the€bankÏaccount€originally€valued€at€$26,500.06.€....€Appellant€receivedÏfive€payments€(on€October€2,€1994,€November€7,€1994,€December€2,Ï1994€and€two€payments€on€January€3,€1995),€which€totalled€$12,000."€€ÏIt€would€be€inequitable€to€charge€wife's€marital€property€interestÍwith€funds€used€to€pay€child€support€and€other€expenses€whichÏshould€have€been€paid€by€the€husband.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€no€proof€in€the€record€to€support€the€holding€ofÏthe€court€on€these€issues.€€The€order€of€the€court€on€these€issuesÏis€reversed€and€the€judgment€of€the€court€fixing€child€support€andÏalimony€will€be€amended€to€be€effective€as€of€the€date€of€divorce,ÏJuly€26,€1994.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings.€€To€the€extent€the€judgment€is€not€modified,€reversed,Ïor€remanded,€it€is€affirmed.€ÌÌà àà àThe€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€and€theÏentry€of€a€judgment€in€keeping€with€the€proof€and€this€opinion.ÌÌà àà àThe€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€Appellee.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï__________________________€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:€ÌÌÌ______________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.€ÌÌÌ______________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌÌ