ÿWPCø) …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0 l 0Dl 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r † 0|Ž 0† 0 1u U ,• Á 0dÁ w% D35 Bh 0@…U,ÅU >ñU6/B)eDCŽ AMÑU*!Hi êZõIO/˜úÇ^Á*´Iýv~!vÓ€" AOS(Æ¢( 0Dh) D/¬) BÛ)˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡v‡d 3|xÌ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ¾Ó€Ê++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd€-2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òMarch€4,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€parties€had€four€children,€two€of€whom€are€now€emancipated€by€age.€ÏThe€two€minor€children,€both€boys,€were€12€and€16€years€old€respectively€atÏthe€time€of€trial.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€trial€judge€expressly€found€to€the€contrary.Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€testimony€was€that€the€parties'€deed€called€for€209€acres€while€theÏtax€map€reflected€multiple€tracts€containing€246€acres.Ì ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€term€"abuse€of€discretion"€was€defined€by€the€Supreme€Court€inÏanother€context€in€the€case€of€ò òòòFoster€v.€Amcon€International,€Inc.óóó ó,€621ÏS.W.2d€142,€145€(Tenn.€1981):ÌÌà àà8 àThe€term€has€too€often€implied€intentional€wrong,€badÏfaith€or€misconduct€on€the€part€of€a€trial€judge.€€InÏour€view,€"abuse€of€discretion"€was€never€intended€toÏcarry€such€a€meaning,€nor€to€reflect€upon€the€trialÏjudge€in€any€disparaging€manner.€€To€us€the€phraseÏsimply€meant€an€erroneous€conclusion€or€judgment€onÏthe€part€of€the€trial€judge„„a€conclusion€that€wasÏclearly€against€logic€(or€reason)€and€not€justified.Ì %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔBoth€of€the€"distributed€to€Wife"€figures€include€the€70€acre€tract€toÏbe€auctioned.Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔSee€footnote€6€of€this€opinion.Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€trial€court€equalized€this€disparity€in€its€decree€when€it€directedÏthe€disposition€of€the€net€proceeds€from€the€70€acre€tract.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€$1,439€represents€court€reporter€charges€and€a€real€estateÏappraiser's€fee.Ì ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔWe€realize€that€this€portion€of€our€opinion€may€result€in€HusbandÏgetting€somewhat€less€than€half€of€the€net€marital€assets;€however,€we€believeÏthat€the€division€will€still€be€equitable,€given€the€facts€of€this€case.Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€"gas"€incident€occurred€when€the€now€emancipated€children€"wereÏyounger."€€The€record€does€not€indicate€when€Wife€passed€"bad"€checks.€€TheÏtaxes€were€for€a€number€of€years.€€All€of€the€incidents€relied€upon€by€WifeÏare€more€anecdotal€than€substantive€proof€of€a€òòcurrentóó€need€for€support.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco 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 P ÑÔ€0ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€µoXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€352;+'h|ÏÏ` Å `€€LßÌÌÌÌDOROTHY€LOUISE€BECK,à àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9601„CV„00023Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€McMINN€COUNTYÏCIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWENDELL€LEE€BECK,à àà àà à)€AFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€VACATED€IN€PARTÌà àà àDefendant„Appellant.)€REMANDED€WITH€INSTRUCTIONSÌÌÌÌÌÌPERRY€P.€PAINE,€JR.€and€H.€ALLEN€BRAY€of€PAINE,€GARRETT€&€BRAY,ÏMaryville,€for€AppellantÌÌH.€CHRIS€TREW€of€HIGGINS,€BIDDLE,€CHESTER€&€TREW,€Athens,€forÏAppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€The€lower€court's€judgmentÏdissolved€a€marriage€that€had€endured,€tumultuously€at€times,€forÏover€29€years.€€The€trial€judge€granted€the€46„year€old€plaintiff,ÏDorothy€Louise€Beck€(Wife),€a€divorce€on€the€ground€of€adultery;Ïawarded€her€custody€of€the€parties'€two€minor€children× ƒ6 ××  ×;Ïestablished€the€child€support€obligation€of€the€47„year„oldÏdefendant,€Wendell€Lee€Beck€(Husband),€at€$300€per€month;€valuedÏthe€parties'€net€marital€estate€at€$372,040,€which€he€dividedÏequally€between€them;€and€awarded€Wife€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€ofÏ$25,000€to€be€paid€out€of€Husband's€share€of€the€proceeds€from€theÏauction€sale€of€a€portion€of€the€parties'€Englewood€farm.€€HusbandÏappeals,€raising€issues€that€present€the€following€questions:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Does€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€court's€findingÏthat€Wife€was€entitled€to€an€absolute€divorceÏon€the€ground€of€adultery?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€dividing€the€parties'€marital€property?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€awarding€Wife€$25,000€alimony€òòin€solidoóó?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àIÌÌà àà àOur€review€of€this€non„jury€case€is€òòde€novoóó;€however,Ïthe€record€comes€to€us€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctnessÏthat€we€must€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€court's€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d);€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.ÏHuddlestonóóó ó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993);€ò òòòDoles€v.€Dolesóóó ó,€848ÏS.W.2d€656,€661€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àBoth€of€the€parties€sought€a€divorce.€€The€defendantÏadmitted€that€he€had€engaged€in€an€adulterous€relationship€duringÏthe€marriage.€€He€attempted€to€justify€his€conduct€by€implying€theÏplaintiff€was€guilty€of€like€conduct× ƒ7 ××  ×.€€He€also€testified€to€otherÏperceived€shortcomings€of€Wife.€€Much€of€his€testimony€and€theÏtestimony€of€others€supporting€him€were€disputed€by€Wife.€€TheÏwitnesses'€credibility€was€an€issue€for€the€trial€judge€that€heÏhad€to€evaluate€in€order€to€decide€whether€a€divorce€was€justifiedÏby€the€proof,€and,€if€so,€to€whom€it€should€be€granted.€€GenerallyÏspeaking,€credibility€of€witnesses€is€for€the€trial€court.€Ïò òòòGalbreath€v.€Harrisóóó ó,€811€S.W.2d€88,€91€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€ò òòòBrownÏv.€Weikóóó ó,€725€S.W.2d€938,€946€(Tenn.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€we€are€not€in€a€position,€based€on€aÏ"cold"€record,€to€second„guess€the€trial€judge's€credibility„driven€determination€that€Wife,€and€not€Husband,€was€entitled€to€aÏgrant€of€absolute€divorce.€€In€any€event,€our€òòde€novoóó€reviewÏpersuades€us€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€court's€findings€regarding€the€issue€of€divorce.€€TheÏappellant's€first€issue€is€found€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€parties'€total€netÏmarital€estate€was€properly€valued€at€$372,040.€€One€of€the€assetsÏ"in€the€mix"€was€a€farm€in€Englewood€that€contained€between€209Ïand€246€acres× ƒ8 ××  ×.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Englewood€farm€hadÏa€gross€market€value€of€$250,700.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€this€finding„„a€finding€that€is€notÏchallenged€by€Husband.€€What€Husband€does€challenge€is€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€that€the€Englewood€farm€should€initially€beÏallocated€to€Wife€with€an€assigned€òònetóó€value€of€$197,700.€€HusbandÍargues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€assigned€this€asset€toÏWife€at€a€value€that€takes€into€account€an€admitted€first€mortgageÏindebtedness€of€$53,000.€€Under€the€unique€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€we€agree€with€Husband.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€parties'€marriage,€they€borrowed€money€fromÏFirst€Citizens€Bank€for€their€daughter's€use€in€finishing€herÏhouse.€€A€deed€of€trust€was€placed€against€25€acres€of€theÏEnglewood€farm€to€secure€this€indebtedness.€€Apparently,€neitherÏthe€daughter€nor€her€husband€signed€the€note€to€the€bank;€however,Ïthe€parties€to€this€divorce€action€acknowledged€at€trial€that€itÏwas€agreed€between€the€parties€and€their€daughter€that€she€wouldÏmake€the€payments€on€that€obligation;€that€all€of€the€noteÏpayments€to€the€date€of€trial€had€been€made€by€the€daughter;€andÏthat€the€note€had€never€been€in€default.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€that€the€obligation€in€question„„the€balanceÏof€which€was€$53,000€at€the€time€of€trial„„was€a€real€obligationÏof€the€parties.€€They€signed€the€note€and€it€was€secured€by€aÏsmall€portion€of€their€jointly„owned€farm.€€No€one€else€wasÏobligated€on€the€note.€€It€is€clear€that€this€note€must€beÏaddressed€in€this€case;€however,€we€do€not€believe€that€thisÍobligation€should€be€disposed€of€based€upon€the€assumption€thatÏWife€will€be€called€upon€to€satisfy€this€debt.€€More€than€likely,Ïgiven€the€history€of€this€obligation,€neither€of€the€parties€willÏbe€called€upon€to€pay€this€debt.ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion× ƒ9 ××  ×€inÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€implicitÏfinding€that€Wife€will€ultimately€be€burdened€with€repaying€thisÏ$53,000€obligation.€€The€trial€court's€finding€is€hereby€vacated.€ÏOn€remand,€the€trial€court€will€enter€an€order€modifying€itsÏjudgment€so€as€to€award€the€Englewood€farm€to€Wife€at€an€assignedÏvalue€of€$250,700,€its€gross€value.€€That€order€will€also€provideÏthat,€as€between€the€parties,€each€will€be€responsible€for€half€ofÏthe€remaining€balance€of€the€obligation€to€the€bank€in€the€eventÏtheir€daughter€does€not€pay€it.€€The€order€will€also€provide€thatÍeach€party€will€indemnify€the€other€party€against€any€loss€arisingÏout€of€the€portion€of€the€debt€that€the€latter€party€is€notÏobligated€to€pay€under€the€terms€of€this€opinion.€€We€believe€thatÏthis€resolution€is€the€fair€way€to€handle€this€particularÏliability.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€an€equitableÏdistribution€of€property€in€this€case€was€an€equal€division.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€that€finding;€however,€theÏadjustment€that€we€have€made€in€the€trial€court's€division€of€thatÏproperty€requires€that€we€further€modify€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment.ÌÌà àà àIn€dividing€the€parties'€property,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€70€acres€of€the€Englewood€farm€initially€allocated€to€WifeÏshould€be€auctioned€to€equalize€the€distribution€of€propertyÏbetween€the€parties.€€We€do€not€disagree€with€this€approach;€butÏobviously,€the€trial€court's€judgment€of€equalization€will€have€toÏreflect€that€the€total€net€marital€assets€to€be€distributed,Ïignoring€the€$53,000€debt,€are€worth€$425,040€instead€of€theÏ$372,040€found€by€the€trial€court.€€The€following€is€a€comparisonÏbetween€the€distribution€found€by€the€trial€court€and€that€foundÍby€this€court,€before€the€adjustment€required€to€accommodate€theÏauction€sale€of€the€70€acres€off€of€the€Englewood€farm:ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àByà àà àà à€€ByÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòòTrial€Courtóóà àòòCourt€of€AppealsóóÌÌà àDistributed€to€Wifeà àà à€$232,290× ƒ: ××  ×à à€€€€$285,290× ƒ; ××  ×Ìà àDistributed€to€Husbandà à€òò€139,750óóà àà à€€€€òò€139,750óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€$372,040× ƒ< ××  ×à à€€€€$425,040Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€========à àà à€€€€========ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€anticipated€that€the€70€acres€wouldÏbring€$1,000€per€acre.€€He€directed€that€$1,439€in€expenses× ƒ= ××  ×,€alongÏwith€the€expenses€of€the€auction,€should€be€paid€from€the€proceedsÏof€the€auction€sale.€€We€agree.€€We€further€believe€that€theÏjudgment€should€be€modified€to€provide€that€Husband€should€arrangeÏfor€the€auction€of€the€70€acres€since€it€is€clear€that€all€or€mostÏof€the€net€proceeds€from€the€sale€will€go€to€him.€€If€the€auctionÍsale€produces€net€proceeds€that€result€in€Husband€getting€lessÏthan€half€of€the€net€marital€assets,€he€shall€be€entitled€to€allÏof€the€net€proceeds× ƒ> ××  ×.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€the€auction€saleÏproduces€a€bid€that€results€in€a€disproportionate€share€of€the€netÏassets€going€to€Husband,€Wife€shall€be€entitled€to€share€in€thoseÏproceeds€to€the€extent€necessary€to€equalize€the€division€ofÏmarital€assets.€€The€judgment€below€will€be€modified€by€the€trialÏcourt€to€reflect€these€changes€to€the€division€of€property€decreedÏby€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àHusband's€final€issue€brings€into€question€the€trialÏcourt's€decree€that€Husband€pay€Wife€$25,000€alimony€òòin€solidoóóÏwhen€the€auction€sale€of€the€70€acres€is€finalized.€€We€believeÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€making€this€award€becauseÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€implicitÏfindings€supporting€it.ÌÌà àà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)(A)„(L)€sets€forth€the€factors€toÏbe€considered€by€a€trial€court€in€its€alimony€determination.€€OfÏthese€factors,€the€three€most€important€are€the€needs€of€theÏrequesting€party,€the€resources€of€the€other€spouse,€and€theÏrelative€fault€of€the€parties.€€ò òòòHawkins€v.€Hawkinsó óóó,€883€S.W.2dÏ622,€625€(Tenn.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€there€was€no€proof€of€Wife'sÏcurrent€needs.€€Nowhere€in€the€36€exhibits€and€the€three€volumes€Ïof€transcript€is€there€an€affidavit€of€expenses€or€testimonyÏregarding€Wife's€anticipated€monthly€outlays€for€food,€clothing,Ïtelephone,€health€insurance,€gasoline€for€her€car,€utilities,€andÏthe€like.€€Neither€of€the€parties€offered€an€analysis€of€the€otherÏparty's€business€or€personal€checking€account.€€While€there€isÏevidence€in€the€record€indicating€that€each€of€the€parties€ownedÏand€operated€a€florist€shop,€there€is€no€credible,€helpfulÏevidence€of€the€spendable€funds€per€month€spun€off€by€either€ofÏthese€businesses.ÌÌà àà àWife€testified€that€she€is€currently€receiving€$210€perÏmonth€from€the€rental€of€some€of€her€farm€land.€€She€also€receivesÏ$100€per€month€from€the€rental€of€a€house€formerly€occupied€by€herÍparents.€€Each€of€the€parties€has€a€tobacco€allotment.€€It€is€notÏclear€from€the€record€how€much€each€of€the€parties€currentlyÏreceives€from€that€allotment.ÌÌà àà àWife€testified€that€she€paid€all€of€the€family's€livingÏexpenses€after€Husband€moved€out€in€May,€1989.€€Offsetting€thisÏtestimony€somewhat€was€testimony€that€Husband€sent€Wife€one€checkÏfor€$150€and€that€he€paid€$3,508.41€on€past„due€taxes€on€theÏEnglewood€farm;€however,€there€was€evidence€that€Wife€had€accessÏto€unneeded€funds€because€she€purchased€an€automobile€for€one€ofÏher€emancipated€daughters.ÌÌà àà àWife€argues€that€the€fact€she€did€not€have€the€funds€toÏpay€the€property€taxes€coupled€with€the€fact€that€Husband€had€toÏredeem€the€Englewood€farm€shows€that€she€needed€alimony€and€thatÏHusband€had€the€resources€to€provide€alimony.€€She€also€reliesÏupon€the€fact€that€on€one€occasion€she€was€without€gas€for€heatingÏpurposes,€and€the€further€fact€that€she€passed€"insufficientÏfunds"€checks€after€the€parties€separated.€€All€of€this€proof× ƒ? ××  ×€isÍcertainly€some€indication€that€she€had€a€need€at€the€time€of€theÏincidents;€but€this€was€not€the€issue€before€the€trial€court.€€TheÏreal€issue€was€the€extent€of€her€òòcurrentóó€needsÌ„„her€needs€at€the€time€of€trial.€€There€is€simply€no€proof€beforeÏus€that€Wife€had€needs€that€were€not€being€funded€by€her€incomeÏfrom€rentals,€her€tobacco€allotment,€and€her€florist€shop.€€WeÏcannot€speculate€on€these€matters.€€Further,€we€cannot€awardÏalimony€beyond€an€individual's€demonstrated€needs.€€Alimony€inÏexcess€of€need€is€punitive€in€nature.€€òòCfóó.€€ò òòòDuncan€v.€Duncanó óóó,Ï686€S.W.2d€568,€571€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Alimony€is€not€designed€toÏpunish€an€errant€spouse.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€when€it€awarded€Wife€$25,000€alimony€òòin€solidoóó.€€TheÏevidence€preponderates€against€that€award.€€It€is€hereby€vacated.€ÏOn€remand,€the€trial€court€will€enter€an€order€deleting€itsÏ$25,000€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€award.ÌÌà àà àExcept€as€vacated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€hereby€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion€and€forÍcollection€of€costs€assessed€below.€€Exercising€our€discretion,€weÏtax€the€costs€on€appeal€one„half€to€each€party.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.