ÿWPC÷ 3# ÚUNå %3 0G9U:€w@º4úU:W 0J_ 0T© 0^ý 0h[ 0rà 0|5 0†± 07 1uÇ 0d< 0@  D3à B U>0 U*n B)˜ DCÁ AM AQQ Æ¢ 0Dh 0D¬ D/ð B < f@v~¦vÓ$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ‚UƒD„…E†‡DˆP‰DŠÓ€– äzz!_3|x–`"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd úÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMarch€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ÜV XXdðdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌCORNELIA€H.€BOONE,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Chancery€œNo.€D21577„2€R.D.›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9507„CH„00144Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHARLES€P.€BOONE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€FLOYD€PEETE,€JR.,€CHANCELLOR̜ـ*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|y_` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJOE€M.€DUNCANÌBURCH,€PORTER€&€JOHNSONÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òLEO€BEARMAN,€JR.ÌBAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&€CALDWELLÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€MODIFIED€IN€PART›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœò òALAN›€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SR.€œJ.ó óà àÌÓÓà àIn€this€divorce€action,€Cornelia€Boone€(the€ð ðPlaintiffðð)€was€awarded€a€divorceÏfromÑ€0ÑÇÑ7€ ÜV XXdð XXdð7ÑCharles€Boone€(the€ð ðDefendantðð)€on€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€TheÏtrial€court€awarded€the€partiesðð€residence€at€Chambers€Chapel€to€the€Plaintiff€andÏordered€the€Defendant€to€pay€the€existing€mortgage€on€the€property.€The€defendantÏwas€also€ordered€to€pay€$4500.00€per€month€in€alimony€for€two€years€and€$3000.00Ïper€month€in€alimony€for€the€following€ten€years.€The€trial€court€upheld€a€prenuptialÏagreement€which€was€entered€into€by€the€parties€two€days€prior€to€their€marriage.€ÏPursuant€to€the€terms€of€the€€prenuptial€agreement,€the€trial€court€ordered€theÏDefendant€to€pay€$10,000.00€in€cash€to€the€Plaintiff€and€all€reasonable€liabilities€andÏobligations€of€the€Plaintiff€which€were€incurred€with€the€Defendantððs€knowledge€andÏconsent.€€The€Defendant€was€ordered€to€convey€to€the€Plaintiff€all€of€his€real€andÏpersonal€property€owned€jointly€with€the€Plaintiff.€€The€trial€court€further€ruled€thatÏneither€party€has€any€claim€to€the€appreciation€in€the€otherððs€separate€property.€€ForÏthe€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€modify€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€to€provide€forÏan€award€of€permanent€alimony,€but€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€all€otherÏrespects,€including€the€enforcement€of€the€partiesðð€prenuptial€agreement.€ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àThe€parties€entered€into€a€prenuptial€agreement€on€August€10,€1967€and€wereÏmarried€two€days€later€on€August€12,€1967.€€The€Plaintiff€was€thirty€years€old€at€the€timeÏof€the€signing€of€the€prenuptial€agreement.€ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€execution€of€the€agreement,€the€Plaintiffððs€education€included€twoÍyears€of€study€at€Sweetbriar€College,€two€months€of€study€in€France€at€the€AllianceÏFrancaise€and€the€Ecole€Phonetique€and€completion€of€an€economics€and€marketingÏcourse€at€Memphis€State€University.€€The€Plaintiff€knew€that€the€Defendant€was€aÏmember€of€the€University€Club,€the€Hunt€and€Polo€Club€and€the€Memphis€CountryÏClub€at€the€time€of€the€execution€of€the€prenuptial€agreement.€€She€was€aware€that€theÏDefendant€had€been€previously€married€to€the€daughter€of€the€owner€of€Malone€andÏHyde€Company€and€that€the€Defendant€owned€approximately€seven€to€eight€thousandÏshares€of€Malone€and€Hyde€common€stock.€€The€Plaintiff€also€knew€that€the€DefendantÏwas€beginning€a€new€job€selling€commercial€real€estate€at€E.H.€Crump€and€that€theÏDefendant€owned€several€pieces€of€speculative€real€estate.€€The€Plaintiff€was€furtherÏaware€of€the€existence€of€the€Defendantððs€trust€fund€which€had€an€approximate€valueÏof€$267,000.00.ÌÌà àOne€month€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€prenuptial€agreement€the€DefendantððsÏattorney€met€with€the€parties€and€discussed€the€terms,€conditions€and€purposes€of€theÏprenuptial€agreement.€During€this€meeting,€there€was€a€discussion€concerning€theÏDefendantððs€assets€and€properties€as€well€as€his€liabilities€and€obligations,€includingÏthe€Defendantððs€obligations€from€his€previous€marriage.€€Although€the€DefendantððsÏattorney€advised€the€Plaintiff€to€seek€separate€counsel€to€review€and€discuss€theÏprenuptial€agreement,€the€Plaintiff€chose€not€to€seek€separate€counsel.€ÌÌà àOn€August€10,€1967,€the€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€met€at€the€Cotton€BowlÏRestaurant€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€whereupon€the€Plaintiff€read€and€reviewed€theÍprenuptial€agreement.€€After€reading€the€agreement,€the€Plaintiff€insisted€upon€addingÏadditional€language€to€the€agreement€which€obligated€the€Defendant€to€support€herÏhorse,€Bay€Mare€Sandy,€for€as€long€as€the€horse€lives.€€The€Plaintiff€never€indicated€toÏthe€Defendant€that€she€did€not€understand€or€comprehend€any€terms€or€conditions€ofÏthe€prenuptial€agreement.€€The€Plaintiff€never€asked€for€additional€time€to€review€theÏdocument€or€for€additional€time€in€order€to€retain€€independent€counsel€to€review€theÏagreement€with€her.€€Ìà àWithin€the€provisions€of€the€prenuptial€agreement,€the€Plaintiff€acknowledgedÏthat€the€Defendant€divulged€to€her€and€fully€acquainted€her€with€a€knowledge€of€hisÏassets,€properties,€liabilities€and€obligations.€The€Plaintiff€also€acknowledged€that€sheÏwas€aware€of€the€financial€condition€and€estate€of€the€Defendant€at€the€time€of€theÏsigning€of€the€agreement€and€was€aware€of€the€obligations€and€liabilities€of€theÏDefendant.ÌÌà àAfter€the€partiesðð€marriage,€the€Plaintiff€became€a€registered€dietician€with€aÏbachelorððs€degree€in€dietetics€and€a€masterððs€degree€in€nutrition.€€The€Defendant€hasÏan€undergradutate€degree€from€Vanderbilt€and€a€law€degree€from€Vanderbilt.€€TheÏDefendant€has€taken€accounting€courses€at€the€University€of€Tennessee€and€hasÏcompleted€two€Harvard€business€school€programs.€ÌÌà àThroughout€the€parties€twenty„seven€year€marriage,€1987€was€the€only€yearÏwherein€the€Plaintiff€worked€full„time€outside€the€home.€€Although€the€Plaintiff€workedÏat€several€part„time€jobs,€she€spent€the€majority€of€her€time€working€inside€the€home.€€ÍFor€five€years,€the€Plaintiff€kept€the€accounting€books€for€the€household€as€well€as€forÏthe€Defendantððs€business,€C.€Boone€and€Company.€€She€served€as€an€officer€andÏdirector€of€Freeway€Investments€and€64„40,€two€companies€owned€by€the€Defendant.ÏThe€Plaintiff€helped€entertain€the€Defendantððs€business€friends€and€social€guests.€€InÏ1985,€the€Plaintiff€helped€redecorate€the€Quality€Inn€Hotel€in€which€the€DefendantÏowned€an€interest.€€She€also€assisted€the€Defendant€in€managing€the€St.€Louis€TruckÏStop,€a€restaurant€owned€by€the€Defendant.€ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiff€was€the€primary€caretaker€of€the€partiesðð€only€child,€a€son,€born€onÏNovember€5,€1970.€€In€1975,€after€discovering€that€their€son€was€dyslexic,€the€partiesÏenrolled€the€child€in€a€summer€school€program.€Thereupon,€the€Plaintiff€beganÏparticipating€in€this€summer€school€program€tutoring€other€children€with€dyslexia€soÏthat€the€child€could€be€taught€at€a€reduced€fee.€€The€Plaintiff€and€the€child€participatedÏin€this€summer€school€program€from€1975€through€1980.€From€1977€through€1984,€sheÏtook€the€child€to€swim€practices€and€swim€meets.€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings€ofÏfact:€ÌÓÓà8 à9.€€Both€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€are€sophisticated,€intelligent€and€well„educated€individuals,€both€capable€of€reading€and€understanding€theÏdocument€in€question.ÌÌà8 à10.€€Plaintiff€was€aware€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€prenuptial€agreementÏin€question€that€Defendant€was€a€member€of€the€University€Club,€theÏHunt€&€Polo€Club€and€the€Memphis€Country€Club,€all€private€countryÏclubs€located€in€Memphis,€Tennessee;€that€membership€in€suchÏorganizations€was€expensive€and€required€significant€income;€thatÍDefendant€had€previously€been€married€to€the€daughter€of€the€owner€ofÏMalone€&€Hyde€Company€and€was€presently€starting€a€new€job€at€E.H.ÏCrump€&€Company€selling€commercial€real€estate;€that€the€DefendantÏowned€several€pieces€of€speculative€real€estate€located€in€variousÏplaces,€including€Birdsong€Road,€€in€Como€and€at€the€corner€of€InterstateÏ40€and€Highway€64;€that€Defendant€owed€significant€amounts€of€moneyÏon€mortgages€on€that€property€in€the€approximate€amount€of€$20,000.00Ïper€year;€that€Defendant€had€two€children€from€his€previous€marriage€andÏwould€soon€be€obligated€to€pay€child€support€for€both€of€those€childrenÏwho,€at€the€time€of€the€execution€of€the€prenuptial€agreement,€wereÏapproximately€three€years€and€one€year€of€age;€that€the€DefendantÏpreviously€had€purchased€one€piece€of€property€for€approximatelyÏ$5,000.00€to€$15,000.00€and€had€sold€it€to€a€gasoline€service€station€forÏ$60,000.00;€and€that€the€Defendant€was€wealthy€enough€to€be€able€to€goÏaround€the€world€during€the€time€that€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€wereÏð ðcourtingðð.ÌÌà8 à11.€€Plaintiff€further€knew€that€ð ðspeculative€real€estateðð€meant€that€theÏrisks€of€holding€such€property€were€high€and€that€the€possibilities€of€profitÏwere€great.à0 àà àÌÌà8 à12.€€Plaintiff€also€knew€that€at€least€one€piece€of€speculative€real€estateÏowned€by€Defendant€was€not€contemplated€to€reach€its€highest€profitÏpotential€for€approximately€twenty€years.ÌÌ€€à8 à13.€€Plaintiff€also€knew€that€Defendant€owned€approximately€seven€toÏeight€thousand€shares€of€Malone€&€Hyde€common€stock€and€that€he€hadÏavailable€to€him€a€trust€fund€in€the€approximate€amount€of€$267,000.00.ÌÌà8 à14.€€Defendant€advised€Plaintiff€generally€of€his€assets,€property,Ïliabilities€and€obligations.ÌÌà8 à15.€€The€testimony€of€the€parties€reveals€that€Plaintiff€either€knew€or€couldÏhave€known€of€the€location€of€each€piece€of€speculative€property€ownedÏby€the€Defendant€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€prenuptial€agreement€inÏquestion.ÌÌà8 à16.€€Plaintiffððs€grandfather€had€owned€a€cotton€mill€in€Rome,€GeorgiaÏwhich€Plaintiffððs€grandmother€had€sold€and€divided€the€proceedsÏbetween€Plaintiffððs€mother€and€Plaintiffððs€aunt.€€Plaintiffððs€mother€wasÏliving€off€of€the€investments€from€her€portion€of€that€sale€at€the€time€ofÏPlaintiffððs€courtship€with€and€marriage€to€Defendant.ÌÌà8 à17.€€Both€Plaintiffððs€mother€and€Plaintiffððs€grandmother€were€members€ofÍthe€Memphis€Country€Club.ÌÌà8 à18.€€Plaintiff€wanted€to€protect€any€potential€inheritance€of€hers€from€anyÏrisks€created€by€Defendantððs€ownership€in€speculative€real€estate€and€theÏmortgages€and€other€obligations€which€accompanied€such€ownership.€€ÌÌà8 à19.€€Approximately€one€month€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€document€inÏquestion,€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€met€at€the€offices€of€the€HonorableÏHarry€W.€Wellford€who,€at€the€time,€represented€the€Defendant.ÌÌà8 à20.€€The€purpose€of€the€meeting€was€to€discuss€the€terms,€conditions€andÏpurpose€of€the€prenuptial€agreement€which€was€eventually€signed€by€theÏtwo€parties.ÌÌà8 à21.€€At€the€meeting€in€question,€Wellford€advised€Plaintiff€to€retainÏcounsel€of€her€own€choosing€to€review€and€discuss€the€prenuptialÏagreement€contemplated€between€the€parties.€€Plaintiff€however€wasÏsatisfied€to€move€forward€with€the€discussion€concerning€the€creation€ofÏthe€prenuptial€agreement€without€retaining€separate€counsel.ÌÌà8 à22.€€At€this€meeting€at€Wellfordððs€office€there€was€discussion€about€theÏproperties€and€assets€that€the€Defendant€Charles€Boone€owned€or€inÏwhich€he€had€an€interest.€€€ÌÌà8 à23.€€There€was€also€discussion€concerning€the€obligations€which€CharlesÏBoone€had,€ð ðincluding€his€obligations€arising€from€his€prior€marriage€andÏthe€fact€that€several€properties€or€investments€were€subject€toÏoutstanding€liabilities€or€obligations.ðð€ÌÌà8 à24.€€On€August€10,€1967,€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€met€in€the€Cotton€BowlÏRestaurant€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€Defendant€had€two€copies€of€theÏprenuptial€agreement€in€question.€€ÌÌà8 à25.€€Plaintiff€reviewed€the€document€with€sufficient€care€such€that€sheÏinsisted€upon€an€addition€to€the€agreement€of€the€phrase€ð ðBoone€agreesÏto€support€Hayleyððs€horse,€Bay€Mare€Sandy,€for€as€long€as€said€beastÏlivesðð.€€[sic]€€Plaintiff€ð ðfelt€very€stronglyðð€about€her€horse€and€insisted€thatÏthe€prenuptial€agreement€contain€this€additional€obligation€to€beÏundertaken€by€€Defendant.ÌÌà8 à26.€€Plaintiff€never€indicated€to€Defendant€that€she€did€not€understandÏany€of€the€terms€or€conditions€of€the€prenuptial€agreement;€nor€didÏPlaintiff€ask€for€additonal€time€to€review€the€agreement€or€additional€timeÏfor€purposes€of€retaining€independent€counsel€to€discuss€it€with€her.€€TheÍagreement€was€signed€in€duplicate€by€the€parties€and€was€signed€againÏand€initialled€at€the€place€at€which€provisions€were€made€for€PlaintiffððsÏhorse.ÌÌà8 à27.€€In€the€prenuptial€agreement€Plaintiff€acknowledges€that€DefendantÏhas€divulged€to€her€and€fully€acquainted€her€with€a€knowledge€ofÏDefendantððs€assets,€properties,€liabilities€and€obligations€and€PlaintiffÏfurther€acknowledges€that€she€is€aware€of€the€financial€condition€andÏestate€of€Defendant€at€the€time€of€the€execution€of€the€agreement,€as€wellÏas€of€his€obligations€and€liabilities.€€€€ÌÌà8 à28.€€The€agreement€in€question€contemplates€possible€losses€inÏdevelopment€potential€of€Defendantððs€that€[sic]€real€estate.€ÌÌà8 à29.€€Under€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€agreement,€Defendant€agreesÏin€the€event€of€divorce€to€convey€to€Plaintiff€all€of€Defendantððs€right,€titleÏand€interest€in€and€to€any€property€owned€jointly€or€as€tenants€in€commonÏor€as€tenants€by€the€entirety.€€Defendant€further€agrees€to€pay€to€PlaintiffÏin€the€event€of€divorce€the€sum€of€$10,000.00€and€to€ð ðpay€all€reasonableÏbills,€accounts,€obligations,€and€liabilities€of€(Plaintiff)€at€such€timeÏincurred€with€his€prior€knowledge€and€consent.ðð€ÌÌà8 à30.€€The€prenuptial€agreement€provided€that,€if€Defendant€carried€out€hisÏobligations€under€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€agreement€as€set€outÏabove,€the€Plaintiff€gives€up€her€claims€on€Defendantððs€property€andÏestate.€€Ìà8 à31.€€Defendant€Charles€Boone€has€undertaken€and€has€carried€out€all€ofÏhis€obligations€as€set€out€in€the€prenuptial€agreement.€€Further,€in€1985,Ïat€Plaintiffððs€insistence,€Boone€created€a€trust€fund€of€$100,000.00€whichÏwas€designed€for,€and€in€fact€has€paid€for,€and€continues€to€this€day€toÏpay€for€the€education€of€the€one€child€born€of€this€marriage€throughÏcollege€and€will€be€available€for€the€childððs€use€at€graduate€school.€€TheÏchild€is€no€longer€a€minor,€but€the€trust€remains€in€place€for€his€continuedÏuse.ÌÌà8 à32.€€The€partiesðð€present€home€has€an€estimated€value€in€excess€ofÏ$300,000.00.€€Title€to€it€has€always€been€and€is€currently€being€kept€inÏthe€name€of€both€parties€as€tenants€by€the€entireties,€as€has€an€additionalÏparcel€of€property.€€Further,€the€contents€of€the€home€in€question,€ofÏconsiderable€value,€are€at€least€in€part€owned€jointly€by€the€parties€andÏhave€already€been€claimed€and€taken€by€Plaintiff.ÌÌà8 à33.€€The€facts€reflect€that€Plaintiff€was€aware€of€and€Defendant€divulged€toÏPlaintiff€the€nature€and€value€of€Defendantððs€assets,€properties,€liabilitiesÍand€obligations,€and€Plaintiff€was€aware€of€the€financial€condition€of€theÏDefendant,€as€well€as€his€obligations€and€liabilities€at€the€time€of€theÏexecution€of€the€agreement€in€question.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€two€issues€before€this€Court€are€as€follows:Ìà0 à(1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€enforcing€the€partiesðð€prenuptial€agreement;ÏandÌà0 à(2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€alimony€to€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌà àWe€review€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Because€the€trialÏcourt€is€in€a€better€position€to€weigh€and€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€whoÏtestify€orally,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€on€issues€involvingÏcredibility€of€witnesses.€€òòRandolph€v.€Randolphóó,€937€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€1996);€òòGillockÏv.€Board€of€Professional€Responsibilityóó,€656€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1983).Ì€€Ìà àIn€the€wake€of€òòCary€v.€Caryóó,€937€S.W.2d€777€(Tenn.€1996),€and€òòRandolph€v.ÏRandolphóó,€937€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€1996),€€it€is€now€well€settled€that€prenuptialÏagreements€are€enforceable€in€Tennessee€provided€that€certain€prerequisites€are€met.€€ÏA€prenuptial€agreement€entered€into€by€two€parties€ð ðfreely,€knowledgeably€and€in€goodÏfaith€and€without€exertion€of€duress€or€undue€influenceðð€shall€be€enforceable.€€T.C.A.€ððÍ36„3„501;€òòSee€alsoóó,€€òòCary€v.€Caryóó,€937€S.W.2d€777€(Tenn.€1996);€òòRandolph€v.ÏRandolphóó,€937€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€1996);€òòPerkinson€v.€Perkinsonóó,€802€S.W.2d€600Ï(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àA€party€seeking€to€enforce€an€antenuptial€agreement€must€prove€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€party€seeking€to€avoid€the€agreement€had€aÏknowledge€of€the€full€nature,€extent€and€value€of€the€proponent€spouseððs€assets.€ÏòòRandolphóó,€òòId.óó€€Proof€of€knowledge€requires€that€either€a€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€theÏnature,€extent€and€value€of€the€proponent€partyððs€assets€was€provided€to€the€partyÏseeking€to€avoid€the€agreement€or€that€such€disclosure€was€unnecessary€because€theÏparty€seeking€to€avoid€the€agreement€had€independent€knowledge€of€the€full€nature,Ïextent€and€value€of€the€proponent€spouseððs€holdings.€€òòIdóó.€€Although€proof€that€the€partyÏseeking€to€avoid€the€agreement€procured€independent€counsel€to€review€theÏagreement€will€overcome€the€knowledge€requirement,€independent€counsel€is€but€oneÏfactor€to€consider€when€deciding€whether€a€party€entered€into€an€agreement€withÏknowledge.€€òòIdóó.€€à àÌÌà àAlthough€the€Plaintiff€denied€meeting€with€the€Defendant€and€his€attorney€toÏdiscuss€the€prenuptial€agreement,€€the€trial€court€found€that€the€parties€met€in€the€officeÏof€the€Defendantððs€attorney€one€month€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€prenuptialÏagreement€to€discuss€the€terms,€conditions€and€purposes€of€the€agreement.€€The€trialÏcourt€also€found€that€the€Defendantððs€attorney€advised€the€Plaintiff€to€retain€separateÏcounsel€in€order€to€review€the€prenuptial€agreement,€but€the€Plaintiff€was€satisfied€toÍmove€forward€without€the€assistance€of€separate€counsel.€The€trial€court€further€foundÏthat€ð ðthere€was€a€discussion€about€the€properties€and€assets€that€the€DefendantÏCharles€Boone€owned€or€in€which€he€had€an€interestðð€and€that€there€was€a€"discussionÏconcerning€the€obligations€which€Charles€Boone€had,€ððincluding€his€obligationsÏarising€from€his€prior€marriage€and€the€fact€that€several€properties€or€investments€wereÏsubject€to€outstanding€liabilities€or€obligations.ðð"€€Moreover,€the€agreement€in€questionÏwhich€the€Plaintiff€signed€two€days€before€the€partiesðð€marriage€provided€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à[w]HEREAS,€Boone€has€divulged€to€Haley€[the€Plaintiff]€and€fullyÏacquainted€her€with€a€knowledge€of€his€assets,€properties,€liabilities€andÏobligations€heretofore,€and€Haley€acknowledges€that€she€is€aware€of€theÏfinancial€condition€and€estate€of€Boone€at€this€time,€as€well€as€hisÏobligations€and€liabilities;ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€Plaintiff€contends€that€she€signed€the€agreement€under€duress€because€the€Ïagreement€was€signed€two€days€prior€to€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€As€found€by€the€trialÏcourt,€however,€the€facts€show€that€the€Plaintiff€discussed€the€agreement€with€theÏDefendant€and€his€attorney€approximately€one€month€prior€to€the€marriage€and€that€theÏPlaintiff€was€provided€the€opportunity€to€obtain€separate€counsel€but€declined€to€do€so.ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€PlaintiffÏentered€into€this€agreement€freely,€knowledgeably,€in€good€faith€and€without€exertionÏof€duress€or€undue€influence,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€uphold€theÏagreement.€€Ì€à àÌà àThe€Plaintiff€also€argues€that€the€decision€in€òòMinor€v.€Minoróó,€863€S.W.2d€51Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(holding€that€a€period€in€excess€of€twelve€years€is€not€aÍreasonable€time€for€the€enforcement€of€a€reconciliation€agreement),€controls€theÏdisposition€of€the€present€case.€€We,€however,€do€not€find€this€decision€to€beÏdispositive€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€òòMinoróó€involved€the€enforcement€of€a€reconciliationÏagreement.€€The€present€case€involves€the€enforcement€of€a€prenuptial€agreement.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„3„501€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àNotwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law€to€the€contrary,€except€asÏprovided€in€ðð€36„3„502,€any€antenuptial€or€prenuptial€agreement€enteredÏinto€by€spouses€concerning€property€owned€by€either€spouse€before€theÏmarriage€which€is€the€subject€of€such€agreement€shall€be€binding€uponÏany€court€having€jurisdiction€over€such€spouses€and/or€such€agreement€ifÏsuch€agreement€is€determined€in€the€discretion€of€such€court€to€haveÏbeen€entered€into€by€such€spouses€ò òfreely,€knowledgeably€and€inÏgood€faith€and€without€exertion€of€duress€or€undue€influenceó óÏupon€either€spouse.€€The€terms€of€such€agreement€shall€be€enforceableÏby€all€remedies€available€for€enforcement€of€contract€terms.€€(emphasisÏadded)ÌÌÓÓThus,€the€only€elements€required€under€the€statute€for€the€enforcement€of€a€prenuptialÏagreement€are€that€the€agreement€be€entered€into€freely,€knowledgeably,€in€good€faithÏand€without€exertion€of€duress€or€undue€influence.€€Because€these€are€the€sole€factorsÏto€consider€when€determining€the€validity€of€an€antenuptial€agreement,€the€ð ðlength€ofÏtime€that€the€marriage€lasted€is€not€relevant€to€the€fairness€of€the€agreement.ðð€ÏòòPerkinson€v.€Perkinsonóó,€802€S.W.2d€600,€603€(Tenn.€1990).€€€Thus,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€the€agreement€is€too€old€to€be€enforced€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€agree,€however,€with€the€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€limiting€the€award€of€alimony€in€this€case€to€temporary€alimony.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d)€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[I]t€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€a€spouse€who€isÍeconomically€disadvantaged,€relative€to€the€other€spouse,€beÏrehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€the€granting€of€an€order€for€paymentÏof€rehabilitative,€temporary€support€and€maintenance.€€Where€there€isÏsuch€relative€economic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€inÏconsideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€including€those€set€out€in€thisÏsubsection,€then€the€court€may€grant€an€order€for€payment€of€support€andÏmaintenance€on€a€long„term€basis€or€until€the€death€or€remarriage€of€theÏrecipient€except€as€otherwise€provided€in€subdivision€(a)(3).€Ìà àÌÓÓUnder€the€statute,€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€appropriate€only€where€there€is€relativeÏeconomic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitation€of€the€disadvantaged€party€is€not€feasible.€ÏòòSelf€v.€Selfóó,€861€S.W.2d€360,€361€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€court€is€assigned€theÏresponsibility€and€the€discretion€to€fashion€an€award€that€is€appropriate€under€theÏcircumstances€of€each€case.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101;€òòSelfóó,€861€S.W.2d€at€361.€€€WhenÏdetermining€an€appropriate€amount€of€alimony€to€award€a€party,€the€court€shallÏconsider€all€relevant€factors€including:ÌÓÓà8 à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financialÏresources€of€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,€profit€sharing€orÏretirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;ÌÌà8 à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€andÏopportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€and€theÏnecessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€and€training€to€improveÏsuch€party's€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;ÌÌà à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;ÌÌà à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;ÌÌà8 à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limited€to,Ïphysical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitating€disease;ÌÌà8 à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seekÏemployment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€be€custodian€of€aÏminor€child€of€the€marriage;ÌÌà8 à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangibleÍand€intangible;ÌÌà8 à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€as€defined€inÏðð€36„4„121;ÌÌà à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€the€marriage;ÌÌà8 à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€and€intangibleÏcontributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€and€homemaker€contributions,Ïand€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€to€the€education,Ïtraining€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;ÌÌà8 à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€itsÏdiscretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€€andÌÌà8 à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,€asÏare€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.Ìà àÌT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àBased€on€the€undisputed€evidence€presented€at€trial,€we€conclude€that€anÏaward€of€Ìrehabilitative€alimony€is€not€appropriate€in€this€case.€€In€consideration€of€the€disparityÏin€the€partiesðð€earning€capacities,€the€Plaintiffððs€age€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€theÏtwenty„seven€year€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€partiesðð€standard€of€living€during€theÏmarriage€and€the€intangible€contributions€that€the€Plaintiff€made€during€the€partiesððÏmarriage,€we€agree€that€this€is€an€appropriate€case€for€an€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€ÏWe,€therefore,€modify€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€$4,500.00€per€month€in€alimony€for€twoÏyears€and€$3,000.00€per€month€in€alimony€for€the€following€ten€years€to€provide€thatÏthe€Plaintiff€receive€an€award€of€permanent€alimony€in€the€amount€of€$4,500.00€perÏmonth,€to€terminate€upon€plaintiffððs€death€or€remarriage.ÌÌà àWith€the€exception€of€the€foregoing€modification€of€the€alimony€award,€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€shall€be€divided€equallyÏbetween€the€parties.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.