ÿWPCü äyjeJÑù›D3ßtˆ5é%žòáBàÿM[p§œ¾§]^`×ç^®c'üÁLGøýw2žK½ô5Ëêu1Ýè bz?u÷«Úf µ‡¼HM¤.ßÞ{…9½ßùœ¢æÃ8©nÙ,rgâ–Óüððæ9M´˜×D¯ˆä¥–Rá«^jŽÙj‘³Z˜ø]–Zá³´j»opLd¦¤½Iõ4zý´á”uHJÌ(-ñ‘™4eƒ$çs>»5 5.cݹ¬Øx›ÜHøËãÌ@i+Àêçš“£ÞŽ…ò}Ÿ¬=íBÖ&IsXZ*÷Ê[>“‘¢ã͈ Æöw¤Øˆ/%úý¡û’¤4HÂ÷£ìm”›ë€çxÿ¤Ã¹aè6ç“qP¨™? m*Þâ^à.†û㺰ÿDÏKh äv€2À.°nˆÞ!¸¿`6¶€É«4o¡Áòáú™›:¸å‘ 0lF 0D² b ö AQ UNS ^ ¡ ­ m¯ UNÆ  Æ Æâ ƨ Æn Æ4Qú"KKKmU:ƒƒƒƒ B½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ D5ÚÚ A© 0D¸¸ D-ü 0K) 0Dt 0D¸˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡tpO'vvvvvv3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù -b^c[Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular–›#(L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 GÑ8€ÂXXdðXXdð8ÑÑ€ Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XtXXXÔÔ€ÄXXtÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XtXÄÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€30,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d"""")ÿÿ!dxdx^a`›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑe°ÑÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑò òÔ‡XWbXXXÔÑ8€WbXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€³ÇÑÔ_Ôà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ e Ðò òßx€ [B2.jz9`  `€€@ÿEžŠ` 8ttxPÖQ( 9 xßà@úú$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ Qì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð =Ø ÐÌóóÌWANDA€FAYE€BROWN,€€€€à h àà À à)Ð  œ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ í ˆ Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà  àà0 h àà0Àh(#h(#à)à  àó óMarion€Circuit€No.€12201ÐÙ tÀ(#À(# Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ É d Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð µ P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ ¡ <  ÐJOHN€CHESTER€BROWN,à h à€à À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€M1998„00554„COA„R3„CVò òÐ (  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendant/Appellee.ò òà  àà0 h àà0Àh(#h(#à)à  àÐi À(#À(# ЀÌÌà@ÜÜìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€MARION€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURT€€€€€€€€€€€ˆÐ 1Ì Ðà@YYìàAT€JASPER,€TENNESSEE€€ˆÌÌÌà@ì ì ìàTHE€HONORABLE€BUDDY€D.€PERRY,€JUDGEˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà  àà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:Ô#†XWbXXXWbœ#ÔÔ‡XWbXXXWbÔòòÐ ‘, ÐóóÌL.€Thomas€Austinà0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àJerry€B.€Bible€€€€€€€€ÐiÀ(#À(# ÐDunlap,€Tennessee€€€à ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€à0 À àJasper,€Tennessee€€€€€€€ÐUðÀ(#À(# Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌò òÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð µ$P # ÐÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€€€€Ð =*Ø%) ÐÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÔ#†XWbXXXWbÍ#ÔÔ‡XWbXXXWbÔÌÔ#†XWbXXXWb‚ #ÔÐ  í-ˆ)- ÐѳÇÑâ âÑ8€š¢XXdðXXdð8ÑÑ€ Ñâ âÑ  ÑØØÑ  ÑÑ€äVÑà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ e ÐÓÓÌà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€The€trial€court€divided€the€marital€estate€and€granted€the€wife€alimonyÐ 5Ð Ðòòin€futuroóó.€€Both€the€wife€and€the€husband€appeal€the€division€of€marital€property€and€the€award€ofÐ  ° Ðalimony.€€We€affirm.Ð õ  Ðà  àDefendant/Appellee€John€Brown€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Plaintiff/Appellant€Wanda€BrownÐ Õ p  Ð(ð ðWifeðð)€separated€in€October€1996€after€twenty„five€years€of€marriage.€€At€the€time€of€trial,Ð µP  ÐHusband€was€fifty„seven€years€old€and€Wife€was€fifty„six.€€Prior€to€the€partiesðð€separation,€HusbandÐ •0  Ðworked€as€a€truck€driver€for€MS€Carriers.€€While€Wife€worked€outside€the€home€in€the€early€yearsÐ u Ðof€the€marriage,€the€parties€later€agreed€that€she€would€quit€her€job€and€stay€at€home€to€raise€theirÐ Uð Ðchild.€€Husband€owned€a€$60,000€home€at€the€time€the€parties€married,€but€he€deeded€the€home€andÐ 5Ð Ðthe€surrounding€property€to€himself€and€Wife€as€tenants€by€the€entirety€soon€after€they€were€married.€Ð ° ÐWife€testified€at€trial€that€approximately€twelve€to€thirteen€thousand€dollars€which€she€received€byÐ õ Ðinheritance€was€used€to€make€improvements€to€the€home€during€the€marriage.€Ð Õp Ðà  àWife€testified€at€trial€that€Husband€was€verbally€abusive€to€both€her€and€the€partiesðð€daughterÐ µP Ðthroughout€the€marriage.€€The€daughter,€now€an€adult,€corroborated€Wifeððs€allegations€of€abuse.€Ð •0 ÐHusband€testified€that€while€he€may€have€occasionally€ð ðcussedðð€Wife,€he€did€not€rememberÐ u! Ðthreatening€Wife€or€their€daughter.€€Husband€claimed€that€Wife€was€verbally€abusive€and€rudeÐ U#ð! Ðtoward€him€and€toward€his€family€throughout€the€marriage.€€Husband€admits€that€he€began€aÐ 5%Ð # Ðrelationship€with€another€woman€soon€after€the€parties€separated.€€Wife€filed€for€divorce€on€OctoberÐ '°"% Ð16,€1996,€and€Husband€counter„claimed€for€divorce€on€October€31,€1996.€€€Ð õ($' Ðà  àHusband€has€a€high€school€education.€€His€average€gross€salary€as€a€truck€driver€for€1994€andÐ Õ*p&) Ð1995€was€$35,515.€€€In€the€first€ten€months€of€1996,€he€had€a€gross€salary€of€$37,427.00.€€On€the€dayÐ µ,P(+ ÐHusband€and€Wife€separated,€Husband€voluntarily€quit€his€job€with€MS€Carriers.€€Husband€admitsÐ •.0*- Ðthat€he€did€not€quit€because€of€physical€reasons,€but€testified€that€he€now€may€have€trouble€drivingÐ u0,/ Ða€truck€at€night€because€he€has€glaucoma,€an€eye€condition.€€Husband€testified€that€his€glaucoma€isÐ U2ð-1 Ðkept€under€control€by€medication€and€that€he€is€apparently€still€physically€qualified€to€drive€a€truck.€Ð 54Ð/3 ÐNevertheless,€Husband€testified€that€he€does€not€plan€to€look€for€a€new€job€in€trucking.€€HusbandÐ 6°15 Ðtook€a€job€as€a€security€guard€during€the€partiesðð€separation€but€was€fired€when€he€was€jailed€for€one„Ð õ737 Ðhundred€twenty€days€for€contempt€for€failing€to€pay€alimony.€Ð Õ9p59 ÐÐ  µ;P7; Ðà  àWife€has€a€high€school€education€but€no€significant€work€experience,€training,€or€skills.€€SheÐ e Ðis€classified€as€disabled€under€Social€Security€Administration€guidelines€due€to€a€variety€of€ailments,Ð Eà Ðincluding€back€problems.€€ò òó óAt€the€time€of€trial,€Wife€had€no€independent€source€of€income.€€However,Ð %À Ðafter€the€partiesðð€separation,€she€earned€approximately€sixty€dollars€per€week€over€a€period€of€sixÐ    Ðweeks€sitting€with€an€ailing€elderly€woman.€€When€the€elderly€woman€began€feeling€better,€WifeÐ å € Ðstopped€sitting€with€her.€€Wife€claims€regular€monthly€expenses€of€approximately€$1,060.20.€Ð Å `  Ðà  àThe€trial€court€granted€a€divorce€to€Wife€on€January€8,€1998,€and€divided€the€marital€assetsÐ ¥@  Ðand€debts€between€the€parties.€€The€trial€court€initially€granted€Wife€a€one„half€interest€in€the€maritalÐ …  Ðhome€and€the€surrounding€real€estate€and€awarded€the€other€one„half€interest€to€Wife€as€alimony€òòinÐ e Ðsolidoóó.€€Upon€reconsideration,€however,€the€trial€court€awarded€Wife€a€life€estate€in€Husbandððs€one„Ð Eà Ðhalf€interest€in€the€home€and€real€estate€and€an€exclusive€right€to€live€in€the€home.€€Husband€wasÐ %À Ðawarded€the€right€to€use€his€one„half€remainder€interest€if€Wife€predeceased€him.€€Ð   Ðà  àWife€was€awarded€a€1994€Ford€Tempo€and€Husband€a€1992€Ford€Ranger€XLT€Pickup,€withÐ å€ Ðeach€party€individually€responsible€for€any€indebtedness.€€The€trial€court€divided€equally€all€debts,Ð Å` Ðtotaling€approximately€$4,528,€as€well€as€all€household€goods€and€furnishings.Ð ¥@ Ðà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€to€Husband€the€proceeds€from€an€MS€Carrier€Retirement€Fund,Ð …  Ðapproximately€$17,142,€the€proceeds€from€an€IRA,€approximately€$3,000,€and€the€proceeds€fromÐ e"  Ða€$70,000€certificate€of€deposit,€which€Husband€inherited€from€his€parents.€€Wife€was€awarded€theÐ E$à" Ðproceeds€of€the€partiesðð€savings€account,€approximately€$1,492,€and€the€proceeds€of€an€IRA.€Ð %&À!$ Ðà  àFinally,€the€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€Wife€$200€per€week€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€TheÐ ( #& Ðtrial€court€credited€Husband€$320€per€month€for€an€annuity€payment€assigned€to€Wife€by€HusbandÐ å)€%( Ðunder€a€prior€court€order.€€Ð Å+`'* Ðà  àBoth€parties€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€decree.ò ò€€ó óWife€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€September€21,Ð ¥-@), Ð1998.€€The€notice€named€Wife€as€appellant,€Husband€as€appellee,€and€gave€the€addresses€of€bothÐ …/ +. Ðparties.€€It€listed€Husbandððs€attorney€and€named€the€trial€court,€the€trial€judge,€the€number€and€fileÐ e1-0 Ðdate€of€the€judgment€from€which€she€appealed,€and€the€court€in€which€the€appeal€was€filed.€€WifeððsÐ E3à.2 Ðattorney€did€not€sign€the€notice€of€appeal€but€signed€as€surety€for€the€accompanying€appeal€bond.€Ð %5À04 Ðà  àSubsequently,€Wife€filed€a€motion€with€the€trial€court€asking€that€Husband€be€required€toÐ 7 26 Ðprovide€Wife€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript.€€Wifeððs€motion€proposed€that€Wife€pay€Husband€one„halfÐ å8€48 Ðof€the€court€reporterððs€appearance€fee.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€Wife€be€allowed€to€make€a€copyÐ e Ðof€the€transcript€provided€she€paid€ð ðthe€per€diem€of€the€taking€of€the€transcript€and€for€the€cost€of€theÐ Eà Ðtranscript€itselfðð€and€that€she€furnish€a€copy€of€the€transcript€to€Husband.€€ò òó óÐ %À Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€Wife€failed€to€properly€file€her€notice€of€appeal.€€HusbandÐ    Ðalso€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€a€divorce€to€Wife.€€Both€Husband€and€Wife€challengeÐ å € Ðthe€trial€courtððs€division€of€property€and€its€alimony€award.€€Ð Å `  Ðà  àWe€address€first€Husbandððs€claim€that€Wife€failed€to€properly€her€notice€of€appeal.€€ò òó óHusbandÐ ¥@  Ðcontends€that€Wifeððs€notice€is€insufficient€under€Rule€11.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ …  ÐProcedure€and€Rule€24€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€because€it€fails€to€give€theÐ e Ðdate€and€the€name€and€signature€of€Wifeððs€attorney.Ð Eà Ðà  àRule€11.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€states€that€ð ð[a]n€unsigned€paper€shallÐ %À Ðbe€stricken€unless€omission€of€the€signature€is€corrected€promptly€after€being€called€to€the€attentionÐ   Ðof€the€attorney€or€party.ðð€€Rule€3(f)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€states€that€aÐ å€ Ðð ðnotice€of€appeal€shall€specify€the€party.€.€.taking€the€appeal,€shall€designate€the€judgment€fromÐ Å` Ðwhich€relief€is€sought,€and€shall€name€the€court€to€which€the€appeal€is€taken.€€An€appeal€shall€not€beÐ ¥@ Ðdismissed€for€informality€of€form€or€title€of€the€notice€of€appeal.ððÐ …  Ðà  àWifeððs€notice€of€appeal€names€Wife€as€appellant,€designates€the€number€and€file€date€of€theÐ e"  Ðjudgment€appealed€from,€and€names€the€court€in€which€the€appeal€was€filed.€€Wifeððs€attorney€did€notÐ E$à" Ðsign€the€notice€of€appeal,€as€required€under€Rule€11.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ %&À!$ Ðbut€signed€the€appeal€bond€accompanying€the€notice.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€failure€ofÐ ( #& ÐWifeððs€attorney€to€sign€the€notice€of€appeal€does€not€prevent€this€Court€from€hearing€Wifeððs€appeal.Ð å)€%( Ðà  àHusband€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€Husband€to€permit€Wife€to€makeÐ Å+`'* Ða€copy€of€the€trial€transcript,€because€the€order€allows€Wife€a€copy€of€the€transcript€when€she€did€notÐ ¥-@), Ðassist€Husband€in€paying€the€court€reporterððs€appearance€fee€in€the€first€place.€€Husband€argues€thatÐ …/ +. Ðthe€transcript€became€Husbandððs€attorney€work€product€when€Wife€refused€Husbandððs€request€beforeÐ e1-0 Ðtrial€to€split€the€appearance€fee.Ð E3à.2 Ðà  àUnder€the€trial€courtððs€order,€Wife€could€make€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript€if€she€paid€ð ðtheÐ %5À04 Ðper€diem€of€the€taking€of€the€transcript€and€for€the€cost€of€the€transcript€itselfðð€and€if€she€furnishedÐ 7 26 Ða€copy€of€the€transcript€to€Husband.€€Husband€points€to€no€manner€in€which€this€order€unfairlyÐ å8€48 Ðprejudices€him.€€Moreover,€Husbandððs€argument€that€the€trial€transcript€is€ð ðwork€productðð€isÐ e Ðsophistic€at€best;€a€transcript€of€a€public€proceeding€such€as€trial€cannot€be€deemed€work€product.€Ð Eà Ðò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02;€ò òòòMemphis€Pub.€Co.€v.€City€of€Memphisó óóó,€871€S.W.2d€681,€689€(Tenn.Ð %À Ð1994)€(work€product€materials€must€have€a€veil€of€confidentiality).€Ð    Ðà  àHusband€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€divorce€to€Wife.€€€HeÐ å € Ðmaintains€that€Wife€was€verbally€abusive€toward€him€and€his€family€members.€€Husband€argues€thatÐ Å `  ÐWife€failed€to€offer€sufficient€evidence€of€recent€altercations€between€the€parties€for€which€HusbandÐ ¥@  Ðwas€at€fault.Ð …  Ðà  àWife€testified€at€trial€that€Husband€was€verbally€abusive€to€her€and€to€the€partiesðð€daughter.€Ð e ÐShe€stated€that€Husbandððs€abusive€behavior€occurred€intermittently€from€the€beginning€of€the€partiesððÐ Eà Ðmarriage€up€to€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€separation.€€The€partiesðð€adult€daughter€corroborated€WifeððsÐ %À Ðallegations.€€In€his€testimony,€€Husband€admitted€that€he€may€have€occasionally€ð ðcussedðð€Wife.€Ð   Ðà  àClearly€Wife€proffered€substantial€evidence€of€Husbandððs€verbal€abuse.€€The€trial€courtððsÐ å€ Ðdetermination€of€fault€turned€on€its€assessment€of€the€witnessesðð€credibility.€€When€the€resolutionÐ Å` Ðof€an€issue€in€a€case€depends€upon€the€truthfulness€of€witnesses,€the€trial€judge€who€has€theÐ ¥@ Ðopportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€in€their€manner€and€demeanor€while€testifying€is€in€a€far€betterÐ …  Ðposition€than€this€Court€to€decide€that€issue.€€ò òòòSee€McCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.ó óóó,€910€S.W.2d€412,€415Ð e"  Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€evidence,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ E$à" Ðawarding€the€divorce€to€Wife.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ð %&À!$ Ðà  àHusband€and€Wife€both€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€partiesðð€marital€estate.€Ð ( #& ÐWife€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awarded€her€the€partiesðð€entire€interest€in€the€maritalÐ å)€%( Ðhome€and€surrounding€property.€€She€contends€that€such€an€award€is€necessary€to€offset€the€largeÐ Å+`'* Ðamount€of€separate€property€owned€by€Husband.€€Wife€argues€that€her€age,€lack€of€training€andÐ ¥-@), Ðskills,€and€physical€condition€cause€her€to€be€less€employable€and€to€have€a€lower€earning€capacityÐ …/ +. Ðthan€Husband.€€Therefore,€she€maintains€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€assigned€to€her€theÐ e1-0 Ðpartiesðð€indebtedness€on€her€car€and€one„half€of€the€partiesðð€remaining€debts.Ð E3à.2 Ðà  àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dividing€the€partiesðð€marital€property€becauseÐ %5À04 Ðmost€of€the€property€was€either€properly€classified€as€Husbandððs€separately„owned€property€or€wasÐ 7 26 Ðacquired€by€gift€from€Husbandððs€parents€or€relatives.Ð å8€48 ÐÑäVÑâ âѰeÑѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„121(c)€requires€the€trial€court€to€consider€several€factorsÐ ° Ðin€making€an€equitable€division€of€marital€property,€including:Ð à ÐÓÓà8  à(1)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€The€age,€physical€and€mental€health,€vocational€skills,€employability,€earningÐ ` ° Ðcapacity,€estate,€financial€liabilities€and€financial€needs€of€each€of€the€parties;ÐP  Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€The€tangible€or€intangible€contribution€by€one€(1)€party€to€the€education,€trainingÐ @  Ðor€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;€Ð0 €Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€The€relative€ability€of€each€party€for€future€acquisitions€of€capital€assets€andÐ  p  Ðincome;Ð` Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(5)€The€contribution€of€each€party€to€the€acquisition,€preservation,€appreciation€orÐ P  Ðdissipation€of€the€marital€or€separate€property,€including€the€contribution€of€a€partyÐ ð@  Ðto€the€marriage€as€homemaker,€wage€earner€or€parent,€with€the€contribution€of€a€partyÐ à0  Ðas€homemaker€or€wage€earner€to€be€given€the€same€weight€if€each€party€has€fulfilledÐ Ð  Ðits€role;ÐÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(6)€The€value€of€the€separate€property€of€each€party;аРР Ðà8  à(7)€The€estate€of€each€party€at€the€time€of€the€marriage;РðÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(8)€The€economic€circumstances€of€each€party€at€the€time€the€division€of€property€isÐ à Ðto€become€effective;ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(9)€The€tax€consequences€to€each€party;€andÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(10)€Such€other€factors€as€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c)€(1996).€€Appellate€review€of€a€division€of€marital€property€is€òòde€novoóóÐ @ Ðupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€ò òòòSeeóóó óÐ  p ÐTenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€The€trial€courtððs€division€of€property€is€altered€on€appeal€only€if€the€trial€courtÐ P Ðmisapplies€the€law€or€if€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€ò òòòSeeóóó óÐ à0 Ðò òòòWade€v.€Wadeó óóó,€897€S.W.2d€702,€715€(Tenn.App.€1994).Ð À! Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€primary€asset€in€the€marital€estate€is€the€marital€home€and€the€surroundingÐ  #ð! Ðproperty.€€The€only€other€asset€of€significant€value€is€the€$70,000€certificate€of€deposit€whichÐ €%Ð # ÐHusband€inherited€from€his€parents.€€Both€parties€argue€that€they€should€have€been€awarded€soleÐ `'°"% Ðownership€of€the€home.€€The€trial€courtððs€award€to€Wife€of€a€life€interest€in€the€marital€home€helpsÐ @)$' Ðoffset€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€the€$70,000€certificate€of€deposit€to€Husband€as€his€separate€property.€Ð  +p&) ÐThe€remainder€of€the€marital€property€was€essentially€divided€equally.Ð -P(+ Ðà  àConsidering€the€evidence€presented,€we€cannot€conclude€evidence€preponderated€against€theÐ à.0*- Ðtrial€courtððs€property€division.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ð À0,/ Ðà  àFinally,€Husband€and€Wife€both€contest€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony.€€Wife€argues€thatÐ  2ð-1 Ðthe€amount€of€the€alimony€award€is€insufficient€in€light€of€her€regular€monthly€expenses€andÐ €4Ð/3 ÐHusbandððs€ability€to€pay.€€Wife€contends€that€the€alimony€amount€should€be€based€upon€HusbandððsÐ `6°15 Ðprior€gross€monthly€income€as€a€truck€driver.Ð @837 ÐÐ   :p59 Ðà  àHusband€admits€that€he€quit€his€job€as€a€truck€driver€the€day€the€parties€separated,€but€arguesÐ ° Ðthat€he€can€work€as€a€truck€driver€only€so€long€as€his€glaucoma€condition€can€be€controlled.€€HeÐ à Ðargues€further€that€his€age€and€limited€education€will€likely€prevent€him€from€finding€employmentÐ pÀ Ðwith€a€salary€as€high€as€he€received€as€a€truck€driver.€€Husband€contends€that€the€alimony€amountÐ P   Ðis€excessive€in€light€of€Wifeððs€work€caring€for€the€elderly€woman€after€the€partiesðð€separation.Ð 0 € Ðà  àThe€factors€relevant€in€making€an€award€of€alimony€are€similar€to€those€considered€in€makingÐ `  Ðan€equitable€division€of€marital€property.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€36„4„121(c)€(1996)€and€36„5„Ð ð@  Ð101(d)(1)€(Supp.€1999);€òòò òsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòDellinger€v.€Dellingeróóó ó,€958€S.W.2d€778,€781€(Tenn.App.€1997).€Ð Ð  ÐThe€need€of€the€obligee€spouse€and€the€obligor€spouseððs€ability€to€pay€are€the€most€critical€factorsÐ ° Ðin€awarding€alimony.€€òòò òSee€Loyd€v.€Loydó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.App.1993).€€In€addition,€theÐ à Ðrelative€fault€of€the€parties€in€the€breakup€of€the€marriage€may€be€considered.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€òòò òGilliam€v.Ð pÀ ÐGilliamó óóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86€(Tenn.App.€1988).Ð P  Ðà  àThe€trial€court€is€afforded€wide€discretion€concerning€the€award€of€alimony,€and€an€appellateÐ 0€ Ðcourt€should€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€findings€only€in€instances€in€which€this€discretion€ð ðhasÐ ` Ðmanifestly€been€abused.ðð€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€ò òòòHanover€v.€Hanoveró óóó,€775€S.W.2d€612,€617€(Tenn.App.€1989);€ò òòòFordÐ ð@ Ðv.€Fordó óóó,€952€S.W.2d€824,€827€(Tenn.App.€1997).Ð Ð  Ðà  àThe€fault€for€the€breakup€of€the€marriage€and€Wifeððs€need€are€factors€favoring€an€adequateÐ °"  Ðalimony€award.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€divorce€to€Wife,€implicitly€finding€that€Husband€wasÐ $à" Ðat€fault€for€the€divorce.€€However,€the€amount€of€the€monthly€alimony€award€leaves€Wife€with€aÐ p&À!$ Ð$260.20€shortfall€when€it€is€applied€to€her€monthly€expenses.Ð P( #& Ðà  àHowever,€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay€a€greater€amount€of€alimony€is€uncertain.€€AlthoughÐ 0*€%( ÐHusband€did€not€quit€his€job€as€a€truck€driver€because€of€physical€infirmity,€he€now€testifies€that€hisÐ ,`'* Ðglaucoma€condition€inhibits€his€ability€to€drive€a€truck€for€a€living.€€He€admits€that€the€glaucoma€isÐ ð-@), Ðcontrolled€by€medication€and€that€he€is€apparently€still€physically€qualified€to€hold€a€license.€€Ð Ð/ +. ÐÔ‡XqÃXXXš¢Ôà  àThe€award€of€alimony€presents€a€difficult€issue.€€The€evidence€clearly€supports€the€trialÐ °1-0 Ðcourtððs€implicit€finding€that€Husband€was€at€fault€for€the€divorce.€€The€fact€that€Husband€quit€his€jobÐ ˆ3Ø.2 Ðas€a€truck€driver€the€day€the€parties€separated€suggests€that€it€was€motivated€by€a€desire€to€avoidÐ `5°04 Ðpaying€Wife€significant€alimony.€€However,€regardless€of€Husbandððs€original€motivation€for€quittingÐ 87ˆ26 Ðhis€truck€driver€job,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€determine€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay€alimony€as€ofÐ 9`48 Ðthe€date€of€trial.€€This€determination€depended€in€part€on€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€HusbandððsÐ ° Ðcredibility€on€his€ability€to€work€as€a€truck€driver€or€in€another€position€with€comparable€pay.Ô#†Xš¢XXXqí\#Ô€WhenÐ ˆØ Ðthe€resolution€of€an€issue€in€a€case€depends€upon€the€truthfulness€of€witnesses,€the€trial€judge€whoÐ ˆØ Ðhas€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€in€their€manner€and€demeanor€while€testifying€is€in€aÐ h ¸ Ðfar€better€position€than€this€Court€to€decide€that€issue.€€€òòò òSeeó óóó€ò òòòMcCalebó óóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€415€(Tenn.Ð H ˜ Ð1995).€€We€must€accord€great€weight€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€of€€credibility.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€òòò òidó óóó.;€òòò òseeÐ (x  Ðalsoó óóó€ò òòòIn€re€Estate€of€Walton€v.€Youngó óóó,€950€S.W.2d€956,€959€(Tenn.€1997).Ð X  Ðà  àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€and€in€view€of€the€high€standard€of€review€for€an€award€ofÐ è8  Ðalimony,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€in€this€case€amounted€to€anÐ È Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€equally€to€both€parties,€for€whichÐ ˆØ Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð h¸ ÐÌÔ‡XqÃXXXš¢ÔÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð (x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð d Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:Ð ì< ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ °"  ÐALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÐ œ#ì! ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð `&°!$ Ðóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÔ#†Xš¢XXXqÃéd#Ô