WPC # VU:a % 0w@ 4    0? 0DL 0J 0T 0^. 0h 0r 0|f 0 0h 1u 0dmU*B)DC$ AMg Bv~tv D3 0@ AO8 0DM D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl,cAZ"Arial RegularX(G$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXmXXX7XXdXXd7 gh eikDlmUnopqӀR"3|x|H((2"$ G!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdXXd7   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-"C << G d  !  #d#     H \RA'\#d#      YYY FILED X May13,1997CecilCrowson,Jr. AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva $$$$'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .      H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#  ݛ   R#%"A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE   CURTISEUGENEBUNCH,  ) ROANEGENERALSESSIONS      )       Plaintiff/Appellee   ) NO.03A019609GS00301      ) v.      ) HON.THOMASA.AUSTIN       ) JUDGESYNDIETARENEMURPHYBUNCH, )        ) AFFIRMEDinpart; Defendant/Appellant  ) REVERSEDinpart,and      ) REMANDEDCharlesH.ChildandWadeH.Boswell,II,Knoxville,forAppellant.BrowderG.Williams,Harriman,forAppellee.   OPINION         INMAN,SeniorJudge    TheissuespropoundedbyWife,theappellant,are(1)whetherthemaritalassetswereproperlyapportioned,(2)whethershewasentitledtoalimony,(3)whethershewasentitledtoattorneyfees,and(4)whetherchildsupportwasproperlydetermined. Ourreviewisdenovoontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionthatthefindingsoffactofthetrialcourtarecorrectunlesstheevidenceotherwisepreponderates.Rule13(d),Tenn.R.App.P.Thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnesswithregardtothetrialcourt'sdeterminationofquestionsoflaw.NCNBv.Thrailkill,856S.W.2d250,153(Tenn.App.1993). Thesepartiesweremarriedin1977.Theyhavetwochildren,ages16and11atthetimeofthetrial.Wifeis37andhusbandis40yearsofage.AtanearliertimeinherhistoryWifesufferedadebilitatingmentalillness,butshehadfullyrecoveredatthetimeoftrial. ThemaritalassetwithwhichwearechieflyconcernedisaboatbusinessknownasBunchMarine,agoingconcernestablishedbyHusbandsgrandfather,whichhepurchasedin1980for$13,000.00.Thisbusinessisasoleproprietorship,withthreeemployees.Boatsalesconstitutethebulkofhisbusiness,andsubstantiallyallofhisnetprofits.TheevidencereflectsthatwithoutHusbandthebusinesswouldfounder. Wifeassistedwithbookkeepingchoresuntillate1984,althoughshewasemployedfulltimeatUnionCarbide.Theevidencereflectsthatshecomplainedvolublyaboutdoingthebooks,andsince1984hadnocontactwiththebusiness.AlthoughsheproteststhatshewassupportiveofHusbandsbusinessefforts,theweightoftheevidenceissomewhattothecontrary,apointthatrequiresnofurtherelucidation. SteveParsons,aCPA,testifiedthatthevalueofthenetestatewas$50,000.00,thetangibleassetshadavalueasofDecember1995of$154,000.00,andtheintangibleasset[goodwill]hadavalueof$54,800.00. AnotherCPA,SteveHarb,wascalledtotestifyaboutthecurrentvalueofBunchMarine,buthedeclinedtostateanopinionoftheoverallvalueofthebusiness.Thetrialcourtfoundthevalueofthebusinesstobe$104,000.00.InlightofthetestimonyofHusbandthathethoughtBunchMarineinclusiveoftherealestatehadamarketvalueof$163,000.00,andthetestimonyofHusbandsexpertthathevaluedthebusinessat$209,000.00,itappearsevidentthatthevaluationfoundbytheCourtisnotsupportedbythepreponderanceoftheevidence.Barnhillv.Barnhill,826S.W.2d423(Tenn.App.1991).Therewasconsiderableevidenceofsocalledgoodwillvalueofferedwhichmayhavecontributedtothesomewhatconfusingtestimonyastoassetvalues.Goodwillisanebulousconceptatbest,anduponconsiderationofthesoleproprietorshipnatureofBunchMarinewecannotfaultthetrialcourtforrefusingtoincludeanyamountforgoodwillindeterminingthevalueofthebusiness.See,Kochv.Koch,874S.W.2d571(Tenn.App.1993).Butthevaluesofassetsasfoundmustbewithintherangeofthevaluesprovedbyopiniontestimony.Wallacev.Wallace,733S.W.2d102(Tenn.App.1987).Husbandarguesthatthetrialjudgewasjustifiedinmakingadeterminationofvaluesasofthedateoftheseparationoftheparties,sinceWifemadenocontributionafterthattime.Withoutaddressingthecorrectnessofthisassertion,weareoftheopinionthatBunchMarineshouldhavebeenvalued,formaritalassetpurposes,at$165,000.00.  Theissuesofalimonyandattorneyfeeswillbejointlyconsi%  dered.Wifecomplainsoftherefusalofthetrialcourttoawardheralimony,notwithstandingthatsheearns$35,000.00.annuallyfromUnionCarbideinadditiontosignificantperquisites.Shearguesthathermonthlyexpensesaremorethan$1,200.00inexcessofdisposableincome;wehaveexaminedherstatementofexpensesandsufficetosaythatweagreewiththetrialcourtthat thisisnotacaseforalimony,whichisessentiallydiscretionaryinanyevent.Lancasterv.Lancaster,671S.W.2d501(Tenn.App.1984).Attorneyfeesareapartofalimony,andweagreewiththetrialjudgethateachpartyshouldpayhisownattorney.Loydv.Loyd,860S.W.2d409(Tenn.App.1993). Husbandwasdirectedtopay$1,200.00permonthchildsupport,whichassumesgrossincomeof$5,300.00monthly.WifesaysthisamountdoesnotcomportwiththeGuidelines,sinceHusbandsaveragegrossmonthlyincomeis$5,900.00.Weknowofnoreasonwhythemostrecenttwoyearsofincomederivedfromselfemploymentmaynotbeutilized,andonthisbasissufficetostatethatWifecannotjustifiablycomplainoftheaward. ExceptfortheadjustmentinthemaritalassetvalueofBunchMarine,thejudgmentisaffirmed.Weconcludethataremandtothetrialcourtforthepurposeofredeterminingtheapportionmentofmaritalassetsisamoreprovidentprocedure,andthecaseisaccordinglyremanded.Costsonappealareassessedtothepartiesevenly.      __________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge_______________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge̜̜