WPC q?7p΋(D .)SkvCbH(:_AkEh')"ɴ2lG(YR{f] THFVu҆P ıt=v)vSҺ沠Q:.@Gtķެb"UiEn3pnn >@ "q3ʊ˧'W2[Lcwe"/|þ>X۲#Qrd h{'$]s]|!\oP,D:mtg&dyA{ּ-Vۇ-!titVe6o+צrS>&+@{z*Xil/Y|ڏRɓA~N A.,# W_.>; 0S9Dr\}TĠ OConnor,Petty,Child h   Harriman,Tennessee d# Ѐ&BoswellKnoxville,Tennessee@$XvXXX  XXvOPINION    XX  Ԉ F3(1 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09      ` Thisisadivorcecasethatwasbeforeusonanearlieroccasion.Onthefirstappeal,   #  1      ׀weheldthatthetrialcourthad   improperlyvaluedoneofthemaritalassets.Accordingly,wedirectedthetrialcourtto redetermin[e]itsdivisionofpropertybetweentheparties.Followingourremand,thetrialcourtconcludedthatthedefendant,SyndieTareneMurphyBunch( Wife),wasentitledtoanadditional$12,500ashershareoftheincreaseinvalueofherhusbandsbusinessanincreasethathadoccurredinthelastyearofthepartiesmarriage.Beingdissatisfiedwiththetrialcourtsnewjudgment,Wifeappeals.Shepresentsthreeissuesthatraisethefollowingquestionsforourconsideration:  8 ` 1.Doestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsnewdivisionofmaritalproperty? ` `    H8 ` 2.Istheadditionalawardof$12,500effectiveasofthedateofentryofthejudgmentofdivorcesoastoentitleWifetointerestontheadditionalawardfromandafterthatdate? ` `    8 ` 3.IsWifeentitledtorecoverfromherhusband,CurtisEugeneBunch( Husband),theattorneysfeesincurredbyherinconnectionwiththehearingonremandandforservicesrenderedonthisappeal? ` `  @  I.ProceedingsLeadingtothisAppeal l-#*    ` Intheearlierappeal,weconcludedthatHusbandssoleproprietorshipinterestinBunchMarineabusinessprimarilyengagedintheretailsaleofboatswasproperlyvaluedatϜ$165,000,ratherthanthe$104,000foundbythetrialcourt.We 5+4 remandedtothetrialcourt forthepurposeofredeterminingtheapportionmentofthe[parties]maritalassets.Inallotherrespects,weaffirmedthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.   ` Aspreviouslystated,thetrialcourtonremandconcludedthatWifewasentitledtoanadditionalawardof$12,500.Therationaleforthetrialcourtsjudgmentisfoundinitsorder:  8 ` ...itistheopinionoftheTrialCourtthattheissuefordeterminationisbasicallytheamountoftheWifesinterestintheHusbandsbusinessduringtheperiodoftimethattheWifewasincapacitatedandtheHusbandwassolelyresponsibleforrunningthebusinessandthehome.TheCourtconsideringthattheclearproofatthetrialwasthattherewasasubstantialincreaseinthevalueoftheHusbandsbusinessduringthisperiodoftimeandthattheWifemadenocontributiontothebusinessorthehomeand,further,thattheproofatthetrialbySteveParsons,CPA,calledasawitnessbytheHusband,wasthathefounda$50,000.00increaseinthevalueofthebusinessduringthelastyearofthemarriageandthattheCourtofAppealsofTennessee,EasternSection,atKnoxville,clearlyadvisedthatthebusinessshouldbevaluedat$165,000.00,andtheCourtconsideringTCA364121(c)(5)anditsinstructionthattheCourtlookatthecontributionsmadebyeachpartyindeterminingtheparties[sic]interestinthemaritalestate,theCourtisoftheopinion... ` `    8 ` TheWifeshouldnotshareinthetotalincreaseofthebusiness,however,itistheCourtsopinionthattheWifesinterestinthebusinessduringthisperiodoftimeshouldbeset,additionally,at$12,500.00. ` `  @II.StandardofReview 2'0    ` Ourreviewofthisnonjurydivorcecaseisdenovo x5(+4 upontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.ϜTherecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectnessasto 8.8 thetrialcourtsfactualfindingsapresumptionthatwemusthonorunlessthe preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. Id .However,thepresumptionofcorrectnessdoesnotextendto  P thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw. Campbellv.FloridaSteel h Corp .,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996). 0 @0 0 III.LawofDivisionofProperty P     ` T.C.A.364121(a)mandatesanequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty.Itisclearbeyondanydoubtthatatrialcourthasbroaddiscretionindividingthemaritalpropertyofdivorcingparties. Wattersv.Watters ,959S.W.2d585,590  (Tenn.App.1997).Thisbeingthecase,itfollowsthatatrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyisentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Id . "    ` Judicialdiscretionwhenusedasaguideforjudicialactionmeansasounddiscretion...adiscretionexercisednotarbitrarilyorwillfully,butwithregardtowhatisrightandequitableunderthecircumstancesandthelaw,anddirectedbythereasonandconscienceofthejudgetoajustresult. PackageExpressCenterv.SniderFoods ,788S.W.2d561,564 -#* (Tenn.App.1989)(quotingfrom Langnesv.Green ,282U.S.531, /H%, 541,51S.Ct.243,247,75L.Ed.520(1931)).Ӝ  4`*2 Л@$IV.Analysis P  @tt)A.      ` Wifearguesthat [f]airnessandequitydictatethat[she]shouldbeawardedonehalfoftheincreasedvalueinBunchMarine,asdeterminedbytheCourtofAppeals,or$30,500.Sheclaimsthatthetrialcourt,atthefirsthearing,concludedthatanequitabledivisioninthiscasewas,infact,anequalone.Sheurgesustoapplythisfindingtoourdeterminationthatthetrialcourtundervaluedthemaritalestateby$61,000,andawardher$30,500ratherthanthe$12,500decreedbythetrialcourt.   ` Husbandarguesthatourearlieropiniondidnotrequirethetrialcourttoequallydividetheamountbywhichwefound   themaritalestatetobeundervalued.Hecontendsthathadthisbeenthesolepermissibleoptionavailabletothetrialcourt,wewouldhavesodecreedinouroriginalopinion.HetakesthepositionthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawardingWifethelessersum,inviewofthatcourtsfindingthatWifehadnotmadeanycontributionstothemarriageduringtheperiodoftimeinwhichthebusinesswasincreasinginvalue.   ` Adivorcelitigantisnotnecessarilyentitledtoanequitableshareofeachandeveryindividualmaritalasset. 0`&.  Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.App.1994).Rather, p2 (0 thelawrequiresonlythattheoveralldivisionofthetotal 84)2 maritalestatebeequitable.Thus,wemustexaminetheoverall 5+4  divisionofthepartiesmaritalestate.This,inturn,requires 7h-6 anevaluationofthetrialcourtsallocationofthemaritaldebtsaswellasitsdivisionofthemaritalassets.    ` Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtdividedthepartiesmaritalassetsanddebtsasfollows:@HH'Husband @     ` BunchMarine h      p   $165,000      ` Realestateequity(netofdebt)  46,000 l     ` Annuity   h      p   7,886 @     ` Bankaccounts h      p   325 d    ` MoniesdueWife     p   (17,500) 8    `     h      p   $201,711   @(Wife \     ` MoniesduefromHusband   p   $17,500     ` Realestateequity(netofdebt)  124,000     ` Retirement h      p   11,976  \    ` Automobiles h      p   9,896 !0    ` Bankaccounts h      p   1,387 T"    ` 1994TaxRefund     p   򀀀2,434 (#    `     h      p   $167,193  $  Thus,itcanbeseenthatthetrialcourtsdivisionofthemaritalestate,asmodifiedbyitonremand,providesHusbandwith54.68%ofthenetmaritalestatewhileawardingWife45.32%ofthatestate.Whilethisunequaldivisionmay,atfirstblush,appeartobeinequitabletoWife,whodevoted19yearsofherlifetothismarriage,wehaveconcludedthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdivision.   ` Thetrialcourtfoundthatduringthelatterpartofthepartiesmarriage,Wifefailedtoprovideanysupport,emotionalorotherwise,toHusbandortothepartieschildren,andfailedtootherwisecontributetothemarriageinanyway. X:0: Duringthisperiod,thepartiesseparatedinSeptember,1994.Shortlythereafter,anduntiltheendofJanuary,1996,bothofthepartieschildrenresidedexclusivelywithHusband,whileWifetookupanewresidencefundedbyhim.Allofthiscausedasignificantfinancialdrainonthepartiesresources.   ` ItwasduringthisperiodofWifesnoncontributionthatHusbandsbusinessexperiencedasignificantincreaseinvalue.Underthecircumstances,thetrialcourtfoundthatitwouldnotbeequitabletoallowWifetoshareequallyinthisincrease.Ineffect,heawardedHusband75%ofthisincrease,whileawardingWife25%.   ` Dividinganetmaritalestateisnotanexactscience.ThefactorssetforthatT.C.A.364121(c)(1)(10)cannotbeappliedinamechanicalfashion. Batsonv.Batson ,769S.W.2d (# 849,859(Tenn.App.1988).Thetrialcourtinexercisingitsbroadbutsounddiscretionmustdecidehowmuchweightshouldbegiventoeachofthefactorsthatitfindstoberelevant. Id .Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtconcludedthatthe )& assetsotherthanBunchMarineshouldbedividedinapproximatelyequalportions;butitconcludedthatthefactoratT.C.A.364121(c)(5)  %  2      ׀uniquelyimpactedthedivisionoftheBunchMarine /$, assetsoastorequire,infairness,agreaterapportionmentofthatassettoHusband.Wecannotsaythattheevidence P2(0 preponderatesagainstthisfinding.Cf .Brockv.Brock ,941 P  S.W.2d896,90305(Tenn.App.1996).   ` RareisthedivorcecasethatpresentsonlyoneϜapportionmentoptionthatwouldsatisfythestatutorymandateofanequitabledivision.Inmostcases,thereisarangeofequitablealternatives,anyoneofwhichwouldsatisfytheprescriptionsofT.C.A.364121.Itisonlywhenthetrialcourtstraysfromthisrangeofpermissibleoptionsthatanappellatecourtisauthorizedtointerferewiththediscretionaryroleofthelowercourt.Intheinstantcase,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateinsuchawayastowarrantadecisionbyusthatthetrialcourthasgoneoutsidethepermissiblerangeofdecisions.   ` Wedonotfindthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdividedthenetmaritalestateofapproximately$368,904.@tt)B. )&    ` Inhersecondissue,Wifecontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoawardherinterestforaperiodoftimepriortotheentryofthemostrecentorderofthetrialcourt.Specifically,shearguesthatsheisentitledtointerestonthetrialcourtsadditionalcashawardof$12,500atarateof10%perannumfrom thedateofthefinaljudgmentofdivorceinthetrialcourtregardlessofwhetherthejudgmentwasoriginallyawardedinthetrialcourtorwhetherthejudgmentwasmodified 8.8 bytheappellatecourt.Inthisconnection,shereliesuponT.C.A.4714121,whichprovidesinpertinentpartasfollows:  8 ` Interestonjudgments,includingdecrees,shallbecomputedattheeffectiverateoftenpercent(10%)perannum,exceptasmaybeotherwiseprovidedorpermittedbystatute;.... ` `  WifealsoreliesuponthedecisionsofthisCourtinthecasesof Wadev.Wade ,897S.W.2d702(Tenn.App.1994), Inmanv. l  Alexander ,871S.W.2d153(Tenn.App.1993),and Inmanv.Inman , 4 840S.W.2d927(Tenn.App.1992),tosupporthercontentionthattheinteresttowhichsheisentitledshouldaccruefromthedateofthetrialcourtsoriginaldivorcejudgment.   ` ThecasescitedbyWife,however,aredistinguishablefromtheinstantcase.Ineachofthecitedcases,theappellatecourtmodifiedthelowercourtsjudgment,i.e.,changedspecific <$ monetaryawardstherein.See Wade ,897S.W.2dat71718; Inman %! v.Alexander ,871S.W.2dat15354;and Inmanv.Inman ,840 't# S.W.2dat93212303.Intheinstantcase,bycontrast,afterdeterminingthatthetrialcourthadundervaluedtheBunchMarineassetby$61,000,weremandedthecasetothetrialcourtforthepurposeof redeterminingtheapportionmentofmaritalassets.Thus,thetrialcourtwasrequiredtotakefurtheraction,andnotmerelytoenterjudgmentinaccordancewithspecificϜmodificationsbyus.Ourdecisionlefttheactualredistributionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyifanytothetrialcourt.Accordingly,afinaldeterminationregardingthedivisionofpropertyoccurredonlyuponremandofthecaseandthetrialcourtssubsequentjudgment. :/9 Ї   ` Inshort,webelievethataremandforapossiblereapportionmentofmaritalassets,absentanyactual,specificmodificationstothepreviousdistribution,presentsadifferentsituationfromoneinwhichthelowercourtsjudgmentismodifiedtoreflecttheappellatecourtsrevisedspecificmonetarydetermination.XXXXForthisreason,theabovecitedcases H  arenotapplicabletotheinstantcase.   ` Bythesametoken,theprovisionsofRule41,T.R.A.P.,donotapplyhere.ThatRuleprovidesasfollows:  8 ` Ifajudgmentformoneyinacivilcaseisaffirmedortheappealisdismissed,whateverinterestisallowedbylawshallbepayablecomputedfromthedateoftheverdictofthejuryortheequivalentdetermin4ation45ed5bythecourtinanonjurycase,whichdateshallbesetforthinthejudgmententeredinthetrialcourt.Ifajudgmentismodifiedorreversedwithadirectionthatajudgmentformoneybeenteredinthetrialcourt,themandateshallcontaininstructionswithrespecttoallowanceofinterest. ` `  #XXXX@G#Inourpreviousdecision,wedidnotaffirmordismissthe  ($ appeal;nordidwemodifyorreversethelowercourtsdecisionwiththedirectionthatajudgmentformoneybeentered.Thus,theprovisionsofRule41,T.R.A.P.,arenotapplicablehere.   ` ThegeneralruleregardingthecomputationofinterestonjudgmentsissetforthatT.C.A.4714122,whichprovidesasfollows:  8 ` Interestshallbecomputedoneveryjudgmentfromthedayonwhichthejuryorthecourt,sittingwithoutajury,returnedtheverdictwithoutregardtoamotionforanewtrial. ` `   X:0: Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thedateonwhichthetrialcourtenteredjudgmentafterreapportioningthepartiesmaritalassetsuponremandApril7,1998isthedateuponwhichit returnedtheverdictforpurposesofT.C.A.XXXX4714122#XXXXN#.We  thereforeholdthatWifeisentitledtointerestontheamountawardedtoherfromthatdate,andnotfromthedateofthetrialcourtsoriginaldivorcedecree.))̛*)[T)**O*@tt)C. d *P*   ` Finally,Wifecontendsthatsheisentitledtoanawardofattorneysfeesforservicesrenderedbyhercounselonremand+  %  3      כ+andonthisappeal. <    ` Atrialcourthastheauthoritytoawardapartyhisorherlegalexpensesasanawardinthenatureofalimony. Dover 4# v.Dover ,821S.W.2d593,595(Tenn.App.1991).Suchawardsare $  М/with/0//0inthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,andthatcourtsjudgmentonthesubjectwillnotbedisturbedonappealabsentanabuseofthatdiscretion. Lyonv.Lyon ,765S.W.2d759,76263 *& (Tenn.App.1988).Intheinstantcase,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingWifeherlegalexpensesinconnectionwiththehearingonremand.Therefore,wedeclinetoholdthatsuchfeesareappropriateinthiscase.   ` Wefurtherfindthatthisisnotanappropriatecaseforanawardoflegalexpensesonappeal. t7$-6 @#V.Conclusion P     ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,withcostsonappealtaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthejudgmentand1the1collectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.