ÿWPC  …#†VU:Ü % 0(4DX 0xg 0Dß 0J# 0Tm 0^Á 0h 0r‡ 0|ù 0†u 0û 1u‹ U, 0d, U, U*¼ B)æ DC AMRŸœ¦v~BvÓÀ B“ D3° 0@ã AO#Ær 0D8 0D| D/À Bï˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0úØP G?>çU’6¾î B,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡3x23|xØ(((2¬5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  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 ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecember€20,€1995ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ’Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€allÏjudges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandumÏopinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€byÏmemorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€be€published,€and€shallÏnot€be€cited€or€relied€upon€for€any€reason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.ÌÔ€XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌATHENA€CHEN€COPPERà àà àà à)à àó óFrom€the€Shelby€County€CircuitÏCourtò òÌ&€SUMIKO€YAMAOKA,à àà àà à)à àó óat€Memphis,€Tennesseeò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àó óThe€Hon.€James€M.€Tharpe,€Judgeò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Circuit€No.€139279€R.D.ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9302„CV„00039ò òÌJOHN€FRANKLIN€COPPER,à àà à)ÌENTERPRISE€NATIONAL€BANKà à)à àAFFIRMEDÌ&€FIRST€TENNESSEE€BANK,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óTed€I.€Jonesò òÌà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àà àò ò)à àó óMemphis,€Tennesseeò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAttorney€for€Appellant,€John€F.€CopperÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óMimi€PhillipsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|6Ý` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óAttorney€forÏAppellee,€Athena€CopperÌà@ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà@ àò òÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ$ ××  ×ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÏò òòòHIGHERS,€J.óóó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò òÌà@ àI.€€FACTSó óÌà àAthena€Chen€Copper€("Wife")€filed€suit€for€divorce€against€Dr.€John€FranklinÏCopper€("Husband")€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€theÏtrial€court€awarded€a€divorce€to€Wife€on€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,Ïdivided€the€marital€property,€and€awarded€$2,000€a€month€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€Wife.€ÏOn€appeal,€Husband€has€presented€four€issues€for€our€consideration:€€whether€theÏcourt€erred€in€(1)€awarding€excessive€alimony;€(2)€requiring€part€of€Husband's€estateÏbe€used€to€repay€Wife's€parents€for€alleged€loans;€(3)€awarding€attorney€fees€andÏexpenses€to€Wife;€and€(4)€dividing€the€marital€property.€€For€the€reasons€stated€herein,Íwe€affirm€the€trial€court's€decision€in€its€entirety.ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€married€in€1967.€€They€had€three€children,€all€of€whom€areÏnow€adults.€€Husband€has€been€a€professor€of€international€studies€at€Rhodes€CollegeÏin€Memphis€since€1976.€€€His€academic€accomplishments€include€serving€as€chairmanÏof€the€Rhodes€Department€of€International€Studies,€serving€as€director€of€the€AsianÏStudies€Center€of€the€Heritage€Foundation€in€Washington,€D.C.€and€publishing€manyÏbooks€on€Chinese€and€Taiwanese€politics.€€ÌÑ7€wÙXdæXXdæ7ÑÌà àWife,€who€was€born€in€Taiwan,€was€a€homemaker€for€nine€years€until€1976,Ïwhen€she€took€a€night€job€as€key„punch€operator.€€€Since€1978,€she€has€worked€as€aÏdata€entry€employee€and€as€a€computer€programmer€for€various€companies.€ThroughÏher€work€experience,€she€acquired€skills€on€mainframe€computers,€which€have€nowÏbeen€replaced€for€the€most€part€by€"P.C.'s,"€thereby€rendering€her€skills€virtuallyÏunmarketable.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€valued€the€known€marital€assets€at€$589,431.74€€€Each€party€wasÏawarded€a€residence.€€The€trial€court€awarded€to€Husband€certain€bank€accounts€andÏbonds€totalling€approximately€$54,749.00,€other€personal€property€valued€at€anÏestimated€$40,800.00,€the€full€value€of€one€of€his€retirement€plans,€and€half€of€anotherÏretirement€plan.€€€Wife€was€awarded€the€remainder€of€Husband's€retirement€funds,Ïbank€accounts€and€an€IRA€totalling€$13,950.00,€€and€$15,637.00€in€€personal€property.€€ÏBasically,€the€trial€court€awarded€45%€of€the€marital€estate€to€Husband€and€55%€toÏWife.€€ÌÌà à€The€trial€court€found€that€Wife€was€not€a€candidate€for€rehabilitation€andÍawarded€to€her€$2,000€a€month€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€The€court€stated€that€it€based€thisÏaward€on€several€factors,€including€that€the€marriage€was€of€long€duration,€that€Wife's€Ïcomputer€skills€were€outdated,€Wife's€age€(51€at€the€time€of€trial),€and€Wife'sÏunfamiliarity€with€the€English€language.€ÌÌà àThe€court€ordered€Husband€to€repay€from€his€separate€property€certain€fundsÏthat€he€had€improperly€taken€from€both€the€marital€estate€and€from€Wife's€family.€€ÌÌà àThe€marital€liabilities€were€divided€equally€and€each€party€was€ordered€to€payÏhalf€of€the€debts.€€Part€of€the€marital€liabilities€consisted€of€a€loan€taken€out€by€Wife€forÏher€attorney€fees.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€ALIMONYó óÌÓ  Óà àHusband€first€contends€that€the€trial€court's€award€of€alimony€to€Wife€wasÏexcessive.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€amount€of€alimony€awarded€in€a€divorce€case€lies€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€This€Court€will€not€interfere€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€€òòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.1993).€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court's€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€Wife€in€the€present€case€comportsÏwith€the€statutory€guidelines€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d).€€After€satisfying€theÏrequisite€threshold€determination€that€Wife€was€not€a€candidate€for€rehabilitativeÏalimony,€the€trial€court€specifically€considered€Wife's€lack€of€marketable€skills,€the€factÏthat€the€marriage€was€of€long€duration,€Wife's€age,€and€"other€facts€involved€in€theÏdissolution€of€this€marriage."€€Moreover,€the€record€clearly€shows€Wife's€need€for€theÍalimony.ÌÌà àFurther€support€for€our€determination€that€the€alimony€award€was€not€excessiveÏis€found€in€the€record,€which€contains€testimony€indicating€that€Husband€was€at€fault€inÏthe€marriage.€€Fault€is€an€appropriate€factor€to€consider€in€an€alimony€award.€T.C.A.€ððÏ36„5„101(d)(10).€€€Two€of€the€parties'€adult€children€and€the€Wife€testified€that€HusbandÏphysically€abused€them.€€Other€testimony€€revealed€that€Husband€consistently€treatedÏWife€in€a€demeaning€manner€and€committed€frequent€infidelities.€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€€the€trial€judge's€decision€onÏthe€issue€of€alimony.ÌÌò òà@ àIII.€€LOAN€FROM€WIFE'S€PARENTSÌó óà àWife's€parents€intervened€in€this€case€and€filed€a€claim€against€Husband,Ïseeking€money€for€repayment€of€a€loan€made€by€Wife's€parents€to€Husband.€€The€òòadÏdamnumóó€clause€requested€$40,000€and€interest€thereon,€plus€such€other€general€andÏspecific€relief€to€which€they€may€be€entitled.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€payÏWife's€parents€$70,657.60,€which€represented€interest€on€Wife's€parents€CD's€that€heÏappropriated,€the€$40,000€loan,€and€$12,000€for€three€years'€interest€on€the€$40,000Ïloan.€€ÌÌà àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court's€award€was€error€because€it€exceeded€theÏamount€contained€in€the€prayer€for€relief€and€because€the€loans€were€beyond€the€six„year€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àWe€find€the€fact€that€the€trial€court's€judgment€exceeded€the€prayer€for€relief€toÍbe€immaterial€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€A€trial€court€in€aÏdomestic€relations€case€has€discretion€to€order€the€repayment€of€a€party's€obligationsÏor€debts€in€such€a€manner€that€is€just€and€equitable.€€òòHanover€v.€Hanoveróó,€775€S.W.€2dÏ612,€614€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòStorey€v.€Storeyóó,€835€S.W.€2d€593,€599€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992).ÌÌà àThe€fact€and€the€amount€of€Husband's€€debts€to€Wife's€parents€was€proved€atÏtrial.€€Both€oral€testimony€and€documentary€evidence€revealed€that€HusbandÏwrongfully€appropriated€the€interest€that€accrued€upon€funds€that€Wife's€parents€hadÏentrusted€to€Husband€for€investment€purposes.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€theÏtrial€judge€in€ordering€Husband€to€repay€Wife's€parents.ÌÌà àHusband's€second€argument,€that€the€loans€were€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations,€is€without€merit€because€Husband€did€not€affirmatively€plead€this€defenseÏat€the€trial€court€level.€€Where€a€defendant€raises€this€issue€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,Ïthe€defense€is€raised€too€late.€€òòIngram€v.€Phillipsóó,€684€S.W.2d€954,€959€(Tenn.€App.Ï1984).€€If€a€defendant€fails€to€plead€the€statute€of€limitations€within€the€proper€time€andÏin€the€proper€manner,€it€is€deemed€waived.€€òòSteed€Realty€v.€Oveisióó,€823€S.W.2d€195,Ï197€(Tenn.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àFinally,€Husband€argues€that€the€existence€of€loans€was€not€supported€by€theÏevidence.€€This€contention€is€without€merit.€€There€is€ample€evidence€from€the€record€inÏthe€form€of€testimony€and€documents€supporting€the€existence€of€the€loans.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€DIVISION€OF€MARITAL€PROPERTYÌÓ  Óó óà àHusband's€issue€contesting€the€trial€court's€division€of€marital€property€comes€toÍus€accompanied€by€several€guiding€principles€of€law.€€€Trial€courts€have€broadÏdiscretion€in€dividing€martial€estates,€and€their€decisions€are€afforded€great€weight€onÏappeal.€€òòHarrington€v.€Harringtonóó,€798€S.W.2d€244€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€A€trial€court'sÏfindings€are€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€459€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991),€and€the€division€of€property€need€not€be€equal€to€be€equitable.€€òòBatson€v.ÏBatsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€factors€set€forth€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€€36„4„121(c)€in€distributing€the€marital€estate.€€We€perceive€the€final€result€ofÏsuch€division,€which€was€virtually€equal,€to€be€equitable€to€both€parties.€€Accordingly,ÏHusband's€third€contention€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€awarding€to€Wife€part€ofÏher€attorney€fees.€€She€did€not€receive€a€substantial€amount€of€liquid€assets€throughÏthe€property€distribution.€€In€addition,€an€award€of€attorney€fees€is€to€be€evaluatedÏunder€the€same€analysis€as€is€an€alimony€award.€€In€light€of€the€factors€delineated€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d),€we€hold€that€the€award€of€attorney€fees€to€Wife€was€proper.ÌÌÓ ` p„X”À–X Óà àWife€requests€that€she€be€awarded€her€attorney€fees€on€appeal.€€Upon€the€factsÏbefore€us,€we€do€not€find€that€any€further€award€is€justified.€€We€therefore€respectfullyÏdecline€her€request.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessedÏagainst€appellant.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà à€ÌÌÌòòÌóó