ÿWPCÄ1 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ 0 lÝ 0EI w@Ž 4Î â U:ñ UP+ 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ w  D3‡ Bº Æ× 0@ ÆÝ Æ£ Æi 0h/ 0r— 0|  0†… 0  1u›U, 0d<U, U>ÌU6 B)@DCi AM¬U*ù##`F]¦«Ð®„~ÕÇ× ž"Ú´#Ž%œ&#«'v~Î(vÓL* AO0Æn0 0D41 D/x1 B§1˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(7ˆ$òòÚ  Ú11Ú  Úóó ÖD×UØÙÓ€åæUçUè#îéÓ€õ©U!(ÔôB3|xõ,ô0 Y  ‹"CG Omega Bold&yL–Z ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô++++'ÿÿdxd dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 526 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#12345 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dBBBB7Border 1dd€-CCþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÔ€EÔÔ€EÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€EXÔÌÌò òAugust€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€EôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€@ôÔÔ€AÔT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„112€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àIf€the€cause€assigned€for€the€divorce€is€adultery,€itÏis€a€good€defense€and€perpetual€bar€to€the€same€if€theÏdefendant€alleges€and€proves€that:ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 à(2)€The€complainant€has€admitted€the€defendant€intoÏconjugal€society€and€embraces€after€knowledge€of€theÏcriminal€act;Ì SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔWife€argues€that€we€should€not€consider€some€of€these€debts€becauseÏthey€were€incurred€after€the€partiesðð€separation.€€We€disagree.€€They€wereÏincurred€òòduringóó€the€marriage.€€We€cannot€say€in€this€case€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€in€treating€these€post„separation€debts€as€maritalÏdebts.€€òòSee€ò òMondelli€v.€Howardó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€769,€773€(Tenn.€App.€1989).Ì ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔWhile€the€court€did€not€specifically€address€the€Silverline›€boat€andÏ1980€Jeep,€both€are€apparently€in€Husbandððs€possession.€€We€have€treated€themÏas€a€part€of€his€division€of€the€net€assets€in€this€case.Ì ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔThe€record€is€not€clear€as€to€whether€Husbandððs€first€retirementÏeligibility€date€is€at€age€59,€59€ðð€or€65.€€What€is€clear€is€that€when€heÏreaches€the€appropriate€age,€he€is€eligible€to€receive€$649.83€per€month,Ïcomputed€as€of€July,€1994.Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔThis€figure€is€the€life€expectancy€of€a€white€male,€age€59,€as€setÏforth€in€the€United€States€Life€Table€found€at€page€1029€of€Volume€13€of€theÏTennessee€Code€Annotated.Ì ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔHusband€is€now€39€years€old.€€If€he€cannot€retire€until€age€65,€theÏmoney€to€fund€his€retirement€benefits€will€draw€interest€for€a€longer€periodÏof€time€and€his€life€expectancy€will€be€less.€€All€of€this€would€have€aÏdownward€effect€on€present€value.Ì ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔOnce€Husband€starts€receiving€his€pension,€the€money€to€fund€it€will€beÏincreased€each€month€by€interest€and€decreased€monthly€by€HusbandððsÏwithdrawal.€Obviously€the€formula€to€compute€all€of€this€is€beyond€theÏknowledge€of€a€layman.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔThe€total€mortgage€payment€is€approximately€$433€per€month.Ì ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔHusband€testified€to€average€monthly€expenses€of€$2,132.08.€€While€hisÏnet€take€home€pay€on€a€$4,000€monthly€gross€is€not€reflected€in€the€record,€weÏdo€note€that€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€assume€a€net€pay€of€$2,924.46€on€aÏmonthly€gross€at€that€level.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔ$125€per€week€times€52€weeks,€divided€by€12€months.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AôÔ$936€per€month€times€12€months,€divided€by€52€weeks.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÔ€EÔÔ€EÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€EXÔÌÌò òAugust€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€EôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€7ÔÓ&€??X„d&ÓÑ#€??Xd#ÑÔ€@ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€AÔÑ7€¥(XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€DFC;+'h|4œ` ¤ `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌGORDON€D.€CORBETT,€JR.,à àà àœ)€BRADLEY€COUNTYÏCHANCERY€COURT›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee.à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€EARL€H.€HENLEY,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCARLA€SUE€GODFREY€CORBETT,à àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àœDefendant„Appellant.)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9601„CH„00008›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌGRACE€E.€DANIELLà àà àà àà àà àROGER€E.€JENNEÌStarr€&€Daniellà àà àà àà àà àJenne,€Scott€&€BryantÌChattanooga,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àCleveland,€Tennessee›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœà@ àò òÔ€A„ÔÔ€ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€Ô›ÌÔ€¼ÔÔ€Ôó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ̜ԀAÔÔ€AXÔVACATED€IN€PARTÌAFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌREMANDED€WITH€INSTRUCTIONSà àà àà àà à›à àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓœ›à àà àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€theÏparties€had€been€married€œ20›€years.€€Their€union€œproduced›€twoÏchildren,€Heath€Corbett€(DOB:€April€24,€1980)€and€Crystal€CorbettÏ(DOB:€May€11,€1984).€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€GordonÏD.€Corbett,€Jr.€(Husband)€a€divorce;€granted€custody€of€theÏœpartiesðð€children›€to€the€defendant€Carla€Sue€Godfrey€CorbettÏ(Wife);€divided€the€partiesðð€assets€and€liabilities;€œset›€childÏsupport€at€$125€per€week;€œand€denied›€Wifeððs€request€for€œalimony.€ÏWife›€appeals,€raising€œissues›€œthat€present€the€following€questions:›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€œIs€the€defense€of€condonation€a€bar€toÏHusbandððs€complaint€for€divorce€on€the€groundÏof€inappropriate€marital€conduct?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Does›€the€evidence€preponderate€against€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€Husband€aÏdivorce?ÌÌà àà8 àœ3.›€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdividing€the€partiesðð€property?ÌÌà àà8 àœ4.›€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏwhen€it€denied€Wifeððs€request€for€alimony?ÌÌà àà8 àœ5.›€€Was€$125€per€week€the€appropriate€amountÏof€child€support€under€the€Child€SupportÏGuidelines?ÌÌà àà8 àœ6.›€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€failing€to€grant€Wife€a€new€trial€œbecauseÏof›€newly€discovered€evidence?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àI.€€òòApplicable€œGeneral€Principlesóó›ÌÌà àà àSince€this€is€a€non„jury€œcase,›€our€review€is€ð ðòòde€novoóóÏupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumptionÏof€the€correctness€of€the€[trial€courtððs]€œfinding[s›],€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€œotherwise.ð𛀀Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.€ÏNo€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððsÏconclusions€of€law.€€òòò òAdams€v.€Dean€Roofing€Co.,€Inc.ó óóó,€715€S.W.2dÏ341,€343€(Tenn.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àà àOn€a€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€are€ð ðcalled€œ.€.€.›€to€pass€uponÏthe€correctness€of€the€result€reached€in€the€Trial€Court,€notÏnecessarily€the€reasoning€employed€to€reach€the€œresult.ð𛀀òòò òShelterÏœIns›.€Companies€v.€œHann›ó óóó,€921€S.W.2d€194,€202€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€ÏòòSee€alsoò ò€Kelly€v.€Kellyó óóó,€679€S.W.2d€458,€460€(Tenn.€App.€1984).ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€judgment€in€this€case,€we€are€mindfulÏof€the€fact€that€a€trial€court€is€vested€with€ð ðwide€discretionðð€inÏmatters€pertaining€to€divorce,€alimony,€and€division€of€property,Ïthree€of€the€œconcepts€addressed€by€the€issues›€on€this€appeal.€Ïòòò òœMarmino›€v.€œMarmino›ó óóó,€238€S.W.2d€105,€107€(Tenn.€App.€1950);€òòò òœBatson›Ïv.€œBatson›ó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€œOn€theseÏsubjects,€an›€appellate€court€ð ðwill€not€interfere€except€upon€aÏclear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.ðð€€òòò òœMarmino›óóó ó,€238ÏS.W.2d€at€107.ÌÌà@ àII.€€òòDivorceóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Husband€a€divorce€on€the€groundÏof€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€the€only€fault€ground€alleged€inÏthe€original€œcomplaint.›€€At€the€same€time,€it€dismissed€WifeððsÏcounterclaim€for€œdivorce€which€also€sought€a€divorce€on€the€groundÏof€inappropriate›€marital€conduct.ÌÌà àà àWife€argues€that€Husband€condoned€the€adulterousÏrelationship€acknowledged€by€œher›€and€œthat,€in€any€event,›€theÍevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grantÏHusband,€œand€not›€Wife,€the€divorce.€€We€disagree€on€both€points.ÌÌà àà àCondonation€is€an€absolute€defense€to€a€complaint€forÏdivorce€based€on€the€ground€of€œadultery,›€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„112× ƒG ××  ×;€butÏthe€divorce€here€was€not€œgranted,›€nor€was€it€œsought,›€on€the€groundÏof€adultery.€€Husband€contended€that€Wife€was€guilty€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct€and€that€is€what€the€trial€courtÏfound.€€It€is€clear€that€proof€of€an€adulterous€relationship€willÏsupport€a€divorce€on€the€ground€of€inappropriate€marital€œconduct,›Ïœalso€referred€to€in€the€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„102(a)(1),€as€cruel›Ïand€inhuman€treatment:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àCruel€and€inhuman€treatment€has€been€definedÏin€various€ways€and€in€numerous€cases.€ÏFurther€definition€is€unnecessary.€€Suffice€itÍto€say€we€cannot€conceive€of€any€stronger€caseÏof€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment€than€aÏpersistent€pattern€of€adulterous€conduct.€€NorÏmay€it€be€excused€on€the€basis€of€a€spouse€notÏhaving€contemporaneous€knowledge€of€itsÏoccurrence.€€The€hurt,€the€humiliation,€theÏshame,€the€wounded€pride,€the€rejection€areÏthe€same€whether€the€knowledge€comes€before,Ïduring€or€after€the€fact.€€Adultery€is€rarelyÏperpetrated€openly€and€in€the€daylight.€€By€œÌà àà8 àits›€very€nature€its€commission€is€normally€notÏdiscovered€until€the€act€has€been€consummated.€ÏNo€man,€set€upon€a€pattern€of€adulterousÏconduct,€willingly€furnishes€proof€of€his€ownÏturpitude.ÌÌà àà8 àWe€hold€that€there€was€ample€evidence€of€cruelÏand€inhuman€treatment€in€this€case.€€WeÏfurther€hold€that€proof€of€adultery€isÏadmissible€in€a€divorce€action€charging€cruelÏand€inhuman€treatment€and€may€form€the€basisÏfor€a€decree€resting€upon€cruel€and€inhumanÏtreatment.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 àWe€find€nothing€in€reason,€logic€or€precedentÏwhich€would,€or€should,€preclude€a€trial€judgeÏfrom€granting€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€ofÏcruel€and€inhuman€treatment€when€the€evidenceÏestablishes€adultery,€so€long€as€the€partiesÏare€fully€apprised€in€advance€of€the€nature€ofÏthe€proof.€€Indeed,€a€decent€regard€forÏposterity€suggests€that€divorces,€except€as€aÏlast€resort,€should€not€be€bottomed€onÏadultery.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòœFarrar›€v.€œFarrar›óóó ó,€553€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1977)€(Henry,€œJ.).€ÏIn›€the€instant€case,€Wife€admitted€an€adulterous€œrelationship€thatÏlasted›€from€June,€1992,€to€October,€œ1993.›ÌÌà àà àWife€cannot€rely€on€the€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„112€defense€ofÏcondonation.€€Assuming,€without€deciding,€that€Husbandððs€conductÏœmakes€out›€the€defense€of€condonation,€that€defense€is€notÏavailable€where€the€œground€charged›€is€inappropriate€maritalÏconduct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„112€does€not€extend€œthe€condonation›Ïdefense€to€the€ground€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€and€it€isÏclear€œthat€ð ðgrounds›€for€divorce€and€defenses€against€divorceÏactions€are€statutory.ðð€€ò òòòœChastain›€v.€œChastain›ó óóó,€559€S.W.2d€933,€934Ï(Tenn.€1977),€ð ð[œT]here›€is€no€common€law€of€divorce.ðð€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àIt€has€been€expressly€held€in€this€state€thatÏð ðcondonation€is€not€a€defense€to€the€ground€of€cruel€and€inhumanÏtreatment.ðð€€ò òòòœHowell›€v.€œHowell›ó óóó,€No.€80„250„II,€6€TAM€18„9€(Tenn.ÏApp.€at€Nashville,€March€13,€1981),€citing€the€earlier€TennesseeÏcases€of€ò òòòœMcLanahan›€v.€œMcLanahan›ó óóó,€104€Tenn.€217,€56€œS.W.›€858Ï(1900);€ò òòòœMurrell›€v.€œMurrell›ó óóó,€45€Tenn.€App.€309,€323€S.W.2d€15Í(1958).€€Wifeððs€argument€as€to€condonation€is€found€œto€be€withoutÏmerit.›ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€in€favor€of€an€award€of€divorce€to€her.€€WeÏœdisagree.€€The›€parties€œeach€had›€œa›€œtheory›€as€to€what€caused€theÏbreakup€of€this€marriage.€€œEach€presented€evidence€to€supportÏhis/her€theory.€€As›€in€most€divorce€cases,€the€credibility€of€theÏparties€and€their€witnesses€was€œthe€critical€determination€facingÏthe€trial€court€on€the€issue€of€divorce.€€It€found›€the€proofÏð ðœoverwhelming[ly›]ðð€in€favor€of€Husband€on€œthe€issue€of€divorce.›€ÏIn€one€of€his€two€memorandum€opinions,€œthe€trial€judge€said›€thatÏthe€ð ðfacts€preponderate€òòheavilyóó€in€favor€of€Mr.€Corbettðð€on€theÏissue€of€divorce.€€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àð ðA€Chancellor,€on€an€issue€which€hinges€on€witnessÏcredibility,€will€not€be€reversed€unless,€other€than€the€oralÏœtestimony›€of€the€witnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,Ïconcrete€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòò òTennesseeÏValley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryó óóó,€526€S.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€App.Í1974).€€The€Chancellor€chose€to€believe€Husband€and€thoseÏwitnesses€who€supported€his€theory€that€Wifeððs€adulterousÏrelationship€was€the€ð ðprecipitating€factor€to€the€breakup€of€thisÏmarriage.ðð€€òòSee€ò òWilder€v.€Wilderó óóó,€863€S.W.2d€707,€713€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992).€€In€this€case,€we€are€not€in€a€position€to€second„guess€theÏChancellorððs€ð ðcallðð€as€to€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€HeÏsaw€the€witnesses;€we€did€not.ÌÌÑ À Ñà àà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€judgment€awarding€Husband€a€divorce€on€theÏground€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€òòDivision€of€PropertyóóÌÌà àà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€parties€œhave€the›€followingÏmarital€assets€and€debts,€excluding€Husbandððs€vested€retirementÏbenefits€with€his€employer,€œBowater,€Incorporated›:ÌÌÓÓà àà àMarital€residence„„equityà àà à$15,078Ìà àà à1978€Chevrolet€Suburbanà àà àà à€€1,700Ìà àà à1989€Ford€Broncoà àà àà àà à€€7,500Ìà àà àHousehold€goods€and€furnishingsà à€œ19,761Ìà àà à(Continued€on€next€page)ÇÑ ° Ñ›Ñ Ð Ñà àà àœSilverline›€boatà àà àà àà à€€2,000Ìà àà àœBowater›€profit€sharingà àà àà à€€€€660Ìà àà à1980€Jeepà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€600óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$47,299Ìœà à›à àLess:€Debtsœ× ƒH ××  ×›à àà àà àà àà àòò€€8,718óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$38,581Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à=======ÌÌÌThese€assets€œand€debts€were›€œdivided× ƒI ××  ×›€œby€the€trial€court€as›€follows:ÌÌÌÌà@ àTo€WifeÌÌà àà àMarital€Residence„„half€of€equityà à$€7,539Ìà àà à1989€Ford€Broncoà àà àà àà à€€7,500Ìà àà àHousehold€goods€and€furnishingsà àòò€13,266óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$28,305Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à=======ÌÌÌà@ àTo€HusbandÌÌà àà àMarital€residence„„half€of€equityà à$€7,539Ìà àà à1978€Chevrolet€Suburbanà àà àà à€€1,700Ìà àà àHousehold€goods€and€furnishingsà à€€6,495Ìà àà àœSilverline›€boatà àà àà àà à€€2,000Ìà àà àœBowater›€profit€sharingà àà àà à€€€€660Ìà àà à1980€Jeepà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€600óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$18,994Ìà àà àLess:€Debtsà àà àà àà àà àòò€€8,718óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$10,276Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à=======ÌÌÌà@ àRecapitulationÌÌà àà àTo€Wifeà àà àà àà àà àà à$28,305Ìà àà àTo€Husbandà àà àà àà àà àòò€10,276óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$38,581Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à=======ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ „ ÒÌÒ ° ÒÒ 8 ÒÓÓAs€previously€œnoted,›€the€above€analysis€does€not€take€œintoÌaccount›€Husbandððs€vested€retirement€with€his€employer,€all€œofÑ ° ÑÒ ° ÒÒ „ Òwhich›Ïwas€earned€during€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€That€œasset€is,›€withoutÏquestion,€a€marital€œasset.òò€€Seeóó›€T.C.A.€œÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B).›€€òòSeeÏalso€ò òœKendrick›€v.€œKendrick›ó óóó,€902€S.W.2d€918,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€ÏThere€is€credible,€undisputed€evidence€in€the€record€that€as€ofÏJuly,€1994,€Husband€was€entitled€to€receive€a€monthly€pension€ofÏ$649.83€when€he€retires.œ× ƒJ ××  ×›€€The€trial€court€awarded€all€of€HusbandððsÏvested€pension€to€œhim.€€What€we€must€decide€is€whether€thatÏallocation€causes€the€overall€division€to€be€inequitable.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€outset,€we€would€observe€that€our€inquiry€isÏhampered€by€the€failure€of€the€parties€to€offer€any€proof€of€theÏpresent€cash€value€of€Husbandððs€pension.€€Wife€assumes€that€it€hasÏsubstantial€value.€€She€points€out€that€if€he€receives€his€pensionÏfor€16.72× ƒK ××  ×€years€he€will€receive€over€$132,000€in€benefits€as€aÏresult€of€his€vested€entitlement€as€of€July,€1994.€€She€thenÏattempts€to€reduce€this€amount€to€its€present€value.€€While€theÏrecord€does€not€reflect€the€appropriate€mathematical€formula€thatÏshould€be€used€in€this€case,€we€seriously€doubt€that€the€formulaÏsuggested€by€Wife€is€the€correct€one.€€It€seems€to€ignore€theÏeffect€that€compound€interest€will€have€on€the€money€set€asideÏnow„„the€present€cash€value„„to€fund€Husbandððs€retirement.€€ItÏalso€ignores€that€the€fund€of€money€available€when€Husband€retiresÏwill€continue€to€earn€interest€over€the€life€of€the€retirementÏbenefits.€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€do€not€know€the€precise€mathematical€formulaÏthat€should€be€utilized€in€this€case,€we€do€know,€in€generalÍterms,€that€the€present€cash€value€of€Husbandððs€pension€is€theÏfixed€dollar€amount€that€would€have€to€be€invested€now€at€anÏassumed€interest€rate€so€as€to€permit€equal€payments€of€$649.83Ïper€month€starting€when€Husband€can€retire€and€continuing€over€hisÏlife€expectancy,€with€the€amount€invested€and€all€interest€earnedÏbeing€exhausted€at€the€end€of€Husbandððs€life€expectancy.ÌÌà àà àAs€previously€indicated,€there€is€no€expert€testimony€inÏthe€record€regarding€the€present€cash€value€of€Husbandððs€BowaterÏretirement€benefits.€€Such€testimony€was€necessary€in€this€case.€ÏWhile€a€court€can€take€judicial€notice€of€a€mathematicalÏcomputation€that€is€understandable€to€a€layman,€Rule€201(b),€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.,€it€cannot€judicially€notice€a€complex€mathematicalÏformula€such€as€the€present€cash€value€in€this€particular€case,€atÏleast€in€the€absence€of€ð ðsources€whose€accuracy€cannot€reasonablyÏbe€questioned.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€It€also€cannot€judicially€notice€a€conceptÏsuch€as€the€appropriate€interest€rate€to€ð ðplug€intoðð€the€presentÏcash€value€formula.€€These€are€matters€that€must€be€addressed€byÏindividuals€from€the€appropriate€disciplines.ÌÌà àà àSince€we€do€not€know€the€present€cash€value€of€HusbandððsÏretirement€benefits,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€ofÏthose€benefits€to€Husband€renders€the€overall€division€of€propertyÏinequitable.€€We€would€note,€however,€that€regardless€of€theÏinterest€rate€that€should€be€assumed,€there€are€at€least€20€years× ƒL ××  ×Ïto€ð ðgrowðð€Husbandððs€retirement„„by€compound€interest„„before€it€isÏdisturbed€by€his€monthly€withdrawals.× ƒM ××  ×€€Therefore,€we€doubt€thatÏits€present€value€is€large€enough€to€justify€interference€by€us€inÏthe€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property.€€WeÏhasten€to€add€that€had€Husband€been€on€the€brink€of€retirement€andÏthe€facts€had€otherwise€suggested€an€inequitable€division,€weÏwould€not€have€hesitated€to€remand€this€case€so€the€trial€courtÏcould€hold€a€hearing€to€determine€the€present€value€of€hisÏpension.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€27„3„128.€€This€may€well€be€appropriate€inÏa€future€case.€€It€is€not€necessary€here.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property.›ÌÌà@ àIV.€€òòAlimonyóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€denied€Wifeððs€request€for€alimony.€€WeÏfind€no€error€in€this€aspect€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d),€a€court,Ïð ð[i]n€determining€whether€the€granting€of€an€order€for€payment€ofÏsupport€and€maintenance€to€a€party€is€appropriate,ðð€can€considerÏð ð[œt]he›€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€inÏits€discretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so.ðð€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(10).€€It€has€been€said€that€need,€ability€to€pay,€andÏrelative€fault€are€the€most€important€factors€in€the€alimonyÏdetermination.€€ò òòòBull€v.€Bulló óóó,€729€S.W.2d€673,€675€(Tenn.€App.Ï1987).€€Our€courts€have€specifically€approved€the€reduction€ofÏalimony€because€of€misconduct.€€ò òòòDuncan€v.€Duncanóóó ó,€686€S.W.2d€568,Ï571€(Tenn.€App.€1984).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€it€is€clear,€as€previously€indicated,€thatÏthe€trial€court€found€that€Wifeððs€œlong„standing›€adulterousÏrelationship€was€the€cause€of€the€breakup€of€this€marriage.€€TheÏcourt€was€certainly€within€its€discretion€to€consider€thisÏœconduct,€along€with€any€other€fault€shown€to€the€trial€courtððsÏsatisfaction,›€in€determining€whether€the€wronged€spouse€should€beÏrequired€to€œcontribute,€post„divorce,›€to€the€support€of€the€partyÏwho€caused€the€breakup€of€the€marriage.€€While€there€are€noÏspecific€findings€as€to€why€the€trial€œjudge›€did€not€award€anyÏalimony,€his€decree€œrefusing€such€an€award€is›€œsupported,€in€law,›Ïby€œevidence›€œfound€by€him€to€be€credible.€€Further€justificationÏfor€his€ð ðno€alimonyðð€decree€is€found€in€our€decision€to€increaseÏHusbandððs€child€support€obligation€as€set€forth€in€the€nextÏsection€of€this€opinion.€€When€this€increased€obligation€isÏcoupled€with€his€obligation€to€pay€half€of€the€mortgage€payment× ƒN ××  ×,Ïhis€ability€to€pay€alimony,€and€still€pay€his€own€personalÍexpenses€and€the€debts€allocated€to€him€by€the€trial€court,€isÏsubject€to€serious€doubt.× ƒO ××  ×ÌÌà àà àWe›€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€refusing€to€award€Wife€œalimony.ÌÌ›à@ àV.€€òòChild€SupportóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Wife€$125€per€week€as€childÏsupport.€€This€extrapolates€œto›€$541.66€per€month.œ× ƒP ××  ×›€€We€find€thatÏthis€is€not€in€compliance€with€the€Child€Support€GuidelinesÏ(Guidelines)€promulgated€by€the€Department€of€Human€ServicesÏpursuant€to€the€authority€of€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(2).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€establishes€that€Husband€earns,€on€theÏaverage,€œgross€wages›€of€œat€least€$4,000›€per€month.€€The€GuidelinesÍprovide€that€one€earning€at€this€rate€should€pay€$936€per€monthÏfor€two€children.€€This€figures€out€to€$216€per€week.œ× ƒQ ××  ×›€€Since€theÏtrial€court€gave€no€reason€for€deviating€from€the€Guidelines,€itÏerred€in€failing€to€award€the€support€dictated€by€them.€€T.C.A.€ððÏœ36„5„101(e)(1)›€clearly€requires€a€specific€finding€that€it€wouldÏbe€ð ðunjust€or€appropriateðð€to€apply€the€Guidelines€before€a€courtÏis€authorized€to€deviate€from€them.€€In€the€absence€of€such€aÏfinding,€the€Guidelines€are€mandatory.€€ò òòòœNash›€v.€œMulle›ó óóó,€846€S.W.2dÏ803,€804€(Tenn.€1993).€€(ð ðHence,€the€purposes,€premises,Ïguidelines€for€compliance,€and€criteria€for€deviation€from€theÏguidelines€carry€what€amounts€to€a€legislative€mandate.ðð)ÌÌà àà àThe€appellee€œwould€argue›€that€we€should€consider€theÏfact€that€œhe›€is€making€half€of€the€mortgage€payment€and€treat€thatÏas€a€part€of€his€child€support.€€This€we€cannot€do.€€TheÏGuidelines€clearly€provide€that€all€support€based€on€net€income€upÏto€$6,250€ð ðòòmustóó€be€paid€to€the€custodial€parent.ðð€€œTenn.Comp.R.›€&ÏœRegs›.,€ch.€œ1240„2„4„.04(3).€€(Emphasis€added).›€€Therefore,€weÍcannot€consider€a€payment€made€by€Husband€directly€to€the€mortgageÏholder.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€another€reason€why€we€should€not€considerÏHusbandððs€payment€of€half€of€the€mortgage€as€a€part€of€his€childÏsupport€obligation.€€When€the€house€is€sold,€he€will€receive€halfÏof€the€net€proceeds.€€Since€the€mortgage€payment€reduces€the€debt,Ïit€correspondingly€increases€the€partiesðð€equity.€€Therefore,€heÏcan€œexpect›€to€recoup€œsome›€of€his€outlay€on€the€mortgage€when€theÏproperty€is€sold.€€He€œwill›€also€œbenefit„„again€to€the›€œextent›€ofÏœfifty€percent„„in›€any€increase€in€the€equity€occasioned€byÏœinflation.ÌÌà àà àHaving€determined€that€the€trial€courtððs€decree€does€notÏcomply€with€Guidelines,€we€are€faced€with€two€possible€remedies.€ÏOn€the€one€hand,€we€could€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€toÏgive€that€court€an€opportunity€to€state€its€reasons€for€deviatingÏfrom€the€Guidelines;€or€we€could€remand€this€case€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€enter€an€order€setting€child€support€at€the€Guidelines„mandated€amount€of€$216.€€We€elect€to€do€the€latter€because€we€doÍnot€believe€there€is€any€testimony€or€other€evidence€in€theÏrecord,€which,€if€believed,€would€legally€support€a€deviation.›Ì̜Ǜà@ àVI.€€òòNewly€Discovered€EvidenceóóÌÌà àà àWife€argues€that€she€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€basedÏupon€her€affidavit€regarding€Husbandððs€relationship€with€LindaÏFord,€one€of€the€witnesses€called€by€Husband€at€the€trial.€€SheÏcontends€that€after€the€trial€she€discovered€that€Husband€wasÏromantically€involved€with€Ms.€Ford€before€the€hearing.€€SheÏcorrectly€points€out€that€Ms.€Ford€gave€damaging€evidenceÏregarding€Wifeððs€allegedly€inappropriate€conduct€while€œat›€aÏrestaurant/bar€with€friends.ÌÌà àà àWifeððs€motion€addressed€itself€to€the€œsound€discretion›Ïof€the€trial€court.€€òòò òœLeeper›€v.€Cookó óóó,€688€S.W.2d€94,€96€(Tenn.€App.Ï1985).€€ð ðThe€motion€should€only€be€granted€when€it€is€œevident›€anÏinjustice€has€been€done€and€a€new€trial€will€change€the€result.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àWe€find€no€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€EvenÏbefore€Wife€filed€her€affidavit,€the€trial€court€had€indicatedÏthat€it€did€not€put€a€lot€of€stock€in€Ms.€Fordððs€testimony.€ÍFurthermore,€the€affidavit€does€not€œclearly€establish›€that€thereÏwas€a€romantic€relationshipòò€beforeóó€trial€œor,€if€it€did€exist,›€œwhyÏit›€could€not€have€been€discovered€by€diligent€efforts€beforeÏtrial.ÌÌà àà àWifeððs€final€issue€is€found€adverse€to€her.ÌÌà@ àVII.€€òòConclusionóóÌÌà àà àSo€much€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€as€œsets›€childÏsupport€at€$125€œper€week€is›€hereby€vacated.€€This€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€order€setting€HusbandððsÏchild€support€at€$216€per€week€effective€August€24,€1994.€€œExcept›Ïas€vacated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€half€to€each€party.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€œJ.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌHouston€M.€œGoddard›,€œP.J.›ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDon€T.€œMcMurray›,€œJ.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ ä ÑÑ Ü Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌœßJ€DR;+'b|›°` ¤ `€@ÿJß›ÌÌÌÌGORDON€D.€CORBETT,€JR.,à àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9601„CH„00008Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€BRADLEY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee.à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€EARL€H.€HENLEY,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCARLA€SUE€GODFREY€CORBETT,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellant.)ÌÌÌÌà@ àœòòPARTIAL€DISSENT›ÌÓÓÌóóà€ àMcMurray€J.ÌÌà àI€œfully›€œconcur›€with€all€of€the€majority€opinion€except€as€toÏthat€part€directing€the€trial€court,€on€remand,€to€enter€an€orderÏsetting€child€support€at€$216.00€per€week,€effective€August€24,Í1994.€€While€without€question,€the€trial€court€did€deviate€fromÏthe€guidelines,€he€failed€to€give€written€reasons€therefor€asÏrequired€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).ÌÌà àI€would€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€with€instructionsÏto€enter€œan›€order€establishing€child€support€at€$216.00€per€weekÏor€œalternatively,€to€enter€an€order€stating›€his€reasons€forÏdeviation€in€writing€as€œrequired€ð"ð€the€procedure€employed€by€theÏSupreme€Court€in€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€870€S.W.2d€281€(Tenn.€1994).›ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€establishes€only€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€and€the€child€support€guidelines€do€not€conclusivelyÏÔ&  Ôestablish€the€amount€of€child€support.€€The€presumption€may€beÏovercome€by€evidence€that€is€sufficient€to€rebut€this€presumption.€Ô'  Ô€Ìà àI€am€cognizant€of€Rule€36,€T.R.A.P.€whereby€we€are€authorizedÏto€enter€a€judgment€"on€the€law€and€facts€to€which€the€party€isÏentitled...;€provided,€however,€relief€may€not€be€granted€inÏœcontravention›€of€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact."€€I€believeÍthat€the€majority€œopinion›€infringes€upon€the€œprovince€of€the€trier›Ïof€fact.ÌÌà àWhether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumptionÏis€a€matter€that€must€address€itself€to€the€trial€court€since€weÏcannot€second„guess€the€trial€court's€assessment€of€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses.€œ€Credibility›€of€the€witnesses€is€ofÏparticularly€importance€in€weighing€the€œevidence€to€determineÏwhether€the€presumption€of€the€guidelines€has€been€overcome.ÌÌà à›In€all€other€respects,€I€concur€with€the€majority€opinion.Ìà àœÌÓÓà€ à___________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.›Ì