ÿWPCy …# VU:a %› 0(¡bÉw@×4 + L: 0l† 0Dò 0J6 0T€ 0^Ô 0h2 0rš 0| 0†ˆ 0 1už 0dU *wB)¡DCÊ B  AM*ùwVpJÆv~vÓŽ D3a 0@” AOÔÆ# 0Dé D/- B\˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ - ù -  D UDÓ€DÒ x3|xC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd d€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ïÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarch€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€trial€court€does€not€normally€have€to€calculate€the€after„tax€income€of€the€non„custodialÏparent,€as€the€tables€appended€to€the€child€support€guidelines€provide€an€after€tax„figure€andÏsupport€amount€for€each€level€of€gross€income.€However,€the€guidelines€note€that€child€support€forÏthe€self„employed€must€be€calculated€separately,€as€the€FICA€rate€for€that€group€is€higher€than€forÏthose€employed€by€others.€Ì @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€figure€was€suggested€by€Mrs.€Craftððs€attorney,€who€reasoned€that€subtracting€first€theÏroughly€€$21,000€business€debt€from€the€$195,000€valuation€of€Craft€Woodworks,€and€then€theÏ$75,000€value€of€the€residence€that€was€granted€to€Mrs.€Craft€alone,€one€would€arrive€at€a€figure€ofÏabout€$99,000€for€the€undivided€equity€in€the€business,€which€could€then€be€divided€equallyÏbetween€the€parties.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò""""'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€—ŒXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌCECIL€WAYNE€CRAFT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9609„CH„00417ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHumphreys€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßR€#$!A1-j|Ã` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€22„221ÌPATRICIA€CAROL€CRAFT,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€HUMPHREYS€COUNTYÌAT€WAVERLY,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ALLEN€W.€WALLACE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEE:óóÌÌA.€RUSSELL€WILLISà àà àà àà àNot€representedÌWILLIS€&€KNIGHTÌ215€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€both€parties€a€divorce,€granted€custody€of€theÏtwo€children€to€the€wife,€set€child€support€at€$1,500€per€month,€and€divided€theÏmarital€property.€€On€appeal,€the€husband€challenges€the€award€of€custody,€theÏamount€of€child€support,€and€the€requirement€that€the€husband€pay€the€wifeÏ$50,000€as€her€share€of€the€equity€in€the€business€that€was€awarded€to€him.€WeÏaffirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Child€CustodyÌÌó óà àà àThe€parties€were€married€in€1973.€€They€both€worked€during€theirÏfirst€eight€years€of€marriage.€€Mr.€Craft€began€as€a€construction€worker,€but€wasÏeventually€able€to€establish€a€sawmill€and€pallet€manufacturing€business€on€landÏthat€had€been€owned€by€his€family.€€Craft€Woodworks€prospered,€and€the€partiesÏbuilt€a€home€in€McEwen.€€They€subsequently€decided€that€they€wanted€children,Ïand€that€it€would€be€feasible€for€Mrs.€Craft€to€quit€her€job€to€raise€the€children€full„time.€€They€produced€a€boy€and€a€girl,€Derrick€Wayne€Craft,€born€on€August€1,Ï1982,€and€Ashley€Lauren€Craft,€born€on€November€6,€1985.ÌÌà àà àIn€1988€a€violent€argument€over€money€led€to€a€separation.€€TheÏparties€reconciled,€but€a€growing€coolness€between€them€impelled€the€husbandÏto€file€for€divorce€in€1994.€€Both€parties€asked€for€custody€of€the€children.€€At€trial,Ïeach€party€testified€as€to€the€shortcomings€of€the€other.€€The€judge€apparently€feltÏthey€both€were€good€parents,€but€in€the€final€decree€of€divorce,€filed€April€18,Ï1996,€he€awarded€custody€of€the€children€to€the€wife,€with€reasonable€visitationÏgranted€to€the€husband.ÌÌÌà àà àIn€the€appellantððs€brief,€Mr.€Craft€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€custody€of€both€children€to€the€wife.€€He€claims€that€she€is€less€fit€to€haveÏcustody€because€she€drinks€at€least€three€or€four€beers€every€night€whileÍwatching€television,€and€because€she€goes€to€a€nearby€restaurant€every€morningÏfor€coffee,€often€leaving€the€children€alone€at€home.ÌÌà àà àHe€claims€that€he€is€more€fit€because€he€has€established€a€warmÏbond€with€his€fourteen€year€old€son€Derrick,€and€because€Derrick€chooses€toÏspend€a€lot€of€time€with€his€father,€including€working€with€him€at€the€sawmill€overÏthe€summer.€Although€Mr.€Craft€is€here€seeking€custody€of€both€children,€it€is€clearÏfrom€the€pleadings€below€that€he€is€chiefly€interested€in€establishing€custody€ofÏhis€son.€ÌÌà àà àMrs.€Craft€failed€to€file€a€timely€brief€in€response€to€the€appellantððsÏbrief,€and€failed€to€timely€respond€to€this€courtððs€subsequent€show€cause€order€asÏto€why€this€appeal€should€not€be€submitted€for€a€decision€on€the€record€and€onÏthe€appellantððs€brief€alone,€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€29(c).€€Because€ofÏher€failure€to€respond,€we€ordered€that€the€appeal€be€limited€to€a€Rule€29(c)Ïreview.€€Mrs.€Craft€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€an€extension€of€time€in€which€toÏfile€her€brief,€and€we€denied€the€motion.€€We€will€accordingly€examine€the€recordÏto€determine€if€Mr.€Craftððs€assertions€entitle€him€to€a€change€of€custody.ÌÌà àà àWe€must€first€state€that€a€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€regard€to€aÏquestion€of€child€custody€is€presumed€on€appeal€to€be€correct€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€òò€Dalton€v.€Daltonóó,€858€S.W.2d€324€(Tenn.ÍApp.€1993).€€The€paramount€consideration€for€the€trial€court€must€always€be€theÏbest€interest€of€the€child€or€children.€òò€Bevins€v.€Bevinsóó,€53€Tenn.€App.€403,€383ÏS.W.2d€780€(1964).€€òòMalone€v.€Malone,óó€842€S.W.2d€621€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àCustody€determinations€are€frequently€a€matter€of€comparativeÏfitness,€and€in€such€cases,€no€implication€of€the€unfitness€of€the€non„custodialÏparent€may€be€drawn€from€the€courtððs€decision€to€place€custody€in€the€otherÏparent.€òò€Bah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€The€case€before€usÏobviously€involves€two€capable€parents,€but€although€neither€party€is€unfit,€neitherÏparty€is€perfect€either.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Craft€balked€at€getting€braces€for€Derrick,€even€though€Mrs.€CraftÏtestified€that€the€boy€needed€braces€and€that€he€was€embarrassed€about€hisÏcrooked€teeth.€€The€appellant€also€let€health€insurance€for€his€children€lapse€afterÏthe€parties€separated.€€It€also€appears€that€Mr.€Craftððs€business€obligations€mightÏsometimes€make€it€difficult€for€him€to€attend€to€his€children€when€they€need€him,Ïbut€that€the€liberal€visitation€that€he€has€enjoyed€allows€them€to€receive€theÏbenefits€of€their€relationship€with€him€when€when€he€is€available.€€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€Mrs.€Craft€could€perhaps€make€better€use€of€some€of€herÏtime€with€the€children€while€they€are€still€young,€we€do€not€draw€any€implicationsÏof€neglect€from€the€evening€recreation€that€has€been€described,€or€from€her€desireÍto€drink€coffee€and€converse€with€adults€in€the€mornings.€€If€she€lived€in€one€of€theÏmore€crime„ridden€urban€neighborhoods€in€this€state,€we€might€feel€differentlyÏabout€a€parent€leaving€her€children€alone€during€the€day€on€such€a€regular€basisÏwhen€it€is€not€a€matter€of€necessity,€but€in€rural€Humphreys€County,€we€need€notÏbe€quite€as€concerned.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€balance,€we€do€not€feel€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€award€of€custody€to€Mrs.€Craft.€€The€record€shows€her€to€be€moreÏclosely€attuned€to€the€needs€of€her€children,€more€responsive€to€those€needs,€andÏand€more€able€to€dedicate€her€time€to€them€than€is€Mr.€Craft.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Child€Supportó óÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€Mr.€Craftððs€real€income€to€be€in€the€rangeÏbetween€$55,000€and€$60,000€after€taxes.× ƒ% ××  ×€€The€court€ordered€him€to€pay€$1,500Ïper€month€in€child€support,€stating€that€the€amount€was€ð ðless€than€the€childÍsupport€guidelines€in€that€the€male€child€spends€more€than€the€usual€amount€ofÏtime€for€visitation€with€the€father.ðð€ÌÌà àà àThe€courtððs€finding€of€income€was€based€upon€Mr.€Craftððs€businessÏrecords€and€his€personal€income€tax€returns.€€The€returns€showed€that€Mr.€CraftÏhad€gross€personal€income€of€$101,248€in€1990,€$100,643€in€1991,€and€$89,451Ïin€1992.€On€January€1,€1993,€a€contract€to€supply€wooden€pallets€to€QuebecorÏPrinting€was€terminated€because€Quebecor€decided€to€switch€to€plastic€pallets.€ÏThe€Quebecor€contract€had€accounted€for€ð ð98€or€99€percentðð€of€Mr.€CraftððsÏbusiness,€and€his€1993€return€showed€that€his€income€had€plummeted€toÏ$22,973.€€In€1994,€he€reported€income€of€$24,064.€€His€business€recordsÏindicated€income€of€$14,000€for€the€first€three€months€of€1995.ÌÌà àà àIn€calculating€the€gross€personal€income€of€a€self„employedÏindividual€for€the€purpose€of€applying€the€child€support€guidelines,€the€reasonableÏexpenses€of€producing€that€income€may€be€deducted€from€revenues.€ÏDepreciation€is€not€considered€a€reasonable€expense.€€Rules€of€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€1240„2„4„.03€(3)(a).€òò€Kimble€v.€Kimbleóó,€Court€ofÏAppeals€No.€01A01„9503„CV„00049€(filed€August€8,€1996).ÌÌà àà àThough€the€gross€income€that€Mr.€Craft€reported€on€his€1040€formsÏfor€1993€and€1994€was€less€than€$25,000€each€year,€he€factored€in€depreciationÍto€arrive€at€those€figures.€€He€concedes€that€for€the€purpose€of€the€guidelines,€theÏcorrect€figures€for€both€years€would€be€over€$50,000€in€gross€income€and€overÏ$45,000€in€net€income.€€€He€argues,€however,€that€under€the€guidelines,€theÏproper€amount€of€child€support€for€such€an€income€would€be€closer€to€$1,100€perÏmonth€than€to€$1,500.ÌÌà àà àWe€believe,€however,€that€there€is€more€than€enough€evidence€inÏthe€record€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€findings€as€to€Mr.€Craftððs€income.€€First,€thereÏis€the€fact€that€in€prior€years,€Mr.€Craft€was€able€to€earn€substantially€above€theÏamount€the€trial€court€wishes€to€hold€him€to.€€Second,€there€are€indications€that€heÏis€recovering€financially€from€the€impact€of€losing€his€most€lucrative€contract,€andÏthat€his€income€is€rising€again.€€Of€relevance€here€is€his€purchase€of€a€backhoeÏand€his€creation€of€a€new€business€based€on€it.€€Third,€the€testimony€of€William€J.ÏNieman,€who€appraised€Craft€Woodworks,€indicates€that€Mr.€Craft€managed€toÏincrease€his€lumber€inventory€from€$7,000€to€over€$59,000€between€1990€andÏ1995,€permitting€an€inference€that€during€some€of€those€years€at€least,€his€incomeÏtax€returns€understated€what€would€have€been€available€to€him€as€personalÏincome,€if€he€had€not€chosen€instead€to€increase€his€investment€in€CraftÏWoodworks.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€it€is€possible€that€Mr.€Craft€may€never€again€earn€as€much€asÏhe€did€in€1990€and€1991,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÍcourtððs€finding€that€that€he€is€capable€of€earning€between€$55,000€and€$60,000Ïper€year€after€taxes,€and€we€affirm€its€order€that€he€pay€$1,500€per€month€asÏsupport€for€his€two€children.€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Valuation€of€the€Marital€Propertyó óÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€Mrs.€Craft€the€house€in€McEwen,€an€eighty„seven€acre€tract€of€land€in€the€country,€furniture,€a€GMC€van,€and€an€IRA€worthÏ$6,000.€€The€husband€was€granted€the€sawmill€business€and€an€IRA€worthÏ$16,000.€€The€trial€court€valued€Craft€Woodworks€at€$195,000,€and€ordered€Mr.ÏCraft€to€pay€his€former€wife€$50,000€over€a€ten€year€period€for€her€share€of€theÏequity€of€the€business.× ƒ& ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€managed€to€achieve€almost€perfect€agreement€on€theÏvalue€and€disposition€of€every€piece€of€marital€property,€except€for€CraftÏWoodworks.€€Mr.€Craft€claims€that€the€business€is€worth€only€$122,500€(althoughÍhe€testified€at€trial€to€a€value€of€$135,000)€and€he€has€chosen€to€assert€anÏunusual€theory€to€support€his€claim€for€relief€from€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€theÏsawmillððs€value.ÌÌà àà àAn€appraisal€performed€at€the€behest€of€the€appellee€(the€Neiman„Ross€appraisal)€was€entered€into€the€record,€and€its€preparer€testified€at€length€asÏto€how€he€arrived€at€a€value€of€$195,200€for€Craft€Woodworks.€€Counsel€for€theÏappellant€unnaccountably€failed€to€introduce€an€appraisal€commissioned€by€hisÏclient€(the€Kitrell€Appraisal)€which€would€have€allegedly€shown€the€property€to€beÏworth€only€$122,475.€Mr.€Craftððs€attorney€also€allegedly€failed€to€present€him€withÏa€copy€of€the€Neiman„Ross€appraisal€until€just€before€Mr.€Craft€was€called€upon€toÏtestify,€thus€giving€him€no€opportunity€to€review€the€ninety„two€page€report€forÏaccuracy.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà à€The€appellant€argues€that€this€court€should€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€as€to€the€value€of€Craft€Woodworks,€because€he€received€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€He€relies€upon€language€in€a€recent€case€before€theÏEastern€Division€of€this€court,€where€the€court€actually€declined€to€grant€relief€onÏsuch€a€theory,€but€stated:€€€ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ð.€.€.€although€we€hold,€as€a€general€rule,€that€in€civil€casesÏrelief€may€not€be€premised€upon€the€theory€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€we€recognize€that€there€may€beÍcases€where€the€facts€are€so€egregious€that€justice€mayÏrequire€some€relief.ððÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒòòThornburgh€v.€Thornburghóó,€Appeal€No.€03A01„9602„CH„00053€(Filed€July€17,Ï1996).ÓÓÌÌà àà àMr.€Craft€argues€that€this€is€such€a€case,€but€we€do€not€agree.€ÏAlthough€Mr.€Craft€may€be€understandably€unhappy€with€the€performance€of€hisÏattorney,€the€result€is€not€even€close€to€the€sort€of€manifest€injustice€that€would€beÏrequired€before€this€court€would€consider€granting€him€the€extraordinary€remedyÏhe€seeks.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€examined€the€copy€of€the€Kitrell€appraisal€that€Mr.€Craft€hasÏappended€to€his€brief,€though€the€different€methodologies€used€in€the€twoÏappraisals€make€them€difficult€to€compare.€€Mr.€Kitrell€has€simply€stated€what€heÏcalls€a€fair€market€value€for€each€piece€of€sawmill€equipment€and€rolling€stock,Ïand€added€to€the€sum€his€estimate€of€the€value€of€the€land€and€buildings€to€reachÏa€total€value€for€the€business.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Neiman€gave€both€a€fair€market€value€and€a€liquidation€value€toÏeach€piece€of€equipment,€to€which€he€added€his€own€estimate€of€the€value€of€theÏinventory,€the€land€and€the€buildings.€€However,€he€used€the€results€as€only€oneÏelement€in€a€weighted€valuation€that€also€considered€other€methods€of€valuingÍbusiness€property,€including€approaches€based€on€revenues€and€upon€sales€ofÏcomparative€properties.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€the€fair€market€equipment€value€stated€in€the€KitrellÏappraisal€is€quite€close€to€the€liquidation€value€of€the€same€assets€stated€in€theÏNeiman„Ross€appraisal.€€Though€Mr.€Neiman€did€attribute€a€much€higher€fairÏmarket€value€to€the€equipment,€he€only€applied€the€liquidation€value€to€theÏweighted€approach€by€which€he€arrived€at€his€final€valuation€of€the€property.ÌÌà àà àAnother€major€difference€between€the€two€appraisals€is€that€Mr.ÏNeiman€included€the€inventory€of€lumber€in€his€appraisal,€while€the€KitrellÏappraisal€contains€no€mention€at€all€of€inventory.€€If€Mr.€Kitrell€had€added€to€hisÏown€figures€the€$59,244€inventory€value€stated€in€the€Neiman„Ross€appraisal,€heÏwould€have€reached€an€appraised€value€of€$181,719,€still€somewhat€below€Mr.ÏNeimanððs€estimate,€but€leaving€a€considerably€smaller€gap€than€Mr.€CraftÏasserted€in€his€brief.€ÌÌà àà àHowever,€this€discussion€of€value€is€perhaps€beside€the€point,€as€weÏbelieve€the€trial€court€could€have€fashioned€the€same€award€of€marital€property€toÏMrs.€Craft,€even€if€it€had€accepted€Mr.€Craftððs€estimate€of€the€value€of€CraftÏWoodworks.€The€court€is€not€required€to€order€an€equal€division€of€maritalÏproperty,€but€only€an€equitable€one.€òò€Ellis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àà àFactors€to€be€applied€in€determining€what€would€constitute€anÏequitable€division€of€marital€property€are€many,€and€include€the€duration€of€theÏmarriage,€the€age€of€the€parties,€the€earning€capacity€of€each€party,€and€the€needsÏof€each€party.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c).€€All€of€these€factors€would€supportÏa€generous€award€to€Mrs.€Craft€out€of€the€assets€of€Craft€Woodworks.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€note€that€Mrs.€Craftððs€counter„complaint€asked€for€ð ðaÏreasonable€amount€of€spousal€support,ðð€and€at€one€point€in€the€hearing,€sheÏtestified€that€she€needed€monthly€support€of€between€$500€and€$700€per€monthÏto€continue€to€live€as€she€had€prior€to€her€divorce.€€The€trial€court€did€not€mentionÏspousal€support€in€its€final€decree,€though€Mrs.€Craft€would€appear€from€theÏrecord€to€be€a€likely€candidate€for€rehabilitative€alimony.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„5„101(d).ÌÌà àà àThe€courtððs€$50,000€award€to€Mrs.€Craft,€if€paid€in€monthlyÏinstallments€over€ten€years€time€amounts€to€a€monthly€income€of€less€than€$500Ïper€month€($416.67€to€be€exact).€€Since€the€factors€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„5„101(d),€for€the€court€to€take€into€account€in€setting€spousal€support€includesÏunder€section€(H)€ð ð[t]he€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€asÏdefined€in€ðð€36„4„121,ðð€we€can€infer€that€even€if€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€valuationÏand€division€of€marital€property,€such€an€error€would€be€harmless,€in€view€of€theÍlikelihood€that€court€would€have€ordered€spousal€support€if€sufficient€funds€wereÏnot€available€from€the€marital€estate.Ì€€€Ì€à@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Humphreys€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÇÑ  Ñ