ÿWPCM [N„ÿ¾‚À¨Ž-]uvÚË9¾Œ\4Ý x†;Ø;ð9±ûhå'«ín åy9À‹>óeÉk²,©UËÙËià•¯–ÜÛÝÙ‚ðR‰üiR.†É‡;“”Í%¥”ÃUl_¶;HÅÊ/8ü½Ig2j÷;òjÆ×©\2ö%PéyÜ ’ßnå±XJ@šàÞMú¼ ¿>å³§V~ ïP¸¶^ºÓuKF´Îvß‘ioBÝôÀÇ·ÐÑÂâ‰L yÍÏî½(#²‡3Õfm`]îuî厘ž“’ï—yfàûàk‚²§x#?Y](åóL7H® œ?<å;¨¨Ý5¤ŠºØ Y;±v}~UÑ÷õÛgô«äF%¢ž½¬Ñ¿‚Ûã˪@žZÿŽØxkæùap3"¯¯x·5…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ UNÙ UN' u U:’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ UBÌ %           B     D31 1 1 0Dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d AO¨ Æ÷ ÷ 0D½ D/ B0ýhµ&ÔøÔô3|x¡($¡¡ ŽUUU‘U’U“b”D•–Ó€(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ô€ XžUXXXÔÔ€ î¨ÌîX XžUÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ½ î î¨ÌÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€21,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôΓ ô  ½ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛѰÑÒܰÒñ“ñœñ“ññ“ñÑܰÑñ“ñÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ZXXdÈXXdð7ќԀXÀ#XXXÔÔ€Š´ÒŠXXÀ#ÔñŽññŽññ–ññ–ññŽññŽññ–ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ–ññŽñÌñŽñ›€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌœññÌññ›ÌÌRUBYE€WYRICK€CRESWELL,à ” àà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9804„CH„00151Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellee,à < àà ” àà ì à)€KNOX€CHANCERYÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€H.€DAVID€CATE,Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€CHANCELLORÌJOHN€E.€CRESWELL,à < àà ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED€AND›Ìà 4 àDefendant„Appellant.à ” àà ì àœ)€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌœññÌÌÌññJOHN›€P.€VALLIANT,€JR.,€and€PAUL€HENSLEY,€Knoxville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌÌœñ‘ñÌñ‘ñSARAH›€Y.€SHEPPEARD€and€JASON€H.€LONG,€SHEPPEARD€&€SWANSON,ÏP.L.C.,€Knoxville,€for€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌÌœñ’ñÌñ’ñ›ÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ (!! ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÔ‡ŠdvŠŠŠ´ÒÔò òÌó óà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€divorce€action€both€parties€appeal€the€distribution€of€the€maritalÐ 0)) Ðproperty€ordered€by€the€Trial€Judge,€raising€issues€as€to€the€classification,€valuationÏand€equitable€distribution€of€the€properties€owned€by€the€parties€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€parties€were€married€on€April€4,€1959,€and€no€children€were€born€ofÏthe€marriage,€although€the€husband€had€three€daughters€from€a€prior€marriage.€ò òÐ 6:.33ý Ðà 4 àà Œ àó óIn€making€the€property€division,€the€Trial€Court€said€that€œhe›€was€takingÐ  Ðinto€account€the€property€which€the€parties€said€they€brought€into€the€marriage€asÏseparate€property,€as€well€as€other€relevant€factors€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€36„4„121(c).€€The€Court€adopted€the€wifeððs€values€on€the€real€property,Ïbecause€they€were€corroborated€by€an€appraiser,€and€also€adopted€her€values€on€theÏvehicles,€because€they€were€substantiated€by€the€NAPA€car€value€guide.€€The€courtÏplaced€no€value€on€two€tax€shelter€partnerships,€Capital€Housing€Partners€and€StraussÏGreenberg,€because€as€long€as€the€property€is€not€sold€it€would€not€have€any€negativeÏtax€liability.€€The€court€also€calculated€the€present€value€of€the€wifeððs€life€estate€in€anÏirrevocable€trust€to€be€approximately€$160,000.00,€but€conceded€that€this€is€not€anÏexact€calculation€due€to€potential€variables.€The€Courtððs€distribution€of€the€maritalÏestate,€by€the€Courtððs€œevaluation,›€awarded€$868,545.82€to€the€wife€and€$1,318,376.50Ïto€the€husband.€€Of€the€total€marital€estate€of€$2,004,922.32,€the€wife€received€34%€ofÏthe€marital€assets,€while€the€husband€received€66%.€€Taking€into€consideration€theÏaward€of€alimony€in€solido€in€the€amount€of€$200,000.00,€the€wife€would€receive€44%Ïof€the€marital€estate,€which€the€Trial€Court€stated€is€what€œhe›€intended€in€œmaking€the›Ïproperty€œdivision€equitable.›€Ìà 4 àò òà Œ àó óThe€case€was€tried€before€the€Court€without€a€jury,€and€our€standard€ofÐ )ˆ"" Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€Trial€Court,€accompanied€by€a€presumptionÐ ˜+$$ Ðof€correctness€of€its€findings,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÔ#†Š´ÒŠŠŠdv&#ÔÔ‡ŠdvŠŠŠ´ÒÔ€otherwise.€€T.R.A.P.Ð  -˜&& ÐRule€13(d).€€òòBookout€v.€Bookoutóó,€954€S.W.2d€730,€731€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€€TrialÐ ¨/ (( Ðcourts€are€given€a€great€deal€of€discretion€in€division€of€marital€property,€and€theÏdivisions€made€are€entitled€to€great€weight€in€the€appellate€courts.€òòSeeóó€€òòFord€v.€Ford,óóÐ ¸3°,, Ð952€S.W.2d€824,€826€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àFirst,€the€husband€argued€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€award€of€alimony€inÐ È7À00 Ðsolido€lacks€any€legal€basis.€€While€the€Trial€Court€designated€the€award€as€alimony€inÏsolido,€it€is€clear€that€the€court€intended€œto€utilize€the›€award€as€œa€vehicle›€to€arrive€at€anÏequitable€distribution€of€the€marital€estate.€€The€Trial€Court€listed€the€cash€amount€œas€aÏpart€of›€the€division€of€the€marital€estate,€and€stated€in€œhis›€Order€on€All€PendingÏMotions€that€the€ð ðcourt€believes€that€its€distribution€of€the€marital€estate€was€fair€andÏequitable.€€The€plaintiff€received€approximately€44%€of€the€marital€estate€and€theÏdefendant€received€approximately€56%€of€the€marital€estate.ðð€€This€result€can€only€beÏreached€by€including€the€cash€award€to€the€wife€in€the€division€of€the€marital€estate,Ïwhich€resulted€in€a€division€of€marital€property€which€the€Court€found€to€be€equitable.€ÏWe€find€œthe€husbandððs›€contention€to€be€without€merit.Ìà 4 à€€€€à Œ àThe€husband€argues€that€he€began€Creswell€&€Company€withÐ `X Ð$50,000.00€worth€of€assets€that€he€owned€prior€to€the€marriage,€œand›€that€the€proceedsÏfrom€the€sale€of€the€company,€and€the€property€purchased€with€those€proceeds,Ïconstitute€separate€property,€which€the€Trial€Court€treated€as€marital€property.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€RuleÏ13(d).€€In€this€connection,€the€Trial€Judge€adopted€the€wifeððs€value€of€the€irrevocableÏtrust,€which€included€the€$50,000.00€which€the€husband€claimed€was€separateÏproperty.€€Thus,€the€Trial€Court€concluded€the€property€was€a€marital€asset.€€In€anÏOrder,€the€Trial€Judge€noted€that€the€husbandððs€testimony€on€when€he€acquired€theÏstock€ð ðwas€not€very€positiveðð.€€Though€the€husband€testified€he€owned€the€stock€priorÏto€the€marriage,€the€wife€testified€that€he€did€not€own€any€stock€when€they€married.€ÏThe€wife€further€produced€the€husbandððs€prior€Divorce€Decree,€entered€less€than€twoÏmonths€before€the€parties€were€married€which€disposed€of€most€of€the€marital€œpropertyÏin€the€prior€marriage,›€but€made€no€mention€of€any€stock€ownership.€€The€credibility€ofÐ È7À00 Ðthe€witnesses€is€resolved€by€the€Trial€Court,€and€we€uphold€the€Trial€Judgeððs€findingÏon€this€issue.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€evidence€shows€that€the€parties€held€substantial€investments€in€theirÏown€names,€and€the€husband€insists€that€the€parties€kept€their€assets€separate,€andÏintended€to€keep€their€property€separate.€€The€determination€of€separate€property€is€aÏquestion€of€fact,€and€we€conclude€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€TrialÏCourtððs€determination€that€all€of€œsuch›€property€was€marital.€€This€finding€is€buttressedÏby€the€fact€that€the€husband€did€not€claim€these€assets€as€separate€property€in€hisÏproposed€property€division.Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€the€husband€argues€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€valuing€the€irrevocableÏtrust€at€$160,000.00.€€The€value€of€a€marital€asset€is€a€question€of€fact,€and€a€TrialÏCourtððs€decision€on€the€value€of€a€marital€asset€is€given€great€weight€on€appeal.€ÏòòWallace€v.€Wallaceóó,€733€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€We€conclude€theÐ h` Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€of€the€value.€ÏNeither€party€presented€evidence€of€the€present€value,€the€wifeððs€life€expectancy,€orÏthe€proper€interest€rate€that€should€be€used€in€calculating€the€value.€The€husbandÏargues€in€his€brief€that€the€trust€should€be€treated€as€an€annuity.€€Using€tables€found€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated,€the€husband€determined€the€wifeððs€life€expectancy€to€beÏ20.31€years.€€Using€Annuity€Table€IX,€the€husband€then€calculated€the€present€valueÏof€an€annuity€producing€$23,400.00€per€year€for€20€years€at€6%€to€be€$268,395.66,Ïwhich€he€claims€is€the€proper€present€value€of€the€trust.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband,€however,€used€the€wrong€table€in€his€calculation.€€TableÏIX€calculates€the€value€of€an€annuity€for€a€certain€number€of€years.€€The€trust€isÏcontingent€upon€the€wifeððs€life,€so€it€should€not€be€treated€as€an€annuity€for€a€specificÏnumber€of€years.€€In€the€Explanation€of€Use€to€the€Annuity€and€Valuation€Tables,€theÐ È7À00 ÐCode€states,€ð ðTo€find€the€present€value€of€an€annuity€based€on€the€life€of€a€personÏfrom€the€following€tables€multiply€the€yearly€payment€by€the€number€found€oppositeÏthe€present€age€of€the€person€upon€whose€life€the€annuity€is€based€in€the€column€forÏthe€applicable€percent.ðð€€T.C.A.€Tables€p.€1035€(1995).€€Using€this€method€and€theÏvarious€tables€following,€the€present€value€of€the€trust€at€6%€ranges€from€$150,064.20Ïto€$208,049.40,€depending€upon€the€table€used.€€Due€to€lack€of€specific€evidence€ofÏthe€value€at€trial,€the€present€value€of€the€trust€according€to€the€annuity€tables,€and€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€Trial€Judgeððs€determination,€it€cannot€be€said€theÏevidence€œpreponderateñ’ñ›ñ’ñs›€against€the€valuation€of€the€trust€at€$160,000.00.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband€also€claims€that€the€Trial€Court€erroneously€valued€two€taxÏshelters,€Capital€Housing€Partners€and€Strauss€Greenberg.€€The€Trial€Court€recognizedÏthe€husbandððs€assertion€that€these€assets€have€a€negative€value€because€of€tax€liabilityÏif€sold,€but€stated,€ð ðas€long€as€the€interests€are€not€sold€they€do€not€result€in€any€taxÏliabilityðð€and€assigned€no€value€to€the€tax€shelters€and€awarded€them€to€the€husband.€ÏThe€husband€insists€that€if€the€properties€were€sold€the€tax€liability€would€beÏsignificant.€€€A€certified€public€accountant,€testified€that€the€two€entities€have€aÏnegative€equity€because€of€the€tax€consequences,€and€he€recommends€that€people€doÏnot€sell€such€entities.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWhile€the€entities€may€have€tax€a€liability,€if€sold,€there€was€no€evidenceÏthat€they€hold€any€other€value.€€They€may€be€subject€to€income€tax€if€they€earn€money,Ïbut€there€was€no€evidence€presented€on€precisely€how€that€should€effect€their€value.€ÏSince€there€is€no€negative€impact€if€the€entities€are€not€sold,€and€no€evidence€of€howÏœany›€possible€income€œwould›€effect€their€value,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€argues€that€the€Trial€Judge€erred€in€failing€to€award€her€anÐ È7À00 Ðequitable€division€of€the€corpus€of€two€trusts€in€the€marital€estate.€€In€this€connectionÏmarital€property€must€be€valued€ð ðas€of€a€date€as€near€as€reasonably€possible€to€theÏfinal€divorce€hearing€date.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð36„4„121(b)(1)(A)€(1996).€€One€trust€was€anÏirrevocable€trust€for€the€benefit€of€Rubye€Creswell,€which€contained€over€$400,000.00Ïin€assets,€but€which€the€Trial€Court€valued€at€$160,000.00€because€it€was€only€worthÏits€income€stream€to€the€parties.€€The€other€trust€was€an€revocable€trust€for€the€benefitÏof€the€husband,€which€the€Court€valued€at€$631,324.37.€€This€was€the€value€of€theÏassets€in€the€trust.€€The€Court€concluded€that€it€was€worth€the€amount€of€the€assetsÏinstead€of€the€income€stream,€because€the€husband€could€terminate€the€trust€at€anyÏtime€and€receive€the€assets€at€their€value.Ìà 4 àà Œ àBoth€trusts€were€funded€with€marital€assets,€and€both€trusts€were€createdÏbefore€the€divorce€petition€was€filed.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏTrial€Judgeððs€valuation.€€The€wife€may€not€have€liked€the€terms€of€the€trust,€but€sheÏdid€stop€its€execution,€and€the€value€of€the€marital€asset€was€reduced€by€the€creation€ofÏthe€trust€so€that€at€the€time€of€trial€the€Court€properly€assigned€the€assets€a€presentÏvalue€and€utilized€those€values€in€making€œdistribution›€of€the€marital€estate.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€insists€the€husband€improperly€dissipated€the€marital€estate€byÏmaking€gifts€in€violation€of€the€Order€of€the€Court€in€the€amount€of€$85,300.00.€ÏWhile€the€evidence€shows€that€the€husband€made€$86,000.00€in€gifts€to€his€childrenÏand€grandchildren€after€the€Order€was€œissued,›€œwhich€prevented›€him€from€disposing€ofÏmarital€assets,€these€gifts€did€not€render€the€property€division€of€the€marital€estateÏinequitable€on€this€record.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThese€gifts€did€come€from€marital€property€that€had€not€yet€been€valuedÏand€divided€by€the€œCourt,€but€in€his›€finding€of€fact€the€Trial€Judge€stated,€ð ðOver€theÏcourse€of€the€marriage€the€parties€have€made€gifts€to€their€family€members.€€TheÐ È7À00 Ðplaintiff€gifting€approximately€$92,500.00€and€the€defendant€gifting€approximatelyÏ$115,000.00€to€his€daughters,€in€addition€to€the€stock.€€He€also€made€gifts€to€theÏgrandchildren€which€now€total,€including€the€income,€$183,000.00.ðð€€The€wifeÏadvised€the€Court€in€her€testimony€that€she€wanted€the€Court€to€take€into€account€theÏgifts€given€by€each€party€in€the€distribution€of€the€marital€œproperty.€€Since€she€did€notÏinsist€upon€an€amount€of€dissipation,€and€since€the€Trial€Court€did€find€and€considerÏthat€both€parties€gave€substantial€gifts€to€the€family€in€arriving€at€the€propertyÏdivision,€we€find€no€error.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àFinally,€the€husband€argues€that€the€parties€had€disposed€of€their€assetsÏthrough€a€contract€before€the€divorce,€and€the€Court€should€enforce€that€contract.€€HeÏasserts€that€the€parties€had€an€oral€agreement€in€which€the€husband€would€create€anÏirrevocable€trust€for€the€wifeððs€benefit,€in€exchange€for€her€signing€over€her€interest€inÏother€property€to€him€alone.€€The€Trial€Court,€after€hearing€this€testimony,€refused€toÏenforce€this€alleged€contract,€and€held€ð ðthere€was€insufficient€mutual€assent€to€formÏthe€contract€the€defendant€seeks€to€enforce.ðð€€The€Court€then€pointed€out€that€the€wifeÏunderstood€that€the€trust€assets€would€be€hers€and€would€not€pass€to€his€children,€andÏthat€she€would€not€have€to€convey€any€property,€while€the€husband€understood€just€theÏopposite.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€there€was€no€meeting€of€the€minds.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àDue€to€the€conflicting€testimony€of€the€parties€as€to€whether€a€contractÏexisted,€and€if€it€did,€as€to€what€the€terms€of€the€contract€were,€the€Trial€CourtÏappropriately€determined€that€the€evidence€did€not€establish€an€enforceable€contract.€ÏòòSee€Sweeten€v.€Trade€Envelopes,€Inc.óó,€938€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€1996).Ð °1¨** Ðà 4 àà Œ àWhile€both€parties€insist€that€the€division€of€marital€property€was€notÏequitable,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€division€made€by€the€TrialÏCourt.€€In€viewing€the€evidence€and€the€factors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð36„4„121(c),€theÐ È7À00 Ðfactors€are€either€irrelevant€or€tend€to€favor€a€ñ”ñmoreñ”ññ•ñnearñ•ñ€equal€division€of€the€marital€estate.€ÏWhile€an€equal€division€of€the€marital€estate€could€have€been€appropriate€in€this€case,Ïwe€hold€the€division€reached€by€the€Trial€Court€ñŒññ‹ñoñ‹ññŒñññiññs€an€equitable€distribution.Ìà 4 àà Œ àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€withÏthe€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€one„half€to€each€party.ÌÓÓÌÌÔ#†Š°eŠŠŠ°e©#ÔÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÐ <4  Ðóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð @8 Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.Ì