ÿWPC£ 6# UN %] 0ccU<Æw@ 4J^m 0§mU@eT 0JU 0Ÿ 0TÆr 0^8 0h– AQþ 0DO 0r“ 0| 0† 0 B— 1u´ 0d) 0D 0@Ñ D3 D/D Bs U> B)Î DC÷ AM:U*‡8±iév~RvÓИHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;1˜$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XcXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman ,[-U./U0U1î234Ó€5äzz!†p†p†p3|x5(W(3Oé$¤¤Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XD$XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(W3È:$¢¢Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XD$XXXÔÝ  Ý2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2@ 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 d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd$/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ€1ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔó óÌò òÔ€1¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€1XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€ Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ ÂÔÔ€1ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔ _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€her€first€issue,€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awardedÏher€the€partiesðð€ski€boat.€€We€will€consider€this€assertion€with€the€second€issue.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¼ÑXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€ÙßR€02/A1-j|¬- `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òSHERRY€DENISE€THEARP€ERVIN,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHardeman€Chancery€No.€10386ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9605„CH„00097ÌÌò òDALE€EDWARD€ERVIN,€ó óà àÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€HARDEMAN€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DEWEY€C.€WHITENTON,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌà@ àLloyd€R.€Tatum,€Tatum€and€Tatum€of€HendersonÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àCharles€M.€Cary,€Denton€and€Cary€of€BolivarÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòVACATED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÌÓÓ›à àThis€is€an€appeal€from€a€Final€Decree€of€Divorce€entered€January€5,€1996.€ÏPlaintiff,€Sherry€Denise€Thearp€Ervin€(Wife),€appeals€from€the€order€of€the€trialÏcourt€granting€her€an€absolute€divorce€from€the€defendant,€Dale€Edward€ErvinÏ(Husband).€€Wife€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decision€concerning€the€division€ofÏthe€marital€property,€the€amount€of€child€support,€and€the€denial€of€an€award€ofÏattorneysðð€fees.Ìà àThe€parties€were€married€on€May€16,€1992.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,ÏWife€was€37€years€old,€and€Husband€was€35€years€old.€€The€parties€had€twoÏchildren€during€the€course€of€the€marriage:€€Clayton€Palmer€Ervin,€bornÏNovember€25,€1992;€and€Sherridan€McKaela€Ervin,€born€December€30,€1993.€€Ìà àWife€completed€high€school€and€attended€one€quarter€of€college.€€She€is€aÏdistrict€manager€for€ITððS€Fashions,€a€subdivision€of€the€Cato€Corporation.€€SheÏhas€been€employed€by€Cato€for€15€years,€and€Wife€earns€approximatelyÏ$39,000.00€per€year.€€Husband€has€a€11th€grade€education,€and€he€works€forÏT.R.€Mills€Contractors.€€At€the€time€Wife€filed€her€complaint,€Husband€wasÏearning€$685€per€week;€however,€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€he€was€earning€$560Ïper€week.€€ò òÌó óà àThe€parties€separated€January€8,€1995.€€Wife€filed€her€complaint€forÏdivorce€on€January€17,€1995€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences€andÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€his€answer,€Husband€admitted€that€theÏparties€had€irreconcilable€differences€but€denied€that€he€was€guilty€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€He€filed€a€counter„complaint€for€divorce€againstÏWife€alleging€that€she€was€guilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€WifeððsÏanswer€to€the€counter„complaint,€she€denied€that€she€was€guilty€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct€and€raised€the€defense€of€recrimination.€€After€aÏnon„jury€trial,€the€trial€court€awarded€Wife€an€absolute€divorce€from€HusbandÏon€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€granted€permanent€custody€ofÏthe€partiesðð€minor€children€to€Wife€with€reasonable€and€liberal€visitation€forÏHusband,€ordered€Husband€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$614€perÍmonth€plus€$91€per€month€for€insurance,€and€divided€the€marital€property.€ÏWife€has€appealed€and€presents€four€issues€for€review.Ìà àWifeððs€first€issue€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€award€of€one„half€of€the€increase€in€value€of€Wifeððs€401k€account€andÏ$6,152.16€of€Wifeððs€Employee€Stock€Ownership€Plan€(ESOP)€to€Husband.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€theÏcase€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findingsÏof€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏfindings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Trial€courts€haveÏbroad€discretion€in€dividing€the€marital€estate€upon€divorce.€€ò òòòKincaid€v.ÏKincaidóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€142€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ìà àWife€owns€a€401k€pension€plan€through€her€employer,€Cato.€€She€startedÏthe€account€in€1990.€€At€the€time€of€the€marriage,€the€account€was€worthÏ$5,089.00.€€When€the€divorce€complaint€was€filed,€the€account€balance€wasÏ$29,138.00,€an€increase€in€value€during€the€marriage€of€approximatelyÏ$24,048.00.€€The€trial€court€divided€the€amount€of€the€increase€equally€andÏawarded€$12,024.15€to€Husband.€Ìà àWife€asserts€that€Husband€did€not€make€any€substantial€contribution€toÍthe€appreciation€of€the€401k€account,€and,€therefore,€is€not€entitled€to€share€inÏits€appreciation.€€We€disagree.€€Distribution€of€marital€property€is€governed€byÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121€(1991).€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àð ðMarital€propertyðð€includes€income€from,€and€anyÏincrease€in€value€during€the€marriage,€of€propertyÏdetermined€to€be€separate€property€in€accordanceÏwith€subdivision€(b)(2)€if€each€party€substantiallyÏcontributed€to€its€preservation€and€appreciation€andÏthe€value€of€vested€pension,€retirement€or€other€fringeÏbenefit€rights€accrued€during€the€period€of€theÏmarriage.€€ÌÌÓÓThe€statute€provides€that€pension€benefits€accrued€during€the€marriage€becomeÏmarital€property.€€The€pension€provision€is€not€modified€by€the€ð ðsubstantialÏcontributionðð€requirement€preceding€it.€€Therefore,€pension€benefits€earned€byÏa€spouse€during€the€marriage€are€marital€property€even€though€the€other€spouseÏdid€not€contribute€directly€to€their€preservation€or€appreciation.€€ò òòòBatson€v.ÏBatsonóóó ó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€857€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€Ìà àWife€argues€that€even€if€the€401k€plan€is€marital€property,€an€equitableÏdivision€would€not€include€an€award€to€Husband.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€this€regard,€and€the€trial€courtÏmade€a€proper€division.€€Ìà àWife€also€owned€an€ESOP€plan€that€was€worth€$22,543.00€at€the€time€ofÏthe€marriage,€but€had€declined€in€value€to€$17,663.39€by€the€time€of€theÍdivorce.€€The€trial€court€awarded€Husband€$6,152.16€of€Wifeððs€ESOP€plan.€ÏWife€argues€that€Husband€was€not€entitled€to€this€award€because€the€ESOPÏplan€went€down€in€value.€€Although€it€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record,€itÏappears€that€the€plan€is€a€stock€purchase€plan€and€the€shares€are€purchased€byÏpayroll€deduction.€€Thus,€the€plan€is€nothing€more€than€a€monthly€acquisition€ofÏproperty.€€ð ðððMarital€propertyðð€means€all€real€and€personal€property,€both€tangibleÏand€intangible,€acquired€by€either€or€both€spouses€during€the€course€of€theÏmarriage€up€to€the€date€of€the€final€divorce€hearing€and€owned€by€either€orÏboth€spouses€as€of€the€date€of€filing€of€a€complaint€for€divorce€.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.€ððÏ36„4„121€(b)(1)(A).€€Ìà àThe€shares€of€stock€actually€acquired€during€the€term€of€the€marriageÏconstitute€marital€property€subject€to€division.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€thatÏthe€trial€court€made€a€determination€of€the€number€of€shares€acquired€duringÏthe€marriage€nor€the€value€thereof€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€Accordingly,€theÏaward€made€by€the€trial€court€should€be€vacated€and€the€case€remanded€forÏproceedings€to€determine€a€proper€division€of€ESOP€stock.Ìà àWifeððs€second€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€failed€to€equitably€divideÏthe€marital€property.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€camcorder,€the€tanning€bed,Ïthe€Torino€automobile,€and€the€ski€boat€were€marital€property,€and€orderedÍthat€the€ð ðtangible€personal€property€is€jointly€owned€marital€property€and€if€theÏparties€cannot€agree€on€a€division€within€thirty€(30)€days€from€the€entry€of€theÏFinal€Decree€of€Divorce,€this€personal€property€will€be€sold€by€the€Clerk€andÏMaster€as€Special€Commissioner€and€the€proceeds€divided€equally€between€theÏparties.ðð€€Ìà àWife€asserts€that€the€partiesðð€ski€boat€was€purchased€solely€by€her€beforeÏthe€marriage€and€should€have€been€separate€property€awarded€to€her.€€However,Ïthe€record€shows€that€Husband€signed€the€original€purchase€agreement€for€theÏboat€and€was€a€cosigner€with€Wife€on€the€loan€documents€for€the€boat.€€WifeÏalso€admits€that€Husband€gave€her€money€calling€it€his€ð ðboat€payment.ðð€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€concerning€theÏski€boat.Ìà àWife€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€sale€of€theÏcamcorder,€the€tanning€bed€and€the€Torino€automobile€and€awarding€one„half€ofÏthe€proceeds€to€Husband€because€the€property€was€solely€acquired€by€herÏefforts.€€She€claims€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€was€inequitable,€and€that€sheÏshould€be€awarded€the€property€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(c)Ï(1991).€Ìà àIt€is€undisputed€that€this€property€was€acquired€during€the€course€of€theÍpartiesðð€marriage.€€Therefore,€it€is€marital€property.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121Ï(b)(1)(A).€€€It€is€irrelevant€that€the€property€was€acquired€mostly€by€wifeððsÏefforts€because€the€statute€provides€that€property€acquired€by€either€spouse€isÏmarital€property.€€Property€acquired€during€the€marriage€does€not€have€to€beÏpurchased€by€both€parties€for€it€to€be€marital€property.€Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(c)€provides€the€factors€that€the€trial€court€mustÏconsider€in€making€an€equitable€division€of€the€marital€property.€€Wife€claimsÏthat€Husband€did€little€or€nothing€to€contribute€to€the€acquisition€orÏpreservation€of€the€property.€€The€contribution€to€the€acquisition€orÏpreservation€of€property€is€only€one€of€the€factors€for€the€court€to€consider.€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€unfairly€applied€theÏfactors,€nor€that€the€award€was€inequitable.€€The€trial€court€properly€classifiedÏthe€property€and€was€correct€in€ordering€a€sale€of€the€marital€property.à àÌà àWifeððs€third€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€reducing€HusbandððsÏchild€support€from€$719€per€month€to€$614€per€month.€€The€trial€court€enteredÏa€pendente€lite€order€that€established€Husbandððs€child€support€obligation€atÏ$719€per€month.€€At€the€time€the€pendente€lite€order€was€entered,€HusbandÏwas€earning€$685€per€week.€€During€the€trial,€Husband€testified€that€his€incomeÏhad€decreased€to€$560€per€week.€€Therefore,€in€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce,€theÍtrial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$614€per€month€in€child€support.€€Ìà àWife€argues€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€Husbandððs€earning€capacity€had€diminished€pendingÏtrial.€€She€asserts€on€appeal€that€Husband€is€willfully€and€voluntarilyÏunderemployed,€but€she€did€not€raise€this€argument€at€trial.€€A€party€is€notÏentitled€to€relief€on€an€issue€that€is€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€Ïòòò òSouthland€Express,€Inc.€v.€Scrap€Metal€Buyers€of€Tampaó óóó,€895€S.W.2d€335,€341Ï(Tenn.€App.€1994).Ìà àAlthough€the€reason€for€the€decrease€is€not€entirely€clear,€it€is€undisputedÏin€the€record€that€Husbandððs€gross€income€at€the€time€of€the€trial€was€$560€perÏweek.€€The€record,€however,€does€not€indicate€Husbandððs€net€income,€but€WifeÏhas€not€raised€an€issue€about€the€calculation€of€the€amount€of€child€support.€ÏThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€thatÏHusbandððs€earning€capacity€had€diminished€pending€trial,€and€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€regarding€child€support.Ìà àWifeððs€fourth€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€award€herÏattorneysðð€fees.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€ð ðeach€party€will€pay€their€ownÏattorney.ðð€€The€award€of€attorneysðð€fees€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court,€and€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€award,€it€will€notÍbe€disturbed€on€appeal.€€€€ò òòòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995).€€Where€the€wife€demonstrates€that€she€is€financially€unable€to€affordÏcounsel,€and€where€the€husband€has€the€ability€to€pay,€the€court€may€properlyÏorder€the€husband€to€pay€the€wifeððs€attorneysðð€fees.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€€In€this€case,€Wife€hasÏnot€shown€that€she€is€financially€unable€to€pay€her€attorney.€€The€findings€byÏthe€trial€court€are€supported€by€the€record.Ìà àThe€decree€of€the€trial€court€dividing€the€ESOP€is€vacated.€€The€case€isÏremanded€for€reconsideration€of€this€division€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€ÏThe€decree€is€in€all€other€respects€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessedÏone„half€against€appellant€and€one„half€against€appellee.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ó óÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌHOLLY€œKIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌó óÌ