ÿWPC­ …# VUDa %¥ 0(« 0”Ó4g { Š w@’ 0DÒ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó B)WDC€ AMÃU*í: B'v~DvÓ D3• 0@È AOÆW 0D D/a B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóƒo!3|x@  , D- . / U0 1 U2 D3 D4 Ó€@ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òNovember€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌDON€CARLOS€FORD,à àà àà àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€146200€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9510„CV„00225Ìà àPlaintiff,ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#%";+'h|B` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€WyethÏChandler,€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌBRENDA€DIANNE€FORD,ÌÌà àDefendant.ÌÌREX€L.€BRASHER,€Brown,€Brasher€&€Smith,€Memphis,€Attorney€for€Plaintiff.ÌÌKAY€FARESE€TURNER,€Turner€&€McGhee,€Memphis,€Attorney€for€Defendant.ÌÌò òòòMODIFIED€AND€AFFIRMEDó óóóÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àDon€C.€Ford€(ð ðHusbandðð)€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€ShelbyÏCounty€against€Brenda€D.€Ford€(ð ðWifeðð)€seeking€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€ofÏeither€irreconcilable€differences€or€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€WifeÏfiled€a€counter€complaint€seeking€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct€and€adultery.€€At€trial€the€parties€stipulatedÏto€inappropriate€marital€conduct€on€the€part€of€husband,€who€also€hadÍpreviously€admitted€to€one€or€more€acts€of€adultery€in€his€pretrialÏdeposition.€€Following€a€bench€trial€the€court€awarded€wife€the€divorce.€ÏThe€court€also€proceeded€to€divide€the€parties€marital€property,€directedÏhusband€to€pay€wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€and€at€the€same€time€directedÏhusband€to€pay€a€part€of€wifeððs€attorney€fees,€as€well€as€requiring€him€toÏmaintain€certain€hospitalization€and€life€insurance€for€a€specified€term.€ÏHusband€has€raised€four€issues€on€appeal:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in:Ï(1)€failing€to€make€an€equitable€division€of€the€marital€œproperty›€pursuantÏto€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121;€(2)€awarding€wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€rather€thanÏrehabilitative€alimony;€(3)€awarding€wife€attorney€fees€in€the€amount€ofÏ$2,500.00;€and€(4)€relying€upon€extrajudicial€personal€experiences€ratherÏthan€adhering€to€œthe›€evidence.€€In€addition,€wife€has€requested€damages€forÏan€alleged€frivolous€appeal.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€modifyÏand€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€also€find€that€husbandððsÏappeal€is€not€frivolous.€Ìà àMany€of€the€facts€are€undisputed.€€The€parties€were€first€married€inÏMay,€1966.€€At€that€time€wife€was€17€years€old€and€husband€was€21.€€TwoÏchildren€were€born€of€the€marriage,€a€son€Ñ7€—XXdìXXdì7Ñin€1969€and€a€daughter€in€1972.€ÏBoth€children€have€finished€college€and€are€now€residing€outside€the€home.€ÏThe€parties€were€divorced€in€1984,€but€later€remarried€in€the€latter€partÍof€1985.€€The€parties€again€separated€in€October,€1991€and€have€livedÏseparate€and€apart€since€that€time.€€ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òI.€The€Distribution€of€Marital€Propertyó óÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€divorce€or€separate€maintenance€cases€our€legislature€hasÏprovided€that€the€courts€must€equitably€divide€the€marital€property€of€theÏparties.€€It€is€husbandððs€contention€that€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€courtÏmade€an€inequitable€distribution,€with€a€larger€percentage€of€the€partiesÏproperty€going€to€wife.€€It€is€husbandððs€contention€that€the€marital€assetsÏshould€be€divided€equally€between€them.€€An€equitable€division,€however,Ïis€not€necessarily€an€equal€one.€€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€449Ï(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€The€òòBarnhillòòóó€óócourt€set€out€the€applicable€standard€ofÏreview€to€be€followed€by€an€appellate€court€in€examining€a€trial€courtððsÏdistribution€of€marital€property:ÌÓÓÌà8 àTrial€courts€are€afforded€wide€discretion€in€dividing€theÏinterests€of€parties€in€jointly€owned€property.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€distribution€œwill›€be€given€great€weight€onÏappeal,€and€will€be€presumed€to€be€correct€unless€we€find€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ÌÌòòId.óó€At€449.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellate€courts€of€this€state€are€inclined€not€to€disturb€a€trialÍcourtððs€division€of€marital€property€unless€they€find€that€the€distributionÏlacked€proper€evidentiary€support€or€results€from€either€an€error€of€law€orÏa€misapplication€of€the€statutory€requirements.€€òòThompson€v.€Thompsonóó,Ï797€S.W.2d€599,€604€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Our€scope€of€review€in€a€case€suchÏas€this€is€pursuant€to€ÌT.R.A.P.€13(d),€wherein€it€states€that€this€court€is€to€review€an€appealÏfrom€the€lower€court€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€with€findings€of€fact€in€thatÏcourt€being€presumed€to€be€correct,€unless€we€find€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€them.€€Husband€contends€that€inasmuch€as€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€make€any€specific€findings€of€fact€as€to€this€issue€there€isÏno€presumption€of€correctness€that€would€normally€otherwise€apply.€€ThisÏsub„issue€is€hotly€contested€by€the€parties.€€œWhile€the€court€did€not€makeÏspecific€findings€of€fact€the€statements€made€by€the€court€from€time€toÏtime€regarding€the€division€of€marital€property€could€be€considered€by€thisÏcourt€as€findings€of€fact.€€Nonetheless,€this€contention€only€affects€theÏexistence€and€subsequent€applicability€of€a€presumption€of€correctness,Ïwhich€is€applied€if€the€evidence€is€in€equipoise.€›€œThe›€evidence€in€this€caseÏis€of€such€a€nature€that€the€presumption€will€not€be€a€factor.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(e)€sets€forth€the€criteria€which€the€courts€of€thisÍstate€should€consider€in€making€an€equitable€distribution€of€maritalÏproperty:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(1)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;ÌÌà8 à(2)€The€age,€physical€and€mental€health,€vocational€skills,Ïemployability,€earning€capacity,€estate,€financial€liabilitiesÏand€financial€needs€of€each€of€the€parties;ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€tangible€or€intangible€contribution€by€one€(1)€party€toÏthe€education,€training,€or€increased€earning€power€of€theÏother€party;ÌÌà8 à(4)€The€relative€ability€of€each€party€for€future€acquisitions€ofÏcapital€assets€and€income;ÌÌà8 à(5)€The€contribution€of€each€party€to€the€acquisition,Ïpreservation,€appreciation€or€dissipation€of€the€marital€orÏseparate€party,€including€the€contribution€of€a€party€to€theÏmarriage€as€homemaker,€wage€earner,€or€parent;ÌÌà8 à(6)€The€value€of€the€separate€property€of€each€party;ÌÌà8 à(7)€The€estate€of€each€party€at€the€time€of€the€marriage;ÌÌà8 à(8)€The€economic€circumstances€of€each€party€at€the€time€theÏdivision€of€property€is€to€become€effective;ÌÌà8 à(9)€The€tax€circumstances€to€each€party;€and€ÌÌà8 à(10)€Such€other€factors€as€are€necessary€to€consider€theÏequities€between€the€parties.ÌÌÌÓÓà àHusband€valued€the€marital€property€in€his€Rule€14€Affidavit€atÍ$206,000.00.€€In€her€Rule€14€Affidavit,€wife€valued€the€property€atÏ$206,152.36.€€The€trial€court€evaluated€the€property€at€$206,552.36.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àHusbandððs€proposal€gave€wife€65.4%€of€the€marital€assets€with€himÏretaining€34.6%.€€The€court€in€dividing€the€property€gave€husband€31%€ofÏthe€property€with€wife€receiving€69%.€€The€division€of€marital€propertyÏproposed€by€the€wife€was€essentially€the€same€as€that€proposed€byÏhusband.€€In€reading€the€portion€of€the€record€relative€to€the€division€ofÏproperty,€the€court€also€noted€very€little€differences€of€opinion€voiced€byÏcounsel.€€While€it€is€true€that€in€husbandððs€overall€settlementÔ€Ô€proposal€heÏoffered€to€pay€wife€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€period€of€3€years€in€theÏamount€of€$1,250.00€per€month,€at€no€time€until€following€the€conclusionÏof€the€trial€courtððs€decree€did€counsel€for€husband€contend€that€theÏproposed€division€of€property€submitted€by€him€was€contingent€upon€theÏcourt€awarding€rehabilitative€alimony€as€proposed€by€husband.€€In€lookingÏat€the€evidence€presented€to€the€court€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€thereÏwas€ample€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€this€division€and€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€award.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€parties€were€married€for€twenty„eight€(28)€years.€€Wife€has€aÏhigh€school€education,€husband€has€a€college€degree.€€Wife€has€a€sporadicÍhistory€working€primarily€part„time€jobs,€principally€in€the€clerical€field.€ÏThere€is€a€great€discrepancy€in€their€respective€earning€capacities.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThere€was€undisputed€testimony€that€wife€made€contributions€to€theÏmarriage€as€homemaker.€€Husband€testified€that€she€was€a€good€wifeÏduring€the€marriage€and€was€a€good€homemaker€and€mother€to€the€children.€ÏIn€addition,€husbandððs€ability€to€replace€the€marital€assets€is€muchÏgreater€than€that€of€œwife.›€œÌÓÓÌÓÓ›à àWhile€husband€contends€that€the€trial€court€obviously€considered€theÏissue€of€fault€in€dividing€the€marital€property,€husband€fails€to€cite€to€anyÏportion€of€the€record€that€would€sustain€such€an€allegation.€€By€the€sameÏtoken,€husband€contends€that€based€upon€this€record€the€court€should€haveÏdivided€the€property€equally€between€the€parties€as€an€equitableÏdistribution.€€Here€again,€husband€fails€to€cite€to€any€part€of€the€record€toÏsupport€this€contention.€€Accordingly,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÏmerit.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà@ àò òII.€The€Awarding€of€Alimony€òòIn€Futuroó óóóÌÓÓœÌÓÓ›à àHusband€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€awarding€wifeÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó€rather€than€rehabilitative€alimony.€€The€trial€courtÍordered€husband€to€pay€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€wife€on€the€following€slidingÏscale:€$1,800.00€a€month€for€the€first€two€years;€$1,500.00€a€month€forÏthe€following€three€years,€and,€thereafter€$1,000.00€per€month.€€TheÏcessation€of€these€alimony€payments€would€take€place€upon€either€theÏdeath€or€remarriage€of€wife.€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àUntil€recent€years,€like€most€other€states,€Tennessee€has€viewed€theÏpayment€of€alimony€as€the€recognition€of€a€husbandððs€common€lawÏobligation€to€support€his€wife€or€as€compensation€for€the€wifeððsÏcontribution€to€the€marriage.€€ÌòòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€At€the€presentÏtime€this€state€has€moved€away€from€the€older€concepts€of€alimony€Ô€Ôto€theÏconcept€of€ð ðrehabilitative€alimony.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€states:ÌÓÓÌà8 àIt€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€a€spouse€who€isÏeconomically€disadvantaged€relative€to€the€other€spouse€beÏrehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€the€granting€of€an€order€forÏpayment€of€rehabilitative,€temporary€support€and€maintenance.ÌÌÌÓÓœHowever,›€rehabilitative€alimony€is€offered€as€an€alternative€to€alimony€òòinÏfuturo,óó€not€as€a€replacement.€€Section€36„5„101(d)€still€permits€theÏcourts€to€award€long„term€support€until€remarriage€or€death€of€the€spouseÏbeing€cared€for€€if€it€appears€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible.€ÍAccordingly,€our€domestic€relations€laws€governing€the€payment€ofÏalimony€still€acknowledges€that:ÌÓÓÌà8 àð ðThe€husband,€having€entered€one€of€the€strongest€mostÏfundamental€relationship€known€to€the€law,€must€continue€toÏbear€its€financial€burden€where€he€can€reasonably€do€so€andÏwhere€it€is€necessary€in€order€to€prevent€a€relatively€greaterÏhardship€to€the€wife.ððÌÌÌÓÓœH.›€Clark,€òòThe€Law€of€Domestic€Relations€in€the€United€Statesóó€ðþÿð€17.5€atÏ255€(2nd€Edition€1987).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àð ðThe€amount€of€alimony€to€be€allowed€in€any€case€is€a€matter€for€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€in€view€of€the€particular€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòIngram€v.€Ingramóó,€721€S.W.2d€262,€264€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€As€stated€by€ourÏsupreme€court€in€òòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408€(Tenn.€1995),€the€realÏneed€of€the€spouse€seeking€the€support€is€the€single€most€importantÏfactor.€€In€addition€to€the€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse,€the€courtsÏmost€often€consider€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€to€provide€support.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€ÏFurthermore,€the€amount€of€alimony€decreed€should€be€sufficient€so€ð ðthatÏthe€party€obtaining€the€divorce€[is€not]€left€in€a€worse€financial€situationÏthan€he€or€she€had€before€the€opposite€partyððs€misconduct€brought€aboutÍthe€divorce.ðð€€òòShackleford€v.€Shacklefordóó,€611€S.W.2d€598,€601€(Tenn.€App.Ï1981).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€this€case€husband€at€the€time€of€trial€was€vice„president€ofÏoperations€of€a€steel€company.€€For€the€years€1991„1994€husbandððs€annualÏincome€was€as€follows:€$77,937.00;€$84,450.00;€$91,790.00;€$91,700.00.€ÏHusbandððs€net€income€monthly€after€taxes€in€1994€was€$5,007.00€whileÏhis€monthly€expenses€in€that€year€averaged€$2,457.35.€€On€the€other€hand,Ïas€already€noted,€wife€married€husband€right€out€of€high€school,€whichÏexcept€for€a€nine€month€business€course€some€20€odd€years€ago,€is€the€sumÏtotal€of€her€education.€€During€the€early€part€of€her€first€marriage€toÏhusband,€wife€worked€three€days€a€week€as€a€part„time€employee,€makingÏ$5.50€per€hour€in€a€sales€capacity.€€After€the€separation€of€the€parties€inÏ1991,€following€the€second€marriage,€she€worked€part„time€at€an€eyeÏœclinic,›€earning€slightly€more€than€that.€€Her€work€experience€throughoutÏher€career,€to€the€extent€that€she€has€worked,€has€been€in€the€clericalÏfield.€€She€has€no€training€that€would€allow€her€to€obtain€a€higher€payingÏjob.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial€below,€wife€anticipated€the€possibility€ofÏbeing€employed€at€the€eye€clinic€in€Memphis€full„€time,€should€theÏopportunity€develop.€€She€was€paid€$5.50€per€hour€when€she€began€herÍemployment€there€and€was€making€$7.50€per€hour€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€ÏAs€a€part„time€employee€she€has€no€opportunity€to€be€placed€under€anyÏretirement€plan€or€a€health/hospitalization€insurance€plan.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àFor€a€substantial€portion€of€the€period€of€separation,€during€part€ofÏwhich€time€the€partiesðð€younger€child€was€in€residence€with€wife,€husbandÏvoluntarily€paid€to€wife€as€ð ðmaintenanceðð€for€her€and€their€children€twoÏthousand€($2,000.00)€dollars€to€two€thousand€two€hundred€($2,200.00)Ïdollars€per€month.€€For€several€months€prior€to€the€divorce,€during€whichÏtime€both€children€had€permanently€moved€out€of€the€home,€husbandÏvoluntarily€reduced€that€to€one€thousand€($1,000.00)€dollars€per€month.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àHusband€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€make€a€thresholdÏdetermination€that€wife€was€not€subject€to€rehabilitation€prior€toÏawarding€her€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€œ›€œWhile›€the€trial€court€œdid€not€make€aÏspecific€findings€and€identify€it€as€such,›€we€think€that€nonetheless€theÏtrial€court€did€make€such€a€finding,€as€reflected€by€these€remarks:ÌÌÓÓà8 àTHE€COURT:€How€this€lady€feels€that€sheððs€now€going€to€go€offÏinto€a€world€of€her€own,€sheððs€going€to€„„€sheððs€always€has€aÏstrong€right€arm€there,€primary€earner€of€her€family,€and€itððsÏbeen€„„€and€for€no€„„€what€she€considers€certainly€no€reason€ofÏhers€sheððs€now€going€to€be€thrust€out€into€the€working€dayÍwork€at€an€age€when€great€progress€in€earnings€is€pretty€tough.ÌÌà8 àThis€fellow€understands€that€also.€€He€says€maybe€she€shouldÏgo€back€here€and€be€a€whatever,€ophthalmologist€orÏoptometrist,€but€she€canððt€in€my€judgment.€€If€she€could,€itÏwould€cost€a€bundle,€maybe€as€much€as€weððre€talking€about€forÏfive€years.€€I€donððt€know.ÌÌà8 àBut€in€addition€to€what€sheððs€making€„„€of€course,€because€sheÏcanððt€earn€the€money€and€go€to€optometry€school.€€She€mightÏlearn€something€about€optometry€and€she€might€learn€moreÏthan€she€knows€about€lenses€and€so€forth€and€so€on,€but€sheÏwonððt€be€able€to€be€an€optometrist€in€my€judgment€withoutÏgoing€back€to€school€and€then€going€over€here€and€competingÏwith€these€twenty„two€year€old€recent€college€graduates.€€ItððsÏjust€too€tough.ÌÌà8 àMR.€BRASHER:€Judge,€we€werenððt€even€offering€that.ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:€I€understand.€€What€Iððm€saying€is€that€„„€Iððm€just€„„€what€Iððm€seeking€in€her€case€is€not€something€I€particularlyÏlike€to€see,€but€I€see€a€very€tough€time€for€her€to€make€a€lot€ofÏprogress.€€You€know,€weððve€got€twenty„five€year€old€lady€thatÏcan€jump€over€here€and€go€to€two€years€of€nursing€school€and€IÏslap€her€heavy€load€on€this€fellow€who€is€working€and€sheððsÏworked€hard€to€send€him€through€school€and€I€say,€look,€youððreÏgoing€over€here€now€and€youððll€have€enough€money€to€go€toÏschool€and€this€and€that€and€the€other€and€take€care€of€yourÏbaby€and€all€and€get€out€of€nursing€school,€be€a€nurse,€and€afterÏthree€years€itððs€gone.ÌÌà8 àI€like€that.€€I€mean,€thatððs€the€way€it€ought€to€be.€€People€oughtÏto€be€able€to€get€out€and€get€on€their€own€and€so€forth.€€After€aÏmarriage€of€this€duration€and€after€„„€I€mean,€this€lady€cameÏout€of€Jonesboro,€Arkansas.€€She€worked€„„€apparently€eitherÏwas€taking€care€of€children€or€doing€some€kind€of€part„timeÏwork€throughout€this€marriage.ÌÌà8 àNow,€sheððs€not€going€to€be€a€heavy€money€maker.€€Sheððs€just€notÏgoing€to€be.€€The€difference€between€this€lady€and€her€husbandÏis€astronomical€in€terms€of€earning€capacity.€€This€man€mayÏbecome€the€president€of€this€corporation€and€who€knows€what?€ÏHe€may€be€in€the€three€hundred€thousand.€€We€donððt€know.€€WeÏcanððt€„„€weððre€not€basing€anything€on€it,€but€heððs€got€that€kindÏof€potential.€€You€can€see€from€the€way€he€carries€himself,€hisÏdemeanor.€€Heððs€a€„„€heððs€good.€€Sheððs€not€going€to€do€that.ÌÌà8 àNow,€I€understand€heððs€got€a€new€life€and€all€those€expenses,Ïand€Iððm€sure€that€his€bride€to€be€or€whatever€is€just€unhappy€asÏshe€can€be€about€the€prospect€of€having€checks€written€to€thisÏlady€for€life.€€I€mean,€thatððs€just€overwhelming.ÌÌà8 àIððve€been€on€all€sides€of€this€very€issue.€€I€donððt€favor€longÏterm€alimony.€€I€donððt€think€that€itððs€the€thing€the€legislatureÏfavors.€€I€donððt€favor€it€in€my€own€feelings€about€it.€€If€I€couldÏput€the€person€„„€educate€them€and€send€them€out€to€makeÏtheir€money€and€see€in€the€future€if€theyððre€willing€to€put€theÏshoulder€to€the€wheel€and€going€to€be€„„€theyððre€going€to€turnÏtheir€life€around€and€be€able€to€live€the€normal€life€that€theyÏwere€living,€thatððs€fine.€€Iððd€do€it.ÌÌà8 àMr.€Brasher,€Iððm€not€sure€I€can€see€that€yet€in€the€picture,€and€IÏdonððt€see€really€that€your€œman›€sees€it.€€He€doesnððt€say,€look,Ïletððs€give€her€four€thousand€a€month€for€two€years€and€let€herÏbecome€a€nurse€practitioner€or€whatever.€€Then€she€can€makeÏtwenty„five€thousand€dollars€a€year.€€I€donððt€think€he€thinksÏœthat€thatððs›€going€to€be€the€future€for€her€or€should€even€be€theÏfuture€for€her.ÌÌà8 àHe€knows,€and€itððs€always€been€this€way,€that€sheððs€kind€ofÏworked€as€a€secretarial€person€that€you€see€in€a€millionÏoffices€all€over€the€world.€€Sheððs€not€just€a€stenographer.€ÏSheððs€not€the€œsupersecretary›.€€Sheððs€not€the€hundred€andÏwhatever€it€is€forty€words€a€minute€person.€€Sheððs€the€one€thatÏkeeps€the€books€on€the€one€hand,€answers€the€phone,€takes€theÏ„„€makes€the€„„€makes€the€appointments,€takes€care€ofÍbusiness.ÌÌà8 àShe€kind€of€does€the€job€in€the€office€that€nobody€ever€reallyÏwants€to€do,€and€heððs€right.€€She€is€attractive.€€SheððsÏpersonable,€and€sheððll€do€the€type€of€job€and€do€it€well€and€getÏthis€full€time€deal€and€make€more€money€at€it€and€get€raises.€ÏThere€is€no€doubt€about€that.ÌÌà8 àBut€after€this€man€drops€this€money€off€and€now€we€see€herÏover€here€making€whatever€her€income€would€be€at€best,Ïbecause€of€him€saying€farewell,€I€found€another€somebody€orÏwe€werenððt€able€to€work€it€out,€whatever€heððs€saying,€sheððsÏgoing€to€be€down€to€poverty€row,€and€I€donððt€know€that€I€canÏsee€that.€€I€just€„„€I€donððt€know€that€he€really€wants€to€seeÏthat.ÌÌà8 àSo€he€says,€well,€fifteen€hundred€for€five€years,€but€at€the€endÏof€five€years€where€is€she€going€to€be?€€Itððs€going€to€be€theÏsame€thing€it€is€today€in€my€judgment,€a€little€better,€fiveÏdays€a€week€but€then€sheððll€have€this€insurance€maybe€to€payÏand€then€sheððll€have€this€to€pay.ÌÌÌÓÓà àFurthermore,€we€are€constrained€to€note€that€fault€may€beÏconsidered€a€factor€in€the€fixing€of€spousal€support.€€òòœLuna›€v.€Lunaóó,€718ÏS.W.2d€673,€675€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€There€is€nothing€specific€in€this€recordÏto€reflect€upon€any€domestic€misfeasance€or€malfeasance€by€wife,€eitherÏin€the€marriage€just€ended€by€this€divorce€or€the€prior€marriage€that€wasÏended€by€divorce€in€1984.€€On€the€other€hand,€it€seems€clear€to€this€courtÏthat€a€persistent€pattern€of€marital€infidelity€on€the€part€of€husband€ledÏto€the€breakup€of€the€parties€first€marriage,€and€not€withstanding€anÍexpressed€uncontradicted€commitment€by€wife€as€well€as€by€husband€thatÏthe€second€marriage€was€ð ðforeverðð,€in€the€brief€period€just€prior€to€theÏpartiesðð€separation€in€1991€to€the€time€of€trial,€husband€had€engaged€inÏnot€one€but€two€extramarital€affairs.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,€husbandÏwas€sharing€his€conjugal€nest€with€a€thirty„eight€year€old€young€womanÏwith€whom€he€had€been€involved€for€over€one€year.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€awarding€wifeÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó,€conditioned€to€terminate€upon€the€death€of€one€of€theÏparties€or€wifeððs€remarriage.€€œAlimony›€òòin€futuroóó€is€based,€as€noted,€uponÏneed,€along€with€the€ability€to€pay.€€There€is€no€question€about€husbandððsÏability€to€pay.€€The€need€of€the€wife€is€as€expressed€to€the€trial€court€inÏthe€record€through€her€Rule€14€statement€of€income€and€expenses€enlargedÏupon€and€supported€by€her€testimony.€€The€fixing€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€isÏbased€upon€these€known€factors€known€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€WhileÏthere€may€be€a€change€in€circumstances€in€the€future,€it€is€speculation€onÏthe€part€of€the€trial€court€to€ascertain€at€that€time€that€in€a€specifiedÏperiod€in€the€future€wifeððs€needs€will€decrease,€and€to€what€extent€theyÏwill€decrease.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€making€his€ruling,€the€trial€court€noted€that€some€of€the€items€onÍwifeððs€Rule€14€œAffidavit›€were€perhaps€a€bit€high.€€In€reading€the€recordÏthis€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€wifeððs€testimony,€as€brought€out€by€bothÏdirect€and€cross„examination,€does€not€support€the€full€amount€of€thoseÏitems€relative€to€church€tithes,€personal€entertainment,€and€to€someÏextent€miscellaneous€expenses.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€wifeððs€alimonyÏòòin€futuroóó€should€be€set€at€one€thousand€four€hundred€and€fifty€($1,450.00)Ïper€month,€to€be€terminated€upon€either€death€or€remarriage€of€wife.ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òIII.€Attorney€Feesó óÌÌÌÓÓà àHusband€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€directing€himÏto€pay€the€sum€of€two€thousand€five€hundred€($2,500.00)€dollars€towardsÏwifeððs€attorney€fees.€€Attorney€fee€awards€are€considered€as€alimony.€ÏòòGilliam€v.€Gilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€The€awarding€ofÏattorney€fees€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€andÏunless€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€an€award,€weÏwill€not€disturb€it€on€appeal.€€òòStorey€v.€Storeyóó,€835€S.W.2d€593,€599€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1992).€€This€record€reveals€that€the€two€thousand€five€hundredÏ($2,500.00)€dollars€awarded€is€not€a€substantial€portion€of€the€totalÏattorney€fees€wife€is€obligated€to€pay€her€lawyer.€€It€is€this€courtððsÏreaction€that€the€total€amount€being€charged€was€a€reasonable€one.€€TheÍbackground€of€this€award€is€as€follows:€for€some€unexplained€reason€wifeÏhad€not€identified€a€particular€checking€account€of€hers,€which€containedÏfive€thousand€($5,000.00)€dollars.€€The€trial€court€proceeded€with€noÏobjection€from€husbandððs€counsel€to€evenly€divide€this€account€betweenÏhusband€and€wife€and€allocated€husbandððs€portion€to€wifeððs€attorney€fees.€ÏUpon€considering€the€relative€financial€position€of€the€two€parties,Ïincluding€but€not€limited€to€the€ability€of€each€party€to€increase€theirÏassets€and€their€respective€earning€power,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€alimony€award.€€Accordingly,Ïthis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òIV.€Any€Judicial€Prejudiceó óÌÌÌÓÓà àHusband€contends€that€in€several€aspects€of€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÏthe€trial€judge€relied€upon€his€personal€experiences,€extrajudicial€inÏnature,€rather€than€following€the€evidence€set€forth€in€the€record.€ÏSpecifically,€husband€contends€that€the€trial€court€drew€upon€its€personalÏexperience€of€having€been€married€three€times€in€determining€the€outcomeÏof€the€case€at€hand.€€In€this€husband€is€mistaken.€€The€trial€courtððsÏreference€to€its€three€previous€marriages€dealt€with€an€issue€regardingÏthe€possible€cessation€of€alimony€upon€husbandððs€receipt€of€socialÍsecurity.€€The€courtððs€comment€in€this€regard€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àI€donððt€deal€in€these€things€often.€€I€know€that€at€one€time€I€hadÏbeen€married€three€times,€and€all€three€of€them€were€going€toÏdraw€my€social€security.€€I€donððt€know€what€that€meant,€but€itÏopened€my€eyes€to€whatever€the€Federal€Government€has,€someÏkind€of€program€where€all€wives€can€get€in€line€and€draw€theÏsame€amount.€€How€they€can€do€it€I€donððt€know.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Lastly,€we€are€also€of€the€opinion€thatÏhusbandððs€appeal€is€not€frivolous.€€œÌÓÓ›œÌÓÓ›œ›œ›à àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€Costs€inÏthis€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€4/5thððs€to€husband€and€1/5th€to€wife,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô€Ôà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì