ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€ìªv~–vÓ Bç D3 0@7 AOwÆÆ 0DŒ D/Ð Bÿ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ZE[U\D]D^P_E`Pa£bÓ€nz!œœœœœœ3|xn2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òOctober€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌROBIN€GAIL€HERRERA,ó óà à)à àShelby€County€Chancery€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€21453„3€R.D.Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9409„CH„00213ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€ ";+'h|ãÿK` Å `€€Lß›à à)Ìò òFERNANDO€ANTONIO€HERRERA,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€D.€€J.€Alissandratos,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òStevan€L.€Blackó ó,ÌBLACK,€BOBANGO€&€MORGAN,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òDavid€E.€Caywoodó ó,Ìò òMarc€E.€Reismanó ó,ÌCAUSEY,€CAYWOOD,€TAYLOR€&€McMANUS,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHAYES,€œSp.€J.›€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` ܘXÓÓÓà àIn€this€divorce€action,€Fernando€Antonio€Herrera€(hereinafter€ð ðHusbandðð€or€ð ðDr.ÏHerreraðð)€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€the€award€of€custody€of€the€partiesððÏminor€children€as€well€as€the€amount€of€child€support,€rehabilitative€alimony,€marital€debt€andÏattorneyððs€fees€for€which€Dr.€Herrera€was€held€responsible.€€In€addition,€he€also€appeals€theÏChancellorððs€reliance€upon€the€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report€and€recommendations,€the€ChancellorððsÏrefusal€to€disqualify€himself€from€presiding€over€the€contempt€proceedings€against€Dr.€Herrera€andÏthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€guilty€of€criminal€contempt.€€ÌÌà@ àòòFACTSóóÌÌà àFernando€Antonio€Herrera€and€Robin€Gayle€Prater€Herrera€(hereinafter€ð ðWifeðð€orÏð ðMrs.€Herreraðð),€were€married€in€November€1984.€€From€this€union,€two€children€were€born,ÏRobin€Evan€Herrera€in€January€1986€and€Alexander€Prater€Herrera€in€February€1988.€€Dr.€HerreraÏis€a€thoracic€and€cardiovascular€surgeon€in€private€practice€in€Memphis.€€Evidence€introduced€atÏtrial€indicated€that€Husband€has€earned€in€the€past€income€approaching€$1€million.€€However,€hisÏincome€has€been€reduced€in€recent€years€due€to€a€reduction€in€the€Medicare€reimbursements€and€aÏdecline€in€physician€referrals.€€On€May€13,€1993,€Dr.€Herrera€filed€for€bankruptcy.€ÌÌà àMrs.€Herrera€was€trained€as€a€registered€nurse€and€practiced€from€1978€until€1983.€ÏIn€1984,€she€worked€for€a€short€time€as€a€real€estate€broker€and€from€February€1985€untilÏDecember€1985€she€worked€in€Dr.€Herreraððs€office€in€the€collections€area.€€From€December€1985Ïuntil€the€initiation€of€the€divorce€proceedings,€Mrs.€Herrera€was€not€employed€outside€the€home.€ÏHowever,€after€instituting€the€divorce€she€began€working€in€the€mortgage€banking€business.€€It€isÏundisputed€that€Mrs.€Herrera€was€the€primary€care€giver€to€the€partiesðð€two€children.€€In€addition,Íshe€was€active€in€both€civic€and€social€affairs,€including€the€Medical€Society€Auxiliary€and€theÏHeart€Gala.€€Many€of€these€activities,€including€the€Heart€Gala,€were€an€effort€to€build€Dr.ÏHerreraððs€practice€by€increasing€referrals€which€are€the€basis€of€his€practice.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Herrera€had€four€children€from€a€prior€marriage,€and€he€paid€a€total€of€$5,200Ïper€month€to€his€ex„wife€which€was€unallocated€between€alimony€and€child€support.€€The€threeÏoldest€children€reached€the€age€of€majority€prior€to€the€hearing€of€this€cause,€and€the€youngestÏchild,€Andrew€Herrera,€lived€with€his€father€at€the€time€of€the€proceedings.€€It€was€revealed€at€trialÏthat€Dr.€Herreraððs€ex„wife€was€paying€his€attorneysðð€fees€in€the€instant€proceedings.€€ÌÌà àThe€final€decree€of€divorce€was€entered€on€January€24,€1994.€€The€trial€courtÏawarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children€to€Mrs.€Herrera€and€gave€Dr.€Herrera€liberalÏvisitation€privileges.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Dr.€Herrera€to€pay€$3,500€per€month€as€child€supportÏand€to€maintain€both€a€health€insurance€policy€for€the€children€and€a€$1€million€life€insurance€policyÏuntil€the€youngest€child€reached€the€age€of€majority.€€In€addition,€he€was€ordered€to€pay€privateÏschool€tuition€for€the€children€at€Presbyterian€Day€School€in€Memphis.€€Wife€was€awarded€theÏpartiesðð€two€homes€located€at€2891€Central€Avenue€and€2900€Central€Avenue€both€in€Memphis,ÏTennessee.€€In€addition,€Wife€assumed€all€debts€outstanding€on€the€property.€€Husband€wasÏawarded€all€other€real€property€owned€by€the€couple€including€their€Mississippi€farm,€FloridaÏcondominium€and€an€unimproved€lot€located€in€Shelby€County.€€Costs€were€adjudged€againstÏHusband.€€Dr.€Herrera€was€ordered€to€pay€all€debts€of€the€parties€which€had€not€otherwise€beenÏdistributed.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€Dr.€Herrera€to€pay€$2,500€per€month€to€Mrs.€Herrera€asÏrehabilitative€alimony€for€sixty€months€and€to€pay€all€her€attorneysðð€fees,€expenses€and€costsÏassociated€in€this€cause€which€totaled€$101,916.51.€€Such€sum€was€to€be€payable€at€the€rate€ofÏ$2,000€per€month€at€5%€interest.€€Because€of€the€contemporaneous€bankruptcy€proceeding,€theÏchancery€court€ordered€that,€except€for€the€property€transfers,€all€amounts€to€be€paid€were€to€beÏconsidered€for€the€maintenance€and€support€of€the€plaintiff€and€the€partiesðð€minor€children€andÍwere,€therefore,€non„dischargeable€in€bankruptcy,€by€application€of€òòò òIn€re€Calhounóóó ó,€715€F.2dÏ1103€(6th€Cir.€1983).ÌÌà àOn€February€8,€1994,€Wife€filed€a€petition€for€òòò òscire€faciasó óóó€because€of€Dr.ÏHerreraððs€failure€to€pay€his€support€obligations.€€Dr.€Herrera€missed€two€court€appearances€onÏWifeððs€petition,€and€the€Chancellor€issued€an€ð ðOrder€of€Attachment€Pro€Corpus.ðð€€Husband€filed€aÏmotion€to€disqualify€the€Chancellor€from€presiding€over€the€contempt€proceedings.€€The€motionÏwas€denied.€€The€trial€court€found€defendant€guilty€of€criminal€contempt€because€of€willfulÏnonpayment€of€his€support€obligations€due€on€February€1,€February€15,€March€1€and€March€15,Ï1994.€€The€Chancellor€determined€that€Husband€owed€Wife€$5,700€in€support€obligations€and€anÏadditional€$5,478.25€in€legal€expenses.€€In€addition,€the€Chancellor€ordered€Husband€to€beÏincarcerated€for€a€period€of€six€(6)€months€to€be€served€in€24„hour€monthly€increments.ÌÌà@ àòòISSUES€ON€APPEALóóÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI.€€Did€the€Chancellor€err€in€admitting€into€evidence€andÏconsidering€the€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report€and€recommendation?ÌÌà8 àà àII.€€Did€the€Chancellor€err€in€awarding€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€two€minor€children€to€Ms.€Herrera?ÌÌà8 àà àIII.€€Did€the€Chancellor€err€in€finding€Dr.€HerreraÏunderemployed,€and€as€a€result,€erred€in€setting€the€amount€of€childÏsupport?ÌÌà8 àà àIV.€€Did€the€Chancellor€err€in€setting€the€amount€of€alimony,Ïincluding:€(a)€awarding€an€excessive€amount€of€rehabilitativeÏalimony€to€Ms.€Herrera;€(b)€classifying€the€marital€debt€as€alimonyÏand€requiring€Dr.€Herrera€to€pay€virtually€all€of€it;€and€(c)€awardingÏMs.€Herrera€virtually€all€of€her€attorney€fees€totaling€$101,916.51?ÌÌà8 àà àV.€€Did€the€Chancellor€err€in€refusing€to€disqualify€himselfÏfrom€presiding€over€the€contempt€proceeding€against€Dr.€Herrera?ÌÌà8 àà àVI.€€Did€the€Chancellor€err€in€finding€Dr.€Herrera€guilty€ofÏcriminal€contempt;€or€in€the€alternative,€did€the€Chancellor€impose€anÏexcessive€punishment?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòGUARDIAN€AD€LITEMóóÌÌà àThe€trial€court€appointed€Lesley€Gattis€Coleman€as€Guardian€Ad€Litem€to€protect€theÏinterests€of€the€minor€children.€€Pursuant€to€her€duties,€Ms.€Coleman€conducted€interviews€of€theÏparties€and€children,€their€friends,€colleagues,€employees€and€teachers€as€well€as€two€psychologistsÏwho€had€interviewed€the€children€and€Dr.€and€Mrs.€Herrera.€€Colemanððs€findings€andÏrecommendations€were€incorporated€into€the€ð ðReport€of€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem.ðð€€Specifically,€theÏGuardian€Ad€Litem€recommended€that€primary€custody€be€given€to€Mrs.€Herrera€with€liberalÏvisitation€to€be€given€to€Dr.€Herrera.€€The€Chancellor€ultimately€adopted,ò ò€òòinter€aliaó óóó,€the€findingsÏand€recommendations€of€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem,€over€the€Husbandððs€objections.ÌÌà àDr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€andÏconsidering€the€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report€because€the€report€contained€inadmissible€hearsayÏunder€Rule€802€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Furthermore,€by€adopting€the€Guardian€AdÏLitemððs€findings,€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€exceeded€the€scope€of€the€Guardian€AdÏLitemððs€appointment.€€The€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report€contained€statements€made€by€Dr.€ElizabethÏHarris,€Dr.€Robert€Burkhalter€and€the€Guardian€herself.€€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€such€statementsÏwere€made€out€of€court€and€were€offered€at€trial€as€the€truth.€€As€such,€the€statements€areÏinadmissible€hearsay€that€do€not€fall€€within€any€of€the€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule€found€inÏRules€803€and€804,€T.R.E.€€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€for€the€Chancellor€to€conclusively€adopt€theÏunsworn€report€of€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem€constitutes€reversible€error.€ÌÌà àAssuming,€òòò òarguendoó óóó,€that€Dr.€Herrera€is€correct€and€that€the€report€of€theÏGuardian€Ad€Litem€contains€inadmissible€hearsay,€we€conclude€that€the€admission€of€the€GuardianÏAd€Litemððs€report,€was,€at€the€most,€non„reversible€error.€€òòò òSeeóóó ó€Rule€36(b)€T.R.A.P.€€TheÏtranscript€of€the€divorce€proceedings€clearly€indicates€that€the€trial€court€did€not€rely€entirely€uponÏthe€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report.€€As€the€trial€court€noted€during€the€divorce€hearing:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAs€to€the€issue€of€custody,€the€Court€will€adopt€the€findingsÏand€recommendations€of€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem€after€carefullyÏconsidering€not€only€that€proof€as€presented€.€.€.€through€her€reportÏòòò òand€the€proof€of€this€cause€and€having€interviewed€theÏchildrenó óóó.€€(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€record€is€replete€with€evidence€introduced€by€both€parties€as€it€relates€to€the€comparative€fitnessÏof€each€parent€to€be€the€custodial€parent.€€In€addition,€the€Chancellor€interviewed€the€children€asÏrequested€by€Dr.€Herrera.€€As€noted€by€the€trial€court€when€making€its€findings€of€fact:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Court€further€finds€that€the€other€reasons€for€theÏnecessity€of€the€granting€of€that€custody€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€Court€does€find€that€Dr.€Herrera€is€an€intimidating,Ïaggressive,€volatile,€have€his€own€way€kind€of€person.€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓTherefore,€since€the€trial€court€expressly€considered€evidence€in€addition€to€the€GuardianððsÏrecommendations,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€any€error€that€may€have€been€committed€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€considering€the€Guardianððs€recommendations€was€harmless€and€does€not€merit€reversal€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision.òòò ò€€McKeehan€v.€McKeehanó óóó,€No.€02A01„9407„CV„00165€(Nov.€21,Ï1995).€ÌÌ€à@ àòòCUSTODYóóÌÌà àDr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€was€in€error€in€awarding€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€two€children€to€Wife.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€conclusively€relied€uponÏthe€report€and€recommendations€of€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem€and€that€the€Chancellor€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€weighing€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€€In€essence,€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€heÏwould€be€the€better€custodial€parent.ÌÌà àIn€order€to€make€a€determination€concerning€the€custody€of€children,€the€trial€courtÏmust€look€to€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.òòò ò€€Scarbrough€v.€Scarbroughó óóó,€752€S.W.2d€94,Ï96€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Factors€to€consider€include,€but€are€not€limited€to€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[A]ge,€habits,€mental€and€emotional€make„up€of€the€child€and€thoseÏparties€competing€for€custody;€the€education€and€experience€of€thoseÏseeking€to€raise€the€child;€their€character€and€propensities€asÏevidenced€by€their€past€conduct;€the€financial€and€physicalÏcircumstances€available€in€the€home€of€each€party€seeking€custodyÏand€the€special€requirements€of€the€child;€the€availability€and€extentÏof€third€party€support;€the€associations€and€influences€to€which€theÏchild€is€most€likely€to€be€exposed€[and]€the€alternatives€afforded,Ïboth€positive€and€negative;€and€where€is€the€greater€likelihood€of€anÏenvironment€for€the€child€of€love,€warmth,€stability,€support,Ïconsistency,€care€and€concern,€and€physical€and€spiritual€nurture.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€these€proceedings,€the€trial€court€had€an€opportunity€toÏobserve€personalities,€responsibilities,€demeanor,€credibility€and€suitability€of€each€parent€to€serveÏas€the€custodial€parent.€€Mrs.€Herrera€was€the€parent€who,€on€a€day„to„day€basis,€took€care€of€theÏchildren€throughout€their€young€lives.€€She€had€spent€as€much€as€eight€to€ten€hours€per€day€withÏthe€children€attending€to€their€physical€needs€such€as€waking€them,€bathing€them,€dressing€themÏand€buying€their€clothes.€€In€addition,€Mrs.€Herrera€also€took€the€children€to€the€zoo,€circus,Ïmuseums€as€well€as€accompanied€them€on€vacations€and€birthday€parties.€€She€played€with€them,Ïread€to€them€and€became€involved€with€their€school€activities€and€their€school€work.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€an€ð ðintimidating,€aggressive,Ïvolatile,€have€his€own€way€kind€of€person.ðð€€The€Chancellor€also€found€that€Mrs.€Herrera€was€notÏð ðthe€complete€opposite€of€all€these€thingsðð€and€that€neither€Dr.€Herrera€nor€Mrs.€Herrera€was€asÏgood€a€parent€as€he€or€she€should€have€been.€€Nevertheless,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court€should€be€given€great€weight€as€they€relate€to€issues€surrounding€childÍcustody.€€ð ðAbsent€some€compelling€reason€otherwise,€considerable€weight€must€be€given€to€theÏjudgment€of€the€Trial€Court€[in€a€divorce€proceeding]€in€respect€to€credibility€and€suitabilityðð€of€theÏparties€as€custodians.òòò ò€€Bush€v.€Bushó óóó,€684€S.W.2d€89,€95€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€The€trial€courtsÏare€vested€with€a€wide€discretion€in€matters€of€child€custody,€and€the€reviewing€courts€will€notÏinterfere€except€upon€a€showing€of€erroneous€exercise€of€that€discretion.€€òòò òGrant€v.€Grantó óóó,€286ÏS.W.2d€349,€350€(Tenn.€App.€1954).€€The€trial€court€enjoys€a€substantial€advantage€in€having€theÏopportunity€to€see,€hear€and€evaluate€the€parents€suitability€as€custodians.€€òòò òMimms€v.€Mimmsó óóó,Ï780€S.W.2d€739,€745€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€As€this€Court€noted€in€òòò òBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2dÏ663:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]his€Court€will,€however,€give€great€weight€to€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€because€the€judge€saw€the€witnesses€face€to€face€and€heardÏthem€testify;€this€rule€being€based€upon€the€assumption€that€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€act€arbitrarily€or€willfully€but€with€the€regard€to€what€isÏright€and€equitable,€òòò òconsidering€first€the€childððs€bestÏinterest€as€directed€by€his€reason€and€conscienceÏtowards€the€childððs€welfareó óóó.€€ÌÌÌòòò òBah,óóó ó€668€S.W.2d€at€665€(quoting,€òòò òRiddick€v.€Riddickóóó ó,€497€S.W.2d€740€(Tenn.€App.€1973)).€€€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€true€test€for€the€award€of€custody€is€to€arrive€at€the€point€of€deciding€withÏwhom€to€place€the€child€in€preparation€for€a€caring€and€productive€adult€life.€€òòò òBahó óóó€at€665„66.€€It€isÏnoted€by€this€Court€in€òòò òKoch€v.€Kochó óóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€App.€1993),€that€theÏwelfare€and€best€interest€of€the€children€are€of€paramount€concern€in€custody€cases.€€òòò òSee€also,ÏMollish€v.€Mollishóóó ó,€494€S.W.2d€145,€151€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€Fitness€for€custodialÏresponsibilities€is€a€comparative€matter€that€the€trial€court€is€required€to€make.€€òòò òSee€Bah€v.€Bahóóó ó,Ï668€S.W.2d€at€666.€€Nowhere€is€the€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÏmore€applicable€than€in€matters€of€child€custody€where€the€surrounding€testimony€is€complex€andÏinvolved€and€frequently€filled€with€disputes€and€acrimony.€€òòò òSee€Nicks€v.€Nicksóóó ó,€369€S.W.2dÏ909,€912€(Tenn.€App.€1962).€€As€noted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòò òCecil€v.€State€ex.ÏRel.€Cecilóóó ó,€237€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1951):ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€cases€involving€child€custody,€the€decision€of€the€TrialÏJudge€who€saw€and€heard€the€witnesses,€is€to€be€given€great,€if€notÏcontrolling€effect,€and€we€will€interfere€only€where€we€find€aÏpalpable€abuse€of€discretion,€or€a€judgment€against€the€great€weightÏof€the€evidence.€€ÌÌÌÌòòò òCecilóóó ó,€237€S.W.2d€at€559.ÌÌÌÓÓà àUpon€examination€of€the€transcript€and€record€in€this€cause€it€is€apparent€that€theÏChancellor€gave€great€consideration€to€the€comparative€fitness€of€Dr.€Herrera€and€Mrs.€Herrera€toÏserve€as€custodial€parents.€€The€Chancellor€concluded€that€Mrs.€Herrera€was€the€better€of€the€twoÏparents€to€have€primary€custody€of€the€children.€€Nevertheless,€Dr.€Herrera€was€granted€liberalÏvisitation€privileges.€€The€Chancellorððs€decision€in€this€regard€is€presumed€to€be€correct€and€shouldÏbe€upheld€on€appeal€because€the€evidence€presented€to€this€Court€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings.€€Rule€13(d)€T.R.A.P.ÌÌà@ àòòCHILD€SUPPORTóóÌÌà àIn€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce,€the€Chancellor€ordered€Dr.€Herrera€to€pay€monthlyÏchild€support€in€the€amount€of€$3,500.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€Dr.€Herrera€to€pay€theÏchildren's€school€tuition,€books,€lunches,€activity€fees,€school€trips€and€tutoring,€if€necessary.€€InÏaddition,€Dr.€Herrera€was€ordered€to€maintain€health€insurance€and€life€insurance€for€the€benefit€ofÏthe€children€and€to€pay€the€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€fee.€€€On€appeal,€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€trialÏcourt€ordered€child€support€in€an€amount€that€exceeds€his€ability€to€pay.€€ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(2)€provides€that€child€support€awards€are€to€be€governed€byÏthe€guidelines€promulgated€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services,€and€that€courts€are€toÏfollow€these€guidelines€when€setting€child€support.€€The€amount€of€child€support€is€ð ð.€.€.€based€onÏa€flat€percentage€of€the€net€income€.€.€.€of€the€obligor€depending€on€the€number€of€children€to€beÍsupported.ðð€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03(2)(1991).€€If€the€trial€court€determines€thatÏthe€obligor€spouse's€monthly€income€exceeds€$6,250,€then€the€child€support€guidelines€may€not€beÏappropriate.€€òòò òNash€v.€Mulleó óóó,€846€S.W.2d€803,€805€(Tenn.€1993).€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)Ï(1995)€provides€that€in€those€situations€which€warrant€a€deviation€from€the€child€supportÏguidelines,€the€trial€court€must€make€ð ð.€.€.€a€written€finding€that€the€application€of€the€child€supportÏguidelines€would€be€.€.€.€inappropriate€in€that€particular€case,€.€.€.ðð€€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€deviated€from€the€child€support€guidelines€upon€itsÏfinding€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€underemployed.€€The€Chancellor€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAs€to€this€issue€of€child€support,€the€Court€finds€that€Dr.ÏHerrera€has€an€ability€to€pay€beyond€that€which€he€has€presentlyÏpresented€before€this€Court.€€The€Court€finds€that€he€is€underÏemployed.€€It€is€not€because€he€is€lazy€because€he€[is]€not.€€He€is€aÏhard€working€man.€€It€is€because€he€has€allowed€himself€to€be€soÏobsessed€excessively€with€this€litigation.€€That€the€Court€finds€thatÏonce€this€litigation€is€over€that€he€will€be€free€to€now€be€far€moreÏgainfully€employed.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓIn€setting€the€amount€of€child€support,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Dr.€Herrera€could€return€to€aÏsubstantial€income€level€by€devoting€more€time€to€his€medical€practice.€€In€setting€the€child€supportÏamount,€the€Chancellor€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€child€support€therefore€should€be€thirty„five€hundredÏdollars€per€month€and€I€find€that€is€consistent€with€guidelines€basedÏupon€what€this€Court€finds€is€the€true€income€capability€of€Dr.ÏHerrera,€even€given€some€of€the€other€aspects€that€the€Court€isÏmindful€of€that€Mr.€Thompson€pointed€out,€which€is€the€reduction€inÏMedicare€charges€and€collectibility€and€the€loss€of€this€long€standingÏrelationship€in€the€Kennett,€Missouri€hospital.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓDr.€Herrera€asserts€that€he€is€not€underemployed€because€underemployment€must€be€willful€andÏvoluntary€and€the€trial€court€made€no€finding€in€that€regard.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(c)(1991).€€As€the€child€support€guidelines€state,€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIf€an€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€orÏunderemployed,€child€support€shall€be€calculated€based€on€aÏdetermination€of€potential€income,€as€evidenced€by€educational€levelÏand/or€previous€work€experience.€Ìà àÌÌÌÓÓTenn.Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(c)(1991).€€It€is€undisputed€that€Dr.€Herrera€suffered€aÏsignificant€drop€in€his€income.€€Evidence€presented€at€trial€suggests€that€this€was€due€in€large€partÏto€a€decrease€in€his€referrals€and€a€decrease€in€the€Medicare€reimbursements,€and€other€physiciansÏtestified€that€their€income€had€been€reduced€by€forty€to€fifty€percent€since€1989€and€1990.€€ÌÌà àThe€child€support€guidelines€state€that€even€if€there€is€a€finding€of€willful€orÏvoluntary€underemployment,€the€court€should€set€child€support€based€on€a€finding€of€earningÏpotential.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(c)(1991).€€It€is€apparent€that€the€trial€courtÏset€the€amount€of€child€support€at€$3,500€without€making€an€express€determination€as€to€Dr.ÏHerrera's€earning€potential.€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMR.€BLACK:€€€€€.€.€.€.€Your€Honor,€in€reference€to€yourÏfinding€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€under€employed,€Your€Honor,€wouldÏYour€Honor€care€to€make€a€finding€as€to€what€his€actual€earningÏcapacity€or€income€is€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€€I'm€satisfied€with€what€the€record€says€onÏthat.Ìà àÌÌÌÓÓUpon€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€making€aÏdetermination€as€to€Dr.€Herrera's€monthly€income€potential€and€in€setting€the€child€supportÏobligation.€€As€a€result,€the€case€should€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€Dr.ÏHerrera's€monthly€income€potential.€€The€amount€of€child€support€shall€remain€$3,500€per€monthÏuntil€otherwise€ordered.ÌÌà@ àòòREHABILITATIVE€ALIMONYóóÌÌà àThe€Chancellor€ordered€Dr.€Herrera€to€pay€Mrs.€Herrera€rehabilitative€alimony€inÏthe€sum€of€$2,500€per€month€for€5€years.€€Rehabilitative€alimony€is€preferred€over€other€types€ofÏalimony€because€the€court€ultimately€wants€to€sever€the€ties€between€the€parties€so€they€will€noÏlonger€be€dependant€upon€one€another€and€so€they€can€ð ðbe€relieved€of€the€impediments€incident€toÏthe€dissolved€marriage€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòò òSelf€v.€Selfó óóó,€861€S.W.2d€360,€361€(Tenn.€1993).€€Dr.€HerreraÏcontends€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€is€excessive.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€over€awards€for€alimony.€€òòò òJones€v.€Jonesó óóó,€784ÏS.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€Determinations€concerning€the€amount€and€duration€ofÏrehabilitative€alimony€are€factually€driven€and€require€balancing€the€many€factors€contained€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d).€€Appellate€courts€are€not€inclined€to€alter€a€trial€courtððs€alimonyÏdetermination€unless€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€has€been€manifestly€abused.òòò ò€€Ingram€v.€Ingramó óóó,Ï721€S.W.2d€262€(Tenn.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€sets€forth€relevant€factors€that€the€trial€court€should€considerÏwhen€determining€the€amount€of€alimony€that€is€appropriate€as€well€as€the€length€of€the€term€andÏthe€manner€of€payment.€€The€first€factor€found€in€the€statute€requires€a€consideration€of€the€relativeÏearning€capacity€and€financial€resources€of€each€party.€€During€the€years€prior€to€the€initiation€of€theÏdivorce€proceedings,€Dr.€Herrera€earned€income€as€a€thoracic€and€cardiovascular€surgeon€whichÏapproached€$1€million€per€year€in€the€late€1980's€and€early€1990's.€€In€comparison,€Mrs.€HerreraððsÏearning€capacity€was€approximately€$2,000€per€month.€€In€considering€the€relative€education€andÏtraining€of€each€party,€it€is€apparent€that€Dr.€Herreraððs€training€and€education€far€exceed€that€ofÏMrs.€Herrera.€€However,€it€should€be€noted€that€Mrs.€Herrera€has€been€trained€as€a€registeredÏnurse€and€practiced€that€profession€for€approximately€5€years€before€her€marriage€to€Dr.€Herrera.€ÏThe€parties€were€married€for€approximately€8€years€before€Mrs.€Herrera€filed€for€divorce€and€thereÏhas€been€no€showing€that€the€age,€physical€or€mental€condition€of€Dr.€Herrera€or€Mrs.€HerreraÍadversely€impacts€their€ability€to€work.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€are€also€called€upon€to€consider€the€partiesðð€standard€of€living€that€wasÏestablished€during€the€marriage.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€Herreraððs€enjoyed€an€affluent€life€styleÏduring€their€marriage,€and€that€Dr.€Herreraððs€income€permitted€them€to€enjoy€a€large€home€in€a€fineÏneighborhood,€a€vacation€condominium,€a€farm€as€well€as€numerous€social€and€professionalÏendeavors.€€Upon€consideration€of€the€record,€it€is€apparent€that€both€parties€made€both€tangibleÏand€intangible€contributions€to€the€marriage.€€ÌÌà àAs€has€been€previously€discussed,€Mrs.€Herrera€was€the€parent€primarilyÏresponsible€for€the€care€of€the€partiesðð€children.€€Furthermore,€Mrs.€Herrera€participated€in€manyÏactivities€for€the€benefit€of€Dr.€Herreraððs€medical€practice.€€In€considering€the€relative€fault€of€theÏparties,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€ð ðthe€predominant€reason€for€the€breakup€ofÏthis€marriage.ðð€€Contrary€to€Dr.€Herreraððs€assertions,€the€Chancellor€in€this€case€did€not€provideÏMrs.€Herrera€with€a€lifetime€profit€sharing€plan.ÌÌà àThe€amount€of€alimony€awarded€in€a€divorce€proceeding€is€in€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court.€€As€this€Court€held€in€òòò òRenick€v.€Renickó óóó,€No.€01A01„9007„CV„00263€(Tenn.ÏApp.€June€12,€1991),€òòò òperm.€app.€deniedóóó ó.ÌÌÓÓà8 àA€trial€judgeððs€discretion€in€awarding€alimony,€when€soundlyÏexercised€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€€òòò òShackleford€v.ÏShacklefordó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€598€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€There€are€noÏð ðhard€and€fast€rulesðð€governing€the€amount€of€alimony€which€mayÏbe€decreed€to€the€wife.€€ÌÌÌÓÓò òòòRenickóóó ó,€slip€op.€at€9.€€Thus,€the€appellate€court€will€not€revise€the€exercise€of€the€trial€judgeððsÏdiscretion€except€where€such€discretion€has€been€manifestly€abused.€€ÌÌà àUpon€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€the€trial€court€in€this€cause€found€thatÍMrs.€Herrera€was€entitled€to€$2,500€per€month€in€rehabilitative€alimony.€€Specifically,€the€courtÏexplained€its€reasoning€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAs€to€the€issue€of€alimony€and€in€accordance€with€[T.C.A.€ððÏ36„5„101(d)],€specifically€sections€one,€two,€eight,€nine,€ten€andÏeleven,€the€Court€is€taking€into€account€the€relative€earning€capacityÏof€the€parties,€the€relative€education€and€training€and€ability€[of]€eachÏto€improve€their€earning€capacity,€takes€into€account€the€standard€ofÏliving€that€the€parties€have€enjoyed,€the€potential€of€future€earningÏcapacity€that€I€have€already€mentioned,€the€extent€to€which€eachÏparty€has€made€such€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€to€theÏmarriage,€and€the€Court€finds€that€she€made€substantialÏ[contributions].€€And€the€Court€does€believe€that€it€was€their€mutualÏdesire€that€when€she€started€having€these€children,€that€she€not€beÏactively€engaged€in€full€time€employment€outside€the€home.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓWe€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€setting€the€alimony€at€$2,500€per€month€and€soÏaffirm€the€trial€court€in€this€regard.€€ÌÌà@ àòòMARITAL€DEBTóóÌÌà àThe€trial€court€divided€the€marital€property€and€adjudged€all€the€marital€debt,€withÏthe€exception€of€the€debt€on€the€marital€residences,€to€Dr.€Herrera.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÏfailed€to€make€any€findings€as€to€whether€the€debts€were€marital€or€separate.€€Furthermore,€heÏasserts€that€the€trial€court€did€not€make€any€determination€as€to€the€value€of€each€debt,€nor€did€itÏtake€into€account€the€property€division€in€assigning€the€debt€obligations.€€Consequently,€Dr.ÏHerrera€maintains€that€the€trial€court€relied€solely€upon€the€partiesðð€Rule€XV€affidavits€whenÏdividing€the€marital€property€and€marital€debt.ÌÌà àMarital€debt€should€be€allocated€as€are€marital€assets€and€should€be€consideredÏwhen€making€an€equitable€division€of€property.€€òòò òNewberry€v.€Newberryó óóó,€493€S.W.2d€99,€102Ï(Tenn.€App.€1973).€€Because€Tennessee€is€a€dual€property€jurisdiction,€the€trial€court€shouldÏseparate€individual€and€marital€debts.€€òòò òBatson€v.€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849€(Tenn.€App.€1988);Íòòò òMondelli€v.€Howardó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€769,€773€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€Dr.€Herrera€maintains€thatÏthe€Chancellor€erred€in€not€making€a€finding€as€to€the€classification€of€both€the€marital€and€theÏseparate€debts.€€However,€Dr.€Herrera€points€to€no€place€in€the€record€where€such€a€finding€wasÏrequested.€€òòò òMondellió óóó€set€forth€the€following€factors€which€a€court€should€weigh€when€dividingÏmarital€debt:€(1)€which€party€incurred€the€debt€and€the€debtððs€purpose,€(2)€which€party€benefittedÏfrom€incurring€the€debt,€and€(3)€which€party€is€best€able€to€assume€and€repay€the€debt.€€òòò òMondellióóó ó,Ï780€S.W.2d€at€773.ÌÌ€à àThis€Court€customarily€gives€great€weight€to€decisions€of€the€trial€court€in€dividingÏmarital€estates€and€we€are€disinclined€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€decision€unless€the€distributionÏlacks€proper€evidentiary€support€or€results€from€some€error€of€law€or€misapplication€of€statutoryÏrequirements€and€procedures.€€òòò òWade€v.€Wadeó óóó,€897€S.W.2d€702,€715€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€TheÏtrial€courtððs€distribution€need€not€be€equal€to€be€equitable.€€òòò òBatson€v.€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,Ï859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€We€find€that€the€trial€court,€in€adjudging€the€liability€for€the€debt€to€Dr.ÏHerrera,€determined€by€implication€that€the€debt€was€marital€and€not€separate€debt.€€With€theÏexception€of€the€items€listed€below,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€marital€debt€to€theÏhusband€was€proper,€supported€by€the€evidence€and€should€be€sustained€on€appeal.€€The€CourtÏwill,€however,€modify€two€items€listed€as€debt€on€Mrs.€Herreraððs€affidavit€so€as€to€adjudge€aÏportion€of€the€liability€to€her.ÌÌà àMrs.€Herrera€listed€as€liabilities€a€$12,885€loan€from€her€parents€and€an€outstandingÏdebt€of€$1,275€owed€to€David€Blalock,€Attorney.€€In€examining€the€use€of€the€loan€proceedsÏreceived€from€her€parents,€the€Court€concludes€that€of€the€$12,885€loan,€$9,600€was€for€expensesÏrelated€to€the€divorce€proceedings,€including€investigation€fees,€legal€fees,€expenses€and€transcriptÏfees.€€It€appears€that€the€remaining€proceeds€of€$3,285€were€for€the€support€of€Mrs.€Herrera€andÏthe€children.€€The€€$1,275€debt€owed€to€David€Blalock€appears€to€be€for€legal€expenses.€€The€CourtÏfinds€that€€Dr.€Herrera€is€liable€for€the€$3,285€Mrs.€Herrera€borrowed€from€her€parents€for€her€andÍthe€childrenððs€support.€€For€reasons€more€fully€discussed€below,€the€Court€finds€that€liability€forÏthe€$9,600€borrowed€for€legal„related€expenses€and€liability€for€the€$1,275€owed€to€David€Blalock,Ïwhich€total€$10,875.50,€should€be€divided€equally€between€Dr.€Herrera€and€Mrs.€Herrera€withÏeach€party€responsible€for€50%€or€$5,437.50.ÌÌà àIn€adjudging€liability€for€the€debt€to€Dr.€Herrera,€the€Chancellor€decreed€thatÏbecause€of€Dr.€Herreraððs€bankruptcy,€the€debt€was€in€the€nature€of€support€and€was€notÏdischargeable€in€bankruptcy€by€application€of€òòò òIn€re€Calhounó óóó,€715€F.2d€1103€(6th€Cir.€1983).€ÏOn€appeal,€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€each€of€the€factorsÏenumerated€in€òòò òIn€re€Calhounó óóó€as€they€applied€to€each€debt.€€Such€conduct,€Dr.€Herrera€maintains,Ïis€an€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà àIn€òòò òCalhounó óóó,€the€Sixth€Circuit€formulated€a€four„part€inquiry€by€which€a€courtÏcould€determine€whether€the€assumption€of€a€debt€obligation€was€in€the€nature€of€support.€€òòò òIn€reÏFitzgeraldó óóó,€9€F.3d€517,€520€(6th€Cir.€1993)€provides€a€summary€of€the€òòò òCalhounó óóó€criteria:ÌÌÓÓà8 àFirst,€the€obligation€constitutes€support€only€if€the€state€court€orÏparties€intended€to€create€a€support€obligation.€€Second,€theÏobligation€must€have€the€actual€effect€of€providing€necessaryÏsupport.€€Third,€if€the€first€two€conditions€are€satisfied,€the€courtÏmust€determine€if€the€obligation€is€so€excessive€as€to€beÏunreasonable€under€traditional€concepts€of€support.€€Fourth,€if€theÏamount€is€unreasonable,€the€obligation€is€dischargeable€to€the€extentÏnecessary€to€serve€the€purposes€of€federal€bankruptcy€law.€€715ÏF.2d€at€1109„10.€€The€burden€of€demonstrating€that€an€obligation€isÏin€the€nature€of€support€is€on€the€non„debtor.€€715€F.2d€at€1111.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIn€re€Fitzgeraldó óóó,€9€F.3d€at€520.ÌÌà àIn€adjudging€liability€for€the€debts€to€Dr.€Herrera,€the€trial€court€noted€in€its€decree:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Court€.€.€.€has€followed€the€criteria€laid€down€in€[òòò òIn€reÍCalhoun,ó óóó€715€F.2d€1103€(6th€Cir€1983)],€.€.€.€and€finds€that€withÏthe€exception€of€the€transfers€of€property€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121€.€.€.€all€of€the€amounts€ordered€to€be€paid€in€whatever€form€areÏconsidered€to€be€for€the€maintenance€and€support€of€Plaintiff€and€theÏpartiesðð€minor€children€and€to€the€extent€of€the€authority€of€thisÏCourt€to€so€declare,€are€non„dischargeable€in€Bankruptcy€as€theyÏmeet€the€criteria€laid€down€in€11€U.S.C.€ðð€523(a)(5)€and€in€[òòò òIn€reÏCalhounó óóó],€.€.€.€to€qualify€as€non„dischargeable€debts€owed€toÏPlaintiff€for€her€support€and€the€support€of€the€children.€€The€CourtÏspecifically€finds€that€all€obligations€of€Defendant€pursuant€to€thisÏFinal€Decree€of€Absolute€Divorce,€with€the€exception€of€thoseÏcontained€in€Paragraphs€6€and€7€herein€are€intended€by€this€CourtÏand€are€support€obligations€necessary€to€insure€the€daily€needs€ofÏPlaintiff€and€the€minor€children.€€This€Court€also€specifically€findsÏthat€the€amount€of€support€contained€herein€is€not€so€excessive€that€itÏis€manifestly€unreasonable€under€traditional€concepts€of€support€andÏthat€the€Defendant€has€a€general€ability€to€pay€the€support€obligationsÏcontained€herein.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€Decree,€the€trial€court€found€(1)€that€the€obligations€imposed€upon€Dr.ÏHerrera€were€intended€by€the€court€to€create€a€support€obligation;€(2)€the€court€found€that€theÏobligation€had€the€effect€of€providing€necessary€support€for€the€daily€needs€of€Mrs.€Herrera€and€theÏpartiesðð€two€minor€children;€and€(3)€the€court€specifically€found€that€the€obligation€was€notÏunreasonable€under€traditional€concepts€of€support.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€explicitly€analyzedÏthe€debts€according€to€the€òòò òCalhounó óóó€analysis€and€properly€made€its€determination€of€non„dischargeability.€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€in€this€regard€is€presumed€correct€and€will€beÏaffirmed€on€appeal.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àòòATTORNEYSðð€FEESÌóóÌà àThe€trial€court€ordered€that€Dr.€Herrera€pay€Mrs.€Herrera's€attorneys'€fees€andÏassociated€expenses€and€costs€which€amounted€to€$101,916.51.€€Since€Dr.€Herrera€could€not€payÏthe€fees€at€that€time,€the€court€directed€that€he€should€pay€the€fees€at€the€rate€of€$2,000€per€month€atÏ5%€interest.€€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€award€of€attorney€fees€was€improper€because€(1)€he€doesÏnot€have€the€means€to€pay€fees€in€such€an€amount;€(2)€Mrs.€Herrera€was€awarded€a€significantÏportion€of€the€marital€estate;€(3)€Mrs.€Herrera€is€able„bodied€and€employable;€and€(4)€Mrs.€HerreraÍwas€partially€responsible€for€the€high€fees.ÌÌà àAttorney's€fees€constitute€alimony€òòò òin€solidoó óóó,€and€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1995)Ïsets€forth€the€relevant€factors€to€consider€when€making€an€alimony€award.€€òòò òHoughland€v.ÏHoughlandó óóó,€844€S.W.2d€619,€623€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Need€is€the€critical€factor€to€beÏconsidered€in€making€an€award€of€alimony,€and€an€award€of€attorney's€fees€is€proper€when€oneÏspouse€is€disadvantaged€and€does€not€have€sufficient€resources€with€which€to€pay€attorney's€fees.€Ïòòò òLancaster€v.€Lancasteró óóó,€671€S.W.2d€501,€503€(Tenn.€App.€1984);€òòò òThompson€v.ÏThompsonó óóó,€797€S.W.2d€599€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€In€òòò òFox€v.€Foxó óóó,€657€S.W.2d€747,€749Ï(Tenn.€1983),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€right€to€an€allowance€of€legal€expenses€is€not€absolute.€€It€isÏconditioned€upon€a€lack€of€resources€to€prosecute€or€defend€a€suit€inÏgood€faith.€€This€rule€is€to€enable€the€wife,€when€destitute€of€meansÏof€her€own,€to€obtain€justice€and€to€prevent€its€denial...If€a€spouseÏdoes€not€have€separate€property€of€her€own€which€is€adequate€toÏdefray€the€expenses€of€suit,€certainly€she€should€not€be€deniedÏaccess€to€the€courts€because€she€is€unable€to€procure€counsel.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òFox,óóó ó€657€S.W.2d€at€749.ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€awarded€significant€assets€to€Mrs.€Herrera€andÏordered€that€Dr.€Herrera€assume€liability€for€more€than€$900,000€in€debt.€€Mrs.€Herrera€is€able„bodied€and€employable,€having€been€trained€as€a€registered€nurse.€€The€record€also€reveals€that€Dr.ÏHerrera€has€significant€support€obligations€as€a€result€of€this€and€a€prior€marriage,€and€Dr.€HerreraÏappears€to€be€in€financial€straits€as€evidenced€by€the€fact€that€he€filed€for€bankruptcy€protection.€ÏAfter€balancing€the€needs€and€means€of€the€parties,€it€appears€that€Mrs.€Herrera€has€the€means€andÏassets€with€which€to€pay€a€portion€of€her€legal€fees.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€below€is€modifiedÏto€the€extent€that€Dr.€Herrera€is€ordered€to€pay€one„half€of€the€above€amount€at€the€rate€of€$2,000Ïper€month€at€5%€interest.ÌÌà@ àòòFAILURE€TO€RECUSEóóÌÌà àOn€February€8,€1994,€Mrs.€Herrera€filed€a€ð ðPetition€of€Scire€Faciasðð€in€which€sheÏalleged€that€Dr.€Herrera€had€not€paid€his€support€obligations€due€on€February€1,€1994€amountingÏto€$4,200.€€She€prayed€that€after€a€hearing€had€been€held,€the€chancery€court€would€hold€Dr.ÏHerrera€in€contempt€of€court€and€order€him€to€pay€the€past€due€support€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€TheÏmatter€was€set€to€be€heard€on€February€16,€1994,€but€was€continued€until€March€10€and€laterÏcontinued€until€March€24.€€Ultimately€the€cause€came€to€be€heard€on€March€29,€1994,€at€whichÏtime€Defendantððs€attorney€announced€in€open€court€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€performing€emergencyÏsurgery€and€was€unable€to€attend€the€hearing.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Dr.€Herrera€to€appear€onÏMarch€30,€1994€ð ðirrespective€of€any€medical€obligations.ðð€€When€Dr.€Herrera€failed€to€appear€atÏthe€March€30,€1994,€hearing,€the€trial€court€issued€its€ð ðOrder€for€Attachment€Pro€Corpusðð€andÏordered€the€defendant€to€appear€in€court€on€April€4,€1994.€€On€April€4,€1994,€the€trial€court€issuedÏa€second€ð ðOrder€for€Attachment€Pro€Corpusðð€in€which€the€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€appear€inÏcourt€on€April€5,€1994.ÌÌà àThat€same€date,€April€4,€1994,€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€disqualify€theÏChancellor€from€presiding€over€the€contempt€charges€pending€against€Defendant.€€In€his€motion,ÏDr.€Herrera€relied€upon€Rule€42€T.R.Crim.€P.€which€provides,€in€relevant€part:€ð ð(b)€DispositionÏupon€Notice€and€Hearing:€ð ðIf€the€contempt€charge€involves€disrespect€to€or€criticism€of€a€judge,Ïthat€judge€is€disqualified€from€presiding€at€the€hearing€except€with€the€defendantððs€consent.ðð€€Also,ÏDr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€should€have€disqualified€himself€from€hearing€the€charge€ofÏcontempt€by€operation€of€the€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court.€€Specifically,€Rule€10,€Rules€of€theÏSupreme€Court,€Canon€3(C)(1)(a),€expressly€provides:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€A€judge€should€disqualify€himself€in€a€proceeding€inÏwhich€his€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned,€including€butÍnot€limited€to€instances€where:€€ÌÌà8 àà à(a)€he€has€a€personal€bias€or€prejudice€concerning€a€party,€orÏpersonal€knowledge€of€disputed€evidentiary€facts€concerning€theÏproceeding.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àDr.€Herrera€alleges€that€the€trial€court€demonstrated€bias€by€(1)€setting€alimony€andÏchild€support€in€an€amount€that€was€in€excess€of€Dr.€Herreraððs€net€income;€(2)€stating€in€the€finalÏdecree€of€divorce€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðunderemployed;ðð€and€(3)€ordering€defendant€to€appear€atÏthe€contempt€hearing€ð ðirrespective€of€any€medical€obligations.ðð€€As€further€evidence€of€bias,€Dr.ÏHerrera€maintains€that€the€Chancellor€set€the€bond€in€an€amount€that€included€an€allowance€forÏopposing€counselððs€attorney€fees.€€Also,€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€bias€in€the€Chancellorððs€awardingÏmarital€debt€to€Dr.€Herrera€and€declaring€it€not€subject€to€discharge€in€bankruptcy.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€Dr.€Herreraððs€motion€to€disqualify,€determining€that€Dr.€Herreraððs€contempt€of€court€wasÏnot€committed€out€of€disrespect€to€the€judge€himself.ÌÌà àDr.€Herrera€relies€upon€òòò òState€v.€Greeneó óóó,€708€S.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1986),€to€support€his€motion€to€disqualify.€€Inòòò ò€Greeneó óóó,€the€contemnor€was€an€attorney€defendingÏa€criminal€case.€€The€attorney€had€directed€numerous€sharp€and€critical€statements€toward€the€trialÏjudge€presiding€over€the€criminal€case.€€The€trial€judge€found€the€attorney€to€be€in€contempt€ofÏcourt.€€The€appellate€court€recognized€that€if€one€is€charged€with€contempt€involving€disrespect€toÏor€criticism€of€a€judge,€that€judge€is€required€to€recuse€himself€from€presiding€over€the€contemptÏproceeding€unless€the€defendant€otherwise€consents.€€òòò òGreene,ó óóó€708€S.W.2d€at€427;€òòò òSee€alsoó óóó,ÏRule€42€T.R.Crim.P.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€judge€in€the€òòò òGreeneó óóó€case€was€disqualified€from€hearingÏthe€charge€of€contempt€involving€the€defendantððs€attorney.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€426„27.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€òòò òGreeneó óóó€case€is€distinguishable€from€the€instant€case.€€In€òòò òGreeneó óóó,Ïthe€trial€court€specifically€found€that€the€statements€at€issue€were€insulting€to€the€judge€personally.€Ïòòò òIdó óóó.€at€426.€€However,€the€criminal€contempt€charge€in€the€instant€case€and€the€Chancellorððs€findingÍof€contempt€relates€solely€to€Dr.€Herreraððs€failure€to€comply€with€the€trial€courtððs€orders€ofÏsupport.€€There€is€no€charge€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€disrespectful€to€or€critical€of€the€particularÏchancellor€presiding€over€the€matter.€€The€Chancellor€in€the€instant€case€held€that€in€order€for€RuleÏ42(b)€T.R.Crim.P.€to€require€recusal,€there€must€have€been€a€charge€of€disrespect€to€or€criticism€ofÏthe€particular€judge€or€chancellor.€€The€Chancellorððs€determination€in€this€regard€is€supported€byÏòòò òGreeneó óóó,€òòò òsupraó óóó.€€òòò òSee€also,€In€re€Throneberryó óóó,€754€S.W.2d€633,€636€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€It€is€apparent€that€Rule€42€T.R.Crim.P.€requires€recusal€only€in€those€limited€situationsÏwhere€the€charged€conduct€involves€a€personal€criticism€against€or€disrespect€toward€the€particularÏjudge€presiding€over€the€contempt€proceedings.€€The€instant€case€presents€a€violation€of€a€courtÏorder€and€nothing€more.€€While€the€violation€of€a€valid€court€order€exhibits€disrespect€toward€theÏjudicial€system,€that€is€not€the€type€of€conduct€addressed€by€Rule€42.€€Accordingly,€the€ChancellorÏproperly€ruled€that€he€was€not€disqualified€from€presiding€over€the€proceedings.ÌÌà àIn€regard€to€Dr.€Herreraððs€allegations€that€the€Chancellor€violated€Rule€10,€CannonÏ3,€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court,€the€court€similarly€finds€no€violation.€€The€court€does€not€find€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€issuance€of€the€Attachment€Pro€Corpus€and€having€Dr.€Herrera€placed€in€handcuffsÏconstitutes€sufficient€evidence€of€bias€and€prejudice.€€The€Chancellor€clearly€explained€that€Dr.ÏHerreraððs€conduct€necessitated€this€response€because€Dr.€Herrera€had,€on€two€occasions,€failed€toÏappear€for€the€contempt€hearing€and€because€of€his€efforts€to€avoid€apprehension€by€the€Sheriff.€ÏFinally,€Dr.€Herrera€contends€that€the€Chancellor€set€an€excessive€bond€which€included€anÏallowance€for€the€opposing€counselððs€attorney€fees,€when€the€only€way€opposing€counsel€wouldÏbe€entitled€to€fees€would€be€if€Dr.€Herrera€had€been€found€to€be€in€contempt€of€court.€€The€trialÏcourt€was€correct€in€its€ruling€that€it€would€have€been€improper€to€set€a€bond€at€an€arbitrary€figureÏand€the€court€found€it€proper€to€set€the€bond€on€ð ðsome€kind€of€reasonable€basis€.€.€.€rather€than€justÏpulling€figures€out€of€the€air.ðð€€In€òòò òEmbry€v.€Chimentió óóó,€No.€03A01„9305„CV„00116€(May€3,Ï1994),€this€Court€addressed€a€similar€situation.€€Embry€had€requested€that€the€trial€judge€recuseÏhimself€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€biased€and€prejudiced.€€The€trial€judge€had€previously€madeÍadverse€rulings€against€Mr.€Embry€including€entry€of€an€order€which€eventually€led€to€Mr.ÏEmbryððs€arrest€and€to€subsequent€criminal€charges€being€filed€against€Embry.€€The€trial€judgeÏdeclined€to€recuse€himself,€and€on€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed.€ÌÌà àThe€mere€fact€that€the€Chancellor€in€the€instant€case€had€issued€adverse€rulingsÏagainst€Dr.€Herrera€does€not,€in€and€of€itself,€evidence€bias€or€prejudice€toward€the€defendant.€€InÏfact,€it€appears€to€this€Court€that€the€trial€court€accommodated€Dr.€Herreraððs€numerous€requests€forÏcontinuances.€€In€summary,€the€court€affirms€the€Chancellorððs€refusal€to€recuse€himself€fromÏconsideration€of€the€charges€of€contempt€involving€Dr.€Herrera.ÌÌà@ àòòPUNISHMENT€FOR€CONTEMPTóóÌÌà àDr.€Herrera€alleges€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€finding€him€guilty€of€criminalÏcontempt.€€In€the€alternative,€Dr.€Herrera€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€imposed€an€excessiveÏpunishment€for€any€contempt€that€may€have€occurred.€€A€courtððs€power€to€punish€a€party€forÏcontempt€in€failing€to€pay€child€support€is€set€forth€at€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„104(a)€which€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAny€person,€ordered€to€provide€support€and€maintenance€for€aÏminor€child€or€children,€who€fails€to€comply€with€the€order€orÏdecree,€may,€in€the€discretion€of€the€court,€be€punished€byÏimprisonment€in€the€county€work€house€or€county€jail€for€a€periodÏnot€to€exceed€six€(6)€months.ÌÌÌÌÓÓAs€a€result€of€the€hearing€on€the€contempt€charges€against€Dr.€Herrera,€the€Chancellor€sentencedÏDr.€Herrera€to€the€maximum€sentence€provided€by€statute.€€Specifically,€the€court€declared€in€itsÏorder:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€Court€further€finds€that€Defendant€should€be€incarcerated€at€theÏShelby€County€Correctional€Institute€or€any€other€appropriate€placeÏwithin€the€Shelby€County€Penal€System€for€a€period€of€six€months;ÏDefendant€shall€serve€this€confinement€24€hours€at€a€time€one€dayÍeach€month€which€shall€be€the€first€Sunday€of€each€month€beginningÏat€5:00€a.m.€on€Sunday€and€ending€at€5:00€a.m.€on€Monday;€theÏCourt€further€finds€that€after€an€appropriate€period€of€time€DefendantÏmay€petition€the€Court€to€suspend€the€remainder€of€the€sentence€andÏthe€Court€will€take€into€consideration€such€factors€as€the€CourtÏdeems€appropriate€at€that€time€to€decide€whether€any€or€all€of€theÏremaining€time€should€be€suspended.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓDr.€Herrera€urges€on€appeal€that€this€Court€set€aside€or€modify€this€sentence,€which€is€an€actionÏwithin€an€appellate€courtððs€power€when€the€imposed€sentence€is€excessive.€€òòò òRobinson€v.€AirÏDraulics€Engineering€Co.ó óóó,€377€S.W.2d€908,€913€(Tenn.€1964).€€The€trial€court€decreed€thatÏafter€Dr.€Herrera€had€served€12€days,€he€could€petition€to€suspend€the€remaining€sentence.ÌÌà àAppellate€courts€are€loathe€to€interfere€or€modify€the€punishment€imposed€inÏcontempt€proceedings€because€such€determinations€lie€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€Ïòòò òHuffine€v.€Huffineó óóó,€No.€03A01„9110„CH„00339€(May€27,€1992).€€However,€as€previouslyÏnoted,€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„104(a)€provides€that€a€court€may€impose€a€maximum€penalty€of€six€monthsÏimprisonment€for€failure€to€abide€by€an€order€regarding€support€payments.€€Due€to€the€fact€that€theÏpunishment€for€contempt€is€a€determinate€sentence€not€to€exceed€six€months,€the€offense€fallsÏwithin€a€Class€B€misdemeanor€category€as€defined€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„111(e)(2).€The€orderÏprovided€that€Dr.€Herrera€was€to€serve€his€sentence€one€day€per€month€until€he€had€satisfied€sixÏmonths€of€total€incarceration.€€Six€months€is€approximately€180€days.€€If€the€order€were€carried€outÏto€its€express€end,€Dr.€Herrera€would€have€to€report€to€the€Shelby€County€correctional€system€onceÏa€month€for€more€than€15€years€in€order€to€satisfy€the€6€months€or€180€days€total€sentence€whichÏhe€has€been€ordered€to€serve.€€The€trial€court€has€thus€sentenced€Dr.€Herrera€to€periodicÏconfinement,€and€Dr.€Herrera€is€under€an€implied€probation€during€those€intervals€in€which€he€isÏnot€a€guest€of€the€county.€€Such€a€sentence€violates€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„307€which€provides€in€relevantÏpart:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(b)€If€the€court€sentences€a€defendant€to€a€term€of€probationÏinvolving€periodic€confinement,€it€shall€specify:Ìà8 àà à(1)€The€total€number€of€months€or€days€to€be€served€inÏperiodic€confinement,€which€shall€not€exceed€one€(1)€year€or€theÏmaximum€term€authorized€for€the€offense;€whichever€is€less;€andÌà8 àà à(2)€The€days€or€parts€of€days€the€defendant€is€to€be€confined.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€previously€noted,€Dr.€Herrera€would€have€to€be€subjected€to€periodicÏconfinement€one€day€per€month€for€more€than€15€years€in€order€to€fully€satisfy€the€sentence€that€theÏtrial€court€imposed€upon€him.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„307(b)€clearly€provides€that€the€total€number€ofÏmonths€or€days€served€in€periodic€confinement€coupled€with€probation€shall€not€exceed€theÏmaximum€term€authorized€for€the€offense.€€In€this€case,€that€is€six€months€by€operation€of€T.C.A.Ïðð€36„5„104.€€Even€for€Dr.€Herrera€to€satisfy€the€minimum€of€12€days€confinement€in€order€toÏpetition€the€court€for€a€suspension€of€the€remainder€of€the€sentence€violates€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„307.€ÏBy€operation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„307,€the€sentence€of€periodic€confinement€coupled€with€probationÏthat€was€imposed€upon€Dr.€Herrera€in€this€case€must€be€served€and€completed€within€the€six€(6)Ïmonth€period€provided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„104.€€The€period€of€time€for€completion€of€the€sentenceÏcannot€be€extended€simply€by€breaking€the€sentence€into€periodic€confinement€coupled€withÏprobation.€€The€maximum€penalty€for€failure€to€provide€child€support€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€is€6Ïmonths€incarceration€and€any€punishment€imposed€upon€a€party€in€contempt€for€failing€to€provideÏsaid€support€must€be€completed€within€a€six€month€period.€€Therefore,€on€remand€the€ChancellorÏshall€modify€the€sentence€in€accordance€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àThis€cause€is€further€remanded€for€a€further€hearing€to€determine€the€amount€ofÏHusbandððs€potential€income€and€the€amount€of€child€support€commensurate€therewith.€€The€maritalÏdebt€and€amount€of€Wifeððs€attorney€fees€are€modified€as€heretofore€stated.€€The€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€otherwise€affirmed.ÌÌà àWifeððs€request€for€additional€attorney€fees€for€this€appeal€is€denied.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€Husband,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à__________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHAYES,€Sp.€J.€(Concurs)›