WPC! # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 B@ 0 0D8 U:| U:  0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` 0d B9U>VU *B)DC D3* AM] 0@N3v~$v AOu 0D D/ B HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ U,PV,PW,DX,EY,Z,[,g\,],Ӏg,D x, 3|xg,C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(f(2($ !  XӲXXXXXӲ      0  (#$  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'dxd-)C << G !&  ''   YYY FILED'XJanuary17,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$     x !#d#&   $''         TheWifevaluedtheequityinthemaritalhomeat$54,000,whiletheHusbandsetthevalueat$59,000.Thetrialcourtmadenospecificvaluationwithregardtothisproperty.  !#d#&   $''         Theseaccounts,oralargeportionthereof,constitutedmaritalproperty.T.C.A.364121(b)(1)(B)(1991)( Maritalpropertyincludes...thevalueofvestedpension,retirementorotherfringebenefitrightsaccruedduringtheperiodofthemarriage.).  !#d#&   $''         Asanadditionalmatter,wenotethatthetrialcourtwasnotrequiredtodividetheequityinthemaritalhome.Bystatute,thetrialcourtwasauthorizedtoawardthefamilyhometoeitherparty.T.C.A.364121(d)(1991).Indoingso,thecourtwasrequiredtogivespecialconsiderationtothespousehavingphysicalcustodyofthepartieschildren.Id.Here,theWifewasdesignatedtheprimarycustodianofthepartiestwochildren,andthemaritalhomewastheonlyhomethatthechildrenhadknown.(Tr.p.10).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &  \RA'\    ` XhX\RA'\'7 Ӳ XXdd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATNASHVILLEWANDAGAILKERRHOOPER,   )      )  Plaintiff/Appellee,  )SumnerCircuitNo.14145C      )VS.      )AppealNo.01A019607CV00328̜R+,)A1-j|M`  `@Rߛ      )ROBERTEDWINHOOPER,   )      )  Defendant/Appellant. ) @ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSUMNERCOUNTY@ ATGALLATIN,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLETHOMASGOODALL,JUDGE MICHAELW.EDWARDS Hendersonville,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendant/Appellant F.DULINKELLYKELLY&KELLY Hendersonville,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellee AFFIRMED         ALANE.HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.DAVIDR.FARMER,J.̜7 Ӳ XXd XXd7  DefendantRobertEdwinHooper(Husband)appealsthetrialcourtsfinaldecreedissolvingthepartiesmarriage.Initsfinaldecree,thetrialcourtdesignatedPlaintiff/AppelleeWandaGailKerrHooper(Wife)theprimarycustodianofthepartiestwominorchildren,orderedtheHusbandtopaytheWifechildsupportintheamountof$1189permonth,awardedtheWiferehabilitativealimonyintheamountof$576permonthforthirtymonths,andequitablydistributedthepartiesproperty.Indistributingthepartiesproperty,thetrialcourtawardedtheWifea1994Pontiacvaluedat$10,000,$21,957insavingsfromthepartiescreditunionaccounts,andthemaritalhomehavinganequityofbetween$54,000and$59,000, .   כsubjecttoa$5000lieninfavoroftheHusband.TheHusband,inturn,wasawardedhis401kplanvaluedat$24,202,hisretirementplanvaluedat$18,459,$12,657insavings,anda1992Pontiacvaluedat$7,000.Onappeal,theHusbandssolecontentionisthatthetrialcourterredindistributingthepartiesmaritalproperty.Specifically,theHusbandcomplainsthatthetrialcourtsawardofthemaritalhometotheWiferesultedinaninequitabledistributionofthepartiespropertybecausetheWifereceivedoversixtypercentofthemaritalestate.Weaffirm. Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretionindividingmaritalestates,andtheirdecisionsareaffordedgreatweightonappeal.Fisherv.Fisher,648S.W.2d244,246(1983);Harringtonv.Harrington,798S.W.2d244,245(Tenn.App.1990).Asthiscourtrecentlystated,the divisionofpropertyneednotbeequaltobeequitable.Jacksonv.Jackson,1995WL700187,at*3(Tenn.App.1995)(citingBatsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.App.1988)).Indistributingmaritalproperty,trialcourtsarerequiredtoconsiderthefollowingfactors:̜8 8 (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;̜8 8 (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills,employability,earningcapacity,estate,financialliabilitiesandfinancialneedsofeachoftheparties;̜8 8 (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyonepartytotheeducation,trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;̜8 8 (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionsofcapitalassetsandincome;̜8 8 (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation,appreciationordissipationofthemaritalorseparateproperty,includingthecontributionofapartytothemarriageashomemaker,wageearnerorparent,withthecontributionofapartyashomemakerorwageearnertobegiventhesameweightifeachpartyhasfulfilleditsrole;̜8 8 (6)Thevalueoftheseparatepropertyofeachparty;̜8 8 (7)Theestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthemarriage;̜8 8 (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivisionofpropertyistobecomeeffective;̜8 8 (9)Thetaxconsequencestoeachparty;and̜8 8 (10)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.T.C.A.364121(c)(1991). WeconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredthesefactorsinawardingtheWifeagreatershareofthemaritalestatethantheHusbandinthiscase.ThepartieshadbeenmarriedforalmostseventeenyearswhentheyseparatedinApril1995.AtthetimeofthetrialinJanuary1996,theWifewasfortyoneandtheHusbandwasfortyfouryearsofage.Whentheymarried,bothpartiesworkedatGenesco.AftertheWifebecamepregnantwiththeirsecondchild,thepartiesagreedthattheWifewouldquitherjobandstayhomewiththechildren.Accordingly,theWifebecamethehomemakerandthechildrensprimarycaregiver.Aftertheyoungestchildbeganattendingschool,theWifereturnedtoworkasasubstituteteacher.Atthetimeoftrial,theWifeworkedasalibrariansandteachersassistantearning$840permonth.TheWifeplannedtoattendcollegetoearnanassociatesdegreeinaccounting,whichsheestimatedwouldtaketwoandonehalfyearstocomplete.TheHusband,ontheotherhand,alreadyhadanassociatesdegreeinaccounting,andheearnedanincomefargreaterthanthatoftheWife.In1994,theHusbandearned$59,632fromhisemploymentwithGenesco.In1995,theHusbandacceptedanewpositionwithColumbiaHCAatasalaryof$58,000($4833permonth).TheHusbandwasscheduledtoreceiveafourpercentraiseinMarch1996. Inlightofthedurationofthepartiesmarriage,theWifessignificantcontributionstothemarriageasahomemaker,andthegreatdisparityinthepartiesearningabilities,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawardingtheWifealargerportionofthemaritalestatethantheHusband.Insoholding,wenotethattheHusbandscurrentearningabilityisoverfivetimesgreaterthantheWifesandthattheHusbandwasawardedhis401kandretirementplans,valuedinexcessof$42,000, /   ׀aswellas$5000oftheequityinthemaritalhome.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thetrialcourtachievedanequitabledistributionofthepartiesmaritalproperty. 0    &   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheHusband,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.'         򀀀       HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:򀀀CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.򀀀FARMER,J.