ÿWPC "“‚Ê…!ZÙqzûÅÍUå ÇRÁ éÚß›–¡&›_:¼fÒ)÷W‰·àæ<2rËƆÅHT Ô@®¶ÅÝËL”Œ‹(w5dIÝf¢WtÛº ˜^‡L‚ÉœƒÓeÁn&ƒÀªTAcq‡ˆ›Ë9ËÑ´dS\¯‘-ßžjwiÁûÚl˜vØTØ}‚™MN{nèòÉa™¦|d™u?F]ü}ÆA©ú¥|Ÿ¼vôÄÀÓˆÁl ÑÒk¬þl$ä0Äa7R_—t„”ŸÎvKÄæaF ‡¬¶K¼ Ýœ#Ö—EAû ïoO›¶ÔK8ì«Ìë1¹žkQ×KÉP—Np‡v€Ã'•©{ç^´ &Öæ·èõ P|¾uUe£±ž1úÞ Ó­¥âxž„sÒ®üë‡êøྠæoÙʆQiÂÜ Ùœ•â2䵸[t¥Ü£.æ"âF“&@Ëõ'ûÒ¼ŽOïÕV‹ª‚ ‹ýù‰rñÛf#`¦O ˜¥_X CK"7 FÐ]æ,f‡üVáãR· í–qñí Ò\®÷Âïwmécj"ÉJ+13r+@n@d#!xU'N™ %ç 0(íw 4 - < V b^ 0Df Nª 0P¬ ^ ü  m U@! UNa 0¤¯ <S  ’— — 0D) 7m u¤U: BSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0Dppppppp D5´´ Aé D?j BG© AQðÆA 0D 0DK˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡{Z='tttttt3|xwaiver- ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d ÔÊ”='L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `(Times NewRomanTT(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(T(2¦#$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ  ÑÑÑà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 2Ñ#€º€»ÿÿd#ÑÑ€ Ñ  ˆÝ ƒ¦#$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Fault€is€a€factor€to€be€considered€in€the€award€of€alimony,€and€the€trial€court€hereinÐ ° Ðfound€that€the€husband€had€committed€inappropriate€marital€conduct€by€virtue€of€anÐ œì Ðimproper€relationship€with€another€woman.(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý -Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XöÎXXXÔÔ€ÆnXXöÎÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XöÎXÆnÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó kÝ ƒ¦#$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€trial€court€found€that€both€parties€had€dissipated€substantial€sums€from€theirÐ ° Ðassets€during€their€marriage.€The€court€was€commenting€upon€the€settlement€the€wifeÐ œì Ðreceived€in€1994€and€the€disability€back€pay€she€received€in€1997.€With€regard€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðhusbandððs€accounts,€the€court€noted,€ð ðHe€had€gotten€rid€of€some€money€without€a€lot€ofÐ tÄ Ðexplanation€shortly€before€the€divorce€was€filed.ðð,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý)ÿÿ!dxdxT^yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dabTc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼o7»XXÔÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑ  ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ä¥Ñßx€`[B2.jzfÉÿ`  `€€@ÿEZ°` 8ttxP’°l xßÔ_Ôà@  êàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@{{(êàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌó óÌHENRY€LEE€HULSHOF,à0 8 àà  à)ÐþN8T$8T$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appelleeà  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð " r Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01A01„9806„CH„00339Ð 4 „ Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð F – Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àMarshall€County€ChanceryÐ X¨  ÐDOROTHY€ANN€HULSHOF,€à  à)à  àNo.€€10075€Ð jº  Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à  à)Ð ŽÞ  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†X–ZX»¼o7G#ÔÔ‡»o7»XX–ZÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ Ö& ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURTÌFOR€MARSHALL€COUNTYÌAT€LEWISBURG,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€TYRUS€H.€COBB€PRESIDINGÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ#†X–ZX»»o7Ó#ÔÔ‡»o7»XX–ZÔRONDAL€T.€WILSONÐ ®"þ Ð200€E.€DEPOT€ST.ÌP.O.€BOX€336ÌSHELBYVILLE,€TN€37160ÌÌÔ#†X–ZX»»o7#ÔÔ‡¼o7»XX–ZÔà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÐ (X#! ÐÌÔ#†X–ZX»¼o7¬#ÔÔ‡¼o7»XX–ZÔÌLAWRENCE€D.€SANDSÌP.O.€BOX€1660Ì102€WEST€7òòTHóó€STREETÐ b-²(& ÐCOLUMBIA,€TN€38402„1660ÌÌà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÓ  ÓÌò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€IN€PART,€VACATEDÐ Î3/, ÐIN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDó óÐ â420- ÐÓ  ÓÌÌà Ø àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.Ð P; 63 ÐÑä¥Ñâ âÑ8€1´»»ddÈ8ÑÑ€ Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†Xs`X»¼1´» #ÔÔ‡„ „XXs`ÔOPINIONóóÔ#†Xs`X„„ ¹ #ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼1´»XXs`Ôà  àHenry€Lee€Hulshof€("the€husband")€commenced€this€divorce€action,Ð pÀ Ðalleging€inappropriate€marital€conduct€or,€alternatively,€irreconcilableÐ ” ä Ðdifferences.€Two€weeks€later,€his€wife€of€twenty„seven€years,€Dorothy€AnnÐ ¸  ÐHulshof€("the€wife")€responded€by€filing€an€answer€and€counter„petition€allegingÐ Ü ,  Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct,€irreconcilable€differences,€and€adultery.€€After€aÐ P  Ðbench€trial,€the€court€below€awarded€the€wife€a€divorce€on€the€ground€that€theÐ $t  Ðhusband€had€committed€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€court€divided€theÐ H˜ Ðparties'€personal€property€between€them€and€awarded€the€wife€rehabilitativeÐ l¼ Ðalimony€in€the€amount€of€$300€per€month€for€two€years€and€one€half€the€valueÐ à Ðof€the€husband's€retirement€benefits€calculated€as€of€March€2,€1998.€€The€courtÐ ´ Ðalso€equally€divided€the€funds€in€the€couple's€various€accounts€and€ordered€theirÐ Ø( Ðreal€property€sold€and€the€proceeds€divided€equally.€€The€wife€appealed,Ð üL Ðchallenging€the€property€distribution,€the€amount€of€alimony€awarded,€and€theÐ  !p Ðcourt's€failure€to€award€her€sufficient€attorney€fees.€€We€affirm€in€part€asÐ D#” Ðmodified,€vacate€in€part,€and€remand€for€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ h%¸  Ðopinion.€Ð Œ'Ü"  Ðà  àThe€parties€married€in€1970,€when€the€wife€was€seventeen€years€old€andÐ °)%" Ðjust€days€after€she€graduated€from€high€school.€€The€wife€did€not€continue€herÐ Ô+$'$ Ðeducation.€€The€couple€€had€two€children,€both€of€whom€were€adults€when€theÐ ø-H)& Ðparties€separated.€Ô‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€At€the€time€of€trial,€the€wife€was€forty„six€(46)€years€old.€TheÐ 0l+( Ðcouple€had€been€married€for€twenty„seven€(27)€years€when€the€divorce€complaintÐ p2À-* Ðwas€filed.à ¼ àÐ  4ð/, Ðà  àThroughout€the€marriage,€the€husband€worked€at€Inner€City€Products.€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=Œ#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´ÔÐ Ð6 2. ÐHis€approximate€yearly€income€was€between€$31,500€and€$35,500,€dependingÐ 9P40 Ðon€the€amount€of€overtime€he€worked.€€The€job€provided€retirement€benefits,€butÐ ° Ðat€trial€the€husband€was€unsure€of€their€value.Ð à0 Ðà  àÔ#†¼1´»»¼I=#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´ÔThe€wife€worked€at€numerous€jobs€during€the€marriage.€€However,€inÐ  ` Ð1985,€she€injured€her€back€at€work€and€underwent€surgery.€€After€that€injury,€sheÐ @  Ðreceived€a€$7,000€lump€sum€worker's€compensation€award.€€€In€1994,€she€hadÐ p À Ðsurgery€to€treat€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.€€Apparently,€the€wife€ceased€workingÐ  ð  Ðoutside€the€home€after€this€surgery.€She€subsequently€received€a€$19,000Ð Ð  Ðworkers€compensation€settlement.Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=j#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€€In€May€of€1997,€she€was€determined€to€beÐ P Ðdisabled€and€entitled€to€disability€payments€by€the€Social€SecurityÐ 0€ ÐAdministration.€She€received€a€$6,000€disability€payment€covering€back€pay€atÐ `° Ðthat€time€and€began€drawing€$472€in€monthly€social€security€disability€benefitsÐ à Ðwhich€is€her€sole€income.Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=§#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€€The€wife€testified€she€also€underwent€a€second€carpalÐ À Ðtunnel€surgery,€a€second€lower€back€surgery,€and€suffered€from€degenerativeÐ ð@ Ðarthritis€in€her€ankles,€a€degenerative€muscle€disorder,€and€a€degenerative€nerveÐ  !p Ðdisorder.€€€The€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=_#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ôwife€admitted€that€notwithstanding€her€disability,€she€was€able€toÐ P#  Ðclean€the€house,€babysit,€€drive€her€car,€crochet,€and€do€some€yard€work.€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=Ã#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=¦#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´ÔÐ €%Ð  Ðà  àÔ#†¼1´»»¼I=ê#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´ÔAt€the€time€of€trial,€the€parties€jointly€owned€their€residence,€which€theÐ °'#  Ðparties€valued€at€$50,000€to€$60,000.€€The€outstanding€balance€on€the€mortgageÐ à)0%" Ðwas€approximately€$5,100,€and€the€monthly€mortgage€payments€were€$98Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=M#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô.€TheÐ ,`'$ Ðparties€also€owned€a€nearby€lot,€valued€at€approximately€$5,000.€€The€parties€hadÐ @.)& Ðno€joint€accounts€at€the€time€of€€trial.€€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=•#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´ÔThe€husband€testified€that€his€checkingÐ p0À+( Ðaccount€had€a€$535.58€balance,€the€assets€in€his€savings€totaled€$102.00,€and€hisÐ  2ð-* Ðcredit€union€accounts€held€approximately€$3,018.€€In€the€approximately€sixÐ Ð4 0, Ðmonths€before€the€husband€filed€his€petition€for€divorce,€the€balances€in€hisÐ 7P2. Ðcredit€union€accounts€plummeted€from€over€$23,000€to€just€over€$3,000.€€TheÐ 09€40 Ðhusbandððs€explanation€for€the€dissipation€of€the€account€was€that€he€made€someÐ ° Ðimprovements€around€the€house,€and€may€have€gambled€some€of€the€moneyÐ à0 Ðaway.€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I= #ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ôà  àÐ  ` Ðà  àDuring€the€course€of€these€proceedings,€the€parties€requested€an€OrderÐ @  Ðof€Reconciliation,€and€attempted€to€put€aside€their€differences.€€Those€effortsÐ p À Ðfailed.€€At€the€close€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€granted€the€wife€a€divorceÐ  ð  Ðbased€upon€the€husband's€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€Although€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðawarded€the€wife€the€above„mentioned€rehabilitative€alimony,€it€denied€herÐ P Ðrequest€for€òòin€futuroóó€or€òòin€solidoóó€alimony.€€€Attorneyððs€fees€were€awarded€to€theÐ 0€ Ðwife€in€the€amount€of€$1,200.Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=L##ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€The€trial€court€subsequently€entered€an€orderÐ `° Ðstaying€all€proceedings,€except€the€alimony€obligation,€in€connection€with€theÐ à Ðenforcement€of€the€judgment,€pending€final€determination€on€appeal.Ð À ÐÔ#†¼1´»»¼I=7&#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ôà@¦¦-êàI.ˆÐ ð@ Ðà  àThe€wife€raises€four€issues,€all€of€which€are€related€to€the€financialÐ  !p Ðimpact€of€the€courtððs€decision.€Essentially,€she€asserts€that€the€distribution€ofÐ P#  Ðassets€and€the€limited€award€of€alimony€will€preclude€her€from€meeting€herÐ €%Ð  Ðminimal€living€expenses.€€She€further€asserts€that€the€economic€disparity€betweenÐ °'#  Ðthe€parties,€the€length€of€the€marriage,€and€her€disability€justify€an€award€to€herÐ à)0%" Ðof€a€greater€share€of€the€marital€property€and/or€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€or€alimony€òòinÐ ,`'$ Ðsolidoóó.€€She€also€asserts€that€the€money€dissipated€by€the€husband€from€his€creditÐ @.)& Ðunion€accounts€should€be€taken€into€consideration€in€dividing€the€marital€assetsÐ p0À+( Ðand€that€she€should€have€been€awarded€all€her€attorneyððs€fees.€€Although€theÐ  2ð-* Ðissues€are€separately€raised,€the€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€must€first€beÐ Ð4 0, Ðexamined€in€totality.Ð 7P2. Ðà  àThe€wifeððs€sole€income€is€her€disability€payment€of€$472€per€month.€Ð 09€40 ÐFor€two€years,€the€income€will€be€supplemented€by€the€rehabilitative€alimony€ofÐ ° Ð$300€per€month.€€The€wifeððs€monthly€expenses€total€$616.33.€€This€figureÐ à0 Ðincludes€the€$98€house€payment,€and€the€record€indicates€the€least€expensiveÐ  ` Ðalternative€rental€property€would€cost€$300€per€month.€€Thus,€either€the€cessationÐ @  Ðof€the€rehabilitative€alimony€or€the€requirement€that€the€wife€move€out€of€theÐ p À Ðmarital€residence,€both€of€which€are€contemplated€by€the€order,€would€reduce€theÐ  ð  Ðwifeððs€income€below€her€expenses.€Her€attorneyððs€fees,€before€the€appeal,Ð Ð  Ðexceeded€the€amount€awarded€by€the€court€by€$2,145.Ð P Ðà  àHer€share€of€the€distribution€of€the€major€marital€assets€includes€halfÐ 0€ Ðthe€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€the€house€and€the€lot€(approximately€$27,500),€halfÐ `° Ðthe€accounts€(approximately€$1,659.15),€half€of€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€aÐ à Ðtrailer€($1,000)€and€half€of€the€husbandððs€retirement€as€of€March€2,€1997€(theÐ À Ðvalue€of€the€retirement€asset,€the€monthly€amount€she€would€receive,€and€the€dateÐ ð@ Ðof€eligibility€are€unknown).Ð  !p Ðà  àIn€addition,€the€wifeððs€health€problems,€especially€as€they€affect€herÐ P#  Ðability€to€work,€are€relevant€to€both€the€distribution€of€marital€property€and€theÐ €%Ð  Ðaward€of€alimony.€She€is€totally€disabled€and,€according€to€her€testimony,€cannotÐ °'#  Ðperform€repetitive€functions,€cannot€sit€for€long€periods€of€time,€and€cannotÐ à)0%" Ðbend,€stoop,€or€lift.€Although€she€does€her€own€housework€and€some€yard€workÐ ,`'$ Ð(using€a€riding€mower),€she€must€stop€frequently€and€can€only€do€a€little€workÐ @.)& Ðat€a€time.€It€is€undisputed€that€she€has€had€two€back€surgeries€and€two€operationsÐ p0À+( Ðfor€carpal€tunnel€syndrome.Ð  2ð-* Ðà@-êàII.ˆÐ Ð4 0, Ðà  àIn€her€first€issue,€the€wife€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€limitingÐ 7P2. Ðthe€award€to€the€assets€the€parties€possessed€at€the€time€of€separation.€€€SheÐ 09€40 Ðargues€that€she€was€entitled€to€a€portion€of€the€recently€dissipated€fundsÐ ° Ð($20,000)€from€the€husband's€accounts€at€one€credit€union.€€Ð à0 Ðà  àThe€division€of€the€marital€estate€necessarily€commences€with€theÐ  ` Ðclassification€of€the€parties'€property.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€163,€166Ð @  Ð(Tenn.€App.€1994).€The€now„familiar€statutory€definitions€of€marital€propertyÐ p À Ðand€separate€property€provide€the€ground€rules€for€this€task.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ð  ð  Ððððð€36„4„121(b)(1)€and€(2)(1996).€€Implicit€in€this€statutory€scheme€is€€theÐ Ð  Ðconcept€that€the€property€to€be€divided,€generally€speaking,€must€be€"owned€byÐ P Ðthe€parties,€individually€or€jointly,€at€the€time€of€the€divorce."€€òòBrock€v.€Brockóó,Ð 0€ Ð941€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€This€is€so€because€courts€ordinarilyÐ `° Ð"cannot€divide€and/or€distribute€what€is€'not€there'€„„„€property€no€longer€ownedÐ à Ðby€the€parties€.€.€.€at€the€time€of€the€divorce."€€òòId.ó󀀀РÀ Ðà  àApplying€these€principles€to€the€instant€case,€we€find€the€trial€courtÐ ð@ Ðproperly€limited€its€decision€on€the€€division€of€marital€property€to€that€in€whichÐ  !p Ðthe€parties€possessed€an€ownership€interest€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=w'#ÔÐ P#  Ðà  àWith€regard€to€the€wife's€contention€that€trial€court€erred€by€rejectingÐ €%Ð  Ðher€claim€that€the€dissipation€of€the€funds€constituted€a€fraudulent€conveyanceÐ ¤'ô"  Ðwithin€the€purview€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡¼1´»»¼1´ÔððÔ#†¼1´»»¼1´N<#Ô€36„4„121(b)(1)(A),€€the€wife€bears€theÐ È)%" Ðburden€of€€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€that€finding.€€òòSeeÐ ì+<'$ ÐGalbreath€v.€Harrisóó,€811€S.W.2d€88,€91€(Tenn.€App.€1990);Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð .`)& Ð13(d).€€In€rejecting€that€claim,€the€trial€court€considered€the€husband's€testimonyÐ 40„+( Ðthat€he€spent€a€portion€of€the€money€on€home€improvements,€gambling,€bills,€andÐ X2¨-* Ðgroceries.€€Ô‡¼I=»»¼1´ÔòòSee€Massingale€v.€Massingaleóó,€915€S.W.2d€818,€819€(Tenn.€App.Ð |4Ì/, Ð1995)€(trial€court's€assessment€of€witness€credibility€is€entitled€to€great€weightÐ Ð6 2. Ðon€appeal).€€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=n>#ÔWhile€the€evidence€shows€that€the€husbandððs€accounts€decreasedÐ 9P40 Ðmonthly€by€significant€but€differing€amounts€in€October,€November,€andÐ ° ÐDecember€of€1996€and€January€of€1997,€the€wife€offered€no€evidence€of€aÐ Ô$ Ðfraudulent€conveyance.€The€husband€testified€that€he€spent€the€money.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РøH ÐInasmuch€as€the€wife€presented€no€facts€or€law€requiring€a€different€result,€weÐ  l Ðmust€conclude€that€she€has€failed€to€satisfy€her€burden.Ð @  Ðà  àOur€decision€that€the€trial€court€correctly€defined€the€marital€estate€asÐ d´  Ðproperty€actually€owned€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€does€not,€however,€precludeÐ ˆØ  Ðconsideration€of€the€husbandððs€pre„filing€dissipation€of€approximately€$20,000.€Ð ¬ü ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô‡¼1´»»¼1´ÔððÔ#†¼1´»»¼1´6C#Ô€36„4„121(c)(5)€specifically€authorizes€the€court€toÐ Ð  Ðconsider€a€partyððs€ð ðdissipation€of€the€marital€or€separate€propertyðð€whenÐ ôD Ðfashioning€an€equitable€distribution€of€marital€property.€€òòSee€also€Meadows€v.Ð h ÐMeadowsóó,€Appeal€No.€01„A„01„9801„CH„00054,€1998€WL€770190€(Tenn.€App.Ð <Œ Ð1998).€€We€discuss€the€effect€of€that€dissipation€on€the€division€of€property€inÐ `° Ðsection€IV€below.Ð „ Ô ÐÓ  Ó€III.Ð ¨"ø ÐÓzEÓà  àThe€wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€award€alimonyÐ Ì$  Ðòòin€solidoóó€or€òòin€futuroóó.€€The€husband€responds€that€the€wife's€admitted€level€ofÐ ð&@"  Ðactivity€demonstrates€that€she€is€capable€of€rehabilitating€herself,€but€she€lacksÐ )d$" Ðthe€desire€to€do€so.Ð 8+ˆ&$ Ðà  àTennessee€law€provides€for€three€types€of€alimony:€(1)€rehabilitativeÐ \-¬(& Ðalimony,€Ô‡¼I=»»¼1´Ôwhich€provides€modifiable,€temporary€support€for€a€period€ofÐ €/Ð*( Ðadjustment€sufficient€to€enable€a€dependent€spouse€to€become€partially€or€totallyÐ Ô1$-* Ðself„sufficientÔ#†¼1´»»¼I=ˆG#Ô;€(2)€periodic€alimony€or€alimonyòò€in€futuro,€óóa€continuing,€butÐ ° Ðmodifiable,€support€obligation€to€an€economically€disadvantaged€spouse;€€andÐ T Ð(3)€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€an€unmodifiable€lump€sum€award€which€may€be€payableÐ ( x Ðover€time.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)(1996);Ô‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€€òòsee€Loria€v.€Loriaóó,€952Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d€836,€838€(Tenn.€App.€1997).Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=åI#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô€Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=}J#Ô€Our€law€favors€rehabilitative€alimonyÐ   ð Ðwhenever€possible€and€Ô‡¼I=»»¼1´Ôrequires€a€finding€that€rehabilitation€is€"not€feasible"Ð ôD  Ðbefore€an€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð H˜  Ð101€(d)€(2)Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=K#ÔÔ‡¼I=»»¼1´Ô;€òòsee€Self€v.€Selfóó,€861€S.W.2d€360,€361€(Tenn.€1993).Ô#†¼1´»»¼I=L#Ô€€In€reviewing€theÐ xÈ Ðpropriety€of€an€alimony€award,€we€must€consider€a€number€of€factors,€includingÐ Ì Ðthe€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs€and€financial€resources€of€theÐ ð@ Ðparties,€including€income€from€pension,€profit€sharing,€or€retirement€plans.€Ð d ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„121(d)(1).€€The€predominant€factors€to€consider,Ð 8ˆ Ðhowever,€are€the€innocent׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€spouse's€need,€€and€the€obligor€spouse's€ability€to€pay.€Ð \¬ ÐòòSee€Hazard€v.€Hazardóó,€833€S.W.2d€911,€917€(Tenn.€App.€1991).Ð €!Ð Ðà  àHere,€the€record€shows€that€the€husband€earned€a€yearly€income€ofÐ ¤#ô Ðapproximately€$32,000.€€The€wife€received€a€monthly€income€of€$472€inÐ È%! Ðdisability€benefits€„„€a€yearly€income€of€approximately€$5,664.€€Her€monthlyÐ ì'<#  Ðexpenses,€including€the€extremely€low€house€payment,€exceed€her€monthlyÐ *`%" Ðincome€by€$144.€€In€the€division€of€property€below,€she€€received€€$2,659.15€inÐ 4,„'$ Ðcash.€€These€figures€leave€no€doubt€that€the€wife€met€the€economic€inequalityÐ X.¨)& Ðrequirement€on€which€any€alimony€award€must€be€predicated.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð |0Ì+( Ððð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€Nor€can€we€dispute€the€wife's€obvious€need€for€additionalÐ  2ð-* Ðincome.€€òòSee€Loyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€Ð Ä40, Ðà  àThe€trial€court€made€no€finding€of€fact€regarding€the€wifeððsÐ ° Ðemployability€or€possibility€of€rehabilitation.€In€making€the€rehabilitativeÐ Ô$ Ðalimony€award,€the€court€stated€that€the€$300€per€month€for€two€years€was€toÐ øH Ðð ðgive€her€a€chance€to€go€to€maybe€Motlow€or€something€to€get€some€furtherÐ  l Ðtraining.€She€has€a€high€school€education€according€to€the€statistical€data.€SheððsÐ @  Ðgoing€to€have€to€be€able€to€qualify€for€something.ððòòóó€€While€we€can€find€implicitÐ d´  Ðin€that€statement€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€rehabilitation€is€possible,€theÐ ˆØ  Ðtrial€court€made€no€findings€of€fact€in€support€of€that€conclusion.€€Additionally,Ð ¬ü Ðthe€record€includes€no€information€regarding€training€or€education€which€couldÐ Ð  Ðenable€the€wife€to€work€full„time,€no€information€about€her€employability€in€viewÐ ôD Ðof€her€limitations,€and€no€information€concerning€the€income€she€could€produceÐ h Ðif€employed€part„time€or€full„time.Ð <Œ Ðà  àThe€appellate€record€is€sufficiently€developed€to€permit€us€to€find€thatÐ `° Ðwife's€ability€to€materially€improve€her€health€or€increase€her€income€is€limited,Ð „ Ô Ðleading€us€to€conclude€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„Ð ¨"ø Ð5„101(d)(2).€Accordingly,€we€find€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ Ì$  Ðdecision€to€award€the€wife€rehabilitative€alimony€for€two€years.€€HavingÐ ð&@"  Ðdetermined€that€the€wife€is€at€an€economic€disadvantage€in€relation€to€theÐ )d$" Ðhusband€and€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible,€and€having€considered€the€above„Ð 8+ˆ&$ Ðmentioned€statutory€factors,€especially€the€wifeððs€need,€the€husbandððs€ability€toÐ \-¬(& Ðpay,€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€and€the€relative€earning€capacity,€inÐ €/Ð*( Ðconjunction€with€the€others€enumerated€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d),€weÐ ¤1ô,* Ðaward€the€wife€periodic€alimony€in€the€amount€of€$300€per€month€for€two€yearsÐ È3/, Ðfollowing€the€date€of€divorce,€and€in€the€amount€of€$200€per€month€thereafter,Ð ì5<1. Ðuntil€her€death€or€remarriage.Ð 8`30 Ðà@RR-êàIV.ˆÐ ° Ðà  àThe€wife€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€division€of€€the€maritalÐ Ô$ Ðproperty.€€She€maintains€that€it€failed€to€consider€the€marriage's€length,€herÐ øH Ðdisabilities,€age,€education,€and€contribution€to€the€marriage,€the€disparities€inÐ  l Ðearning€capacity€between€the€parties,€and€her€inability€to€maintain€herself€on€herÐ @  Ðcurrent€income.€€The€husband€responds€that€the€equal€division€of€the€parties'Ð d´  Ðassets€was€equitable,€reflecting€his€equal,€if€not€primary,€contribution€to€theÐ ˆØ  Ðmarriage.Ð ¬ü Ðà  àTennessee€law€requires€that€marital€property€be€divided€equitablyÐ Ð  Ðwithout€regard€to€fault.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(a).€€But€an€equitableÐ ôD Ðdivision€is€not€necessarily€an€equal€one.€€òòSee€Barnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2dÐ h Ð443,€449€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„121(c)€sets€forthÐ <Œ Ðthe€guiding€factors€to€be€considered€in€dividing€marital€property.€€These€include,Ð `° Ðòòinter€alia,óó€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€parties'€age,€physical€and€mentalÐ „ Ô Ðhealth,€vocational€skills,€employability,€earning€capacity,€financial€needs,€andÐ ¨"ø Ðrelative€contribution€to€the€marital€estates.€€In€making€an€equitable€division,€theÐ Ì$  Ðcourt€should€also€consider€the€economic€circumstances€of€each€party€at€the€timeÐ ð&@"  Ðthe€division€of€property€is€to€become€effective€and€the€relative€ability€of€each€forÐ )d$" Ðfuture€acquisitions€of€capital€assets€and€income.€€In€addition,€as€discussed€above,Ð 8+ˆ&$ Ðone€partyððs€dissipation€of€assets€can€be€considered€in€formulating€a€propertyÐ \-¬(& Ðdivision€that€is€equitable.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c).€€A€trial€court'sÐ €/Ð*( Ðdecision€on€the€division€of€marital€property€warrants€deference€unless€it€isÐ ¤1ô,* Ðinconsistent€with€these€factors€or€unsupported€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ È3/, Ðevidence.€òòSeeóó€òòBarnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€449„450.€€Ð ì5<1. Ðà  àHere,€the€trial€court€divided€the€major€assets€of€the€parties€equally.€€WeÐ 8`30 Ðare€not€convinced€that€an€equal€division€was€equitable€in€this€situation,€however,Ð ° Ðconsidering€that€this€was€a€twenty„eight€year€marriage,€the€husband€has€aÐ Ô$ Ðsignificantly€greater€earning€capacity,€and€the€wife's€income€is€limited€by€herÐ øH Ðhealth€problems.€€The€wifeððs€economic€situation€at€the€time€of€divorce€is€worseÐ  l Ðthan€the€husbandððs.Ð @  ÐÓ<€ü(€" ¼è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà " àAs€explained€above,€the€wife€will€be€able€to€meet€her€minimal€livingÐ d´  Ðexpenses€with€the€award€of€alimony€only€as€long€as€she€is€able€to€remain€in€theÐ ˆØ  Ðmarital€residence€with€its€low€mortgage€payment€or€can€find€another€place€to€liveÐ ¬ü Ðat€a€similar€low€monthly€cost.€€The€only€evidence€in€the€record€is€that€no€suchÐ Ð  Ðother€accommodation€can€be€found.€Thus,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€have€theÐ ôD Ðmarital€residence€sold€greatly€reduces€the€likelihood€that€the€wife€can€subsist€onÐ h Ðher€monthly€income.Ð <Œ Ðà " àThe€wife€has€asked€that€she€be€awarded€the€marital€home.€While€weÐ `° Ðfind€that€request€reasonable€in€light€of€the€wifeððs€financial€situation€and€the€veryÐ „ Ô Ðlow€mortgage€payments,€we€are€unable€to€make€such€an€award€on€the€basis€of€theÐ ¨"ø Ðrecord€before€us.€€Such€an€award€could€render€the€distribution€to€the€husbandÐ Ì$  Ðinequitable€without€modification€of€the€distribution€of€the€other€major€assets:€theÐ ð&@"  Ðseparate€lot€and€the€husbandððs€retirement€fund.€€We€know€nothing€about€theÐ )d$" Ðvalue€of€the€retirement€account,€the€amount€of€monthly€benefits€which€willÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðbecome€available€or€when€such€benefits€will€become€available.€€This€prevents€usÐ \-¬(& Ðfrom€equitably€modifying€the€distribution€of€the€other€assets€in€order€to€awardÐ €/Ð*( Ðthe€marital€residence€to€the€wife.Ð ¤1ô,* Ðà " àBecause,€however,€we€think€it€would€be€equitable€and€reasonable€forÐ È3/, Ðthe€wife€to€retain€the€residence,€if€the€other€major€assets€can€be€distributedÐ ì5<1. Ðequitably,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€to€hear€evidence€regarding€theÐ 8`30 Ðpresent€value€of€the€retirement€accounts€in€order€to€reconsider€distribution€of€theÐ ° Ðmarital€property€in€an€equitable€manner€which€will€allow€the€wife€to€retain€theÐ Ô$ Ðmarital€residence.Ð øH Ðà " àWhile€we€regret€the€delay€and€additional€expense€involved€in€thisÐ  l Ðremand,€we€are€simply€unable€to€equitably€divide€the€marital€estate€when€we€doÐ @  Ðnot€know€the€value€of€one€of€the€major€assets.€€On€remand,€we€are€certain€theÐ d´  Ðtrial€court€will€encourage€the€least€expensive€method€for€obtaining€andÐ ˆØ  Ðintroducing€the€additional€fact€needed€for€its€reconsideration.Ð ¬ü Ðà " àIn€this€reconsideration,€the€trial€court€should€also€consider€theÐ Ð  Ðhusbandððs€dissipation€of€$20,000€in€the€six€months€prior€to€his€filing€for€divorce.€Ð ôD ÐWhile€the€trial€court€stated€that€both€parties€had€dissipated€money€throughout€theÐ h Ðmarriage,€we€think€the€pre„filing€reduction€in€husbandððs€account€is€more€relevantÐ <Œ Ðto€a€determination€of€the€equities€involved€in€the€distribution€of€property€thanÐ `° Ðwifeððs€spending€of€her€earlier€settlement€monies.€€Even€if€the€trial€courtÐ „ Ô Ðdetermines€that€it€should€also€consider€the€wifeððs€$6000€in€back€pay€she€receivedÐ ¨"ø Ðin€May€1997,€which€was€spent€during€the€partiesðð€reconciliation,€as€an€offsettingÐ Ì$  Ðdissipation,€the€difference€between€the€two€amounts€is€considerable.€€In€addition,Ð ð&@"  Ðthe€husband€was€unable€to€document€that€any€of€the€$20,000€was€spent€to€benefitÐ )d$" Ðthe€wife€or€the€marriage,€and€was€unable€to€fully€explain€where€the€money€went.€Ð 8+ˆ&$ ÐIn€view€of€these€facts,€and€in€view€of€the€factors€discussed€above,€we€are€of€theÐ \-¬(& Ðopinion€that€an€equitable€distribution€of€the€marital€property€would€result€in€theÐ €/Ð*( Ðwife€receiving€a€greater€than€fifty€percent€share€of€the€major€assets.Ð ¤1ô,* Ѐ€€à@RR-êàVI.ˆÐ È3/, Ðà " àThe€wife€contends€that€€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€her€award€ofÐ ì5<1. Ðattorney€fees€to€$1,200€when€her€actual€fees€and€expenses€were€$3,345.88.€€TheÐ 8`30 Ðhusband€responds€that€the€award€must€be€presumed€to€be€appropriate.Ð ° Ðà " àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€determining€whether€to€requireÐ Ô$ Ðone€spouse€to€pay€for€the€other's€legal€expenses.€€òòSee€Loyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2dÐ øH Ðat€413.€€We€see€no€error€in€the€trial€court's€decision.Ð  l ÐÓ  ÓVII.Ð @  ÐÓ¢yÓà " àAccordingly,€the€trial€court's€decision€to€divide€only€the€property€theÐ d´  Ðparties€possessed€at€the€time€of€separation€is€affirmed.€€That€portion€of€theÐ ˆØ  Ðjudgment€dividing€the€marital€property€is€affirmed€except€for€the€portion€dealingÐ ¬ü Ðwith€the€residence,€the€separate€lot,€and€the€husbandððs€retirement€accounts.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðorder€to€sell€the€residence€and€the€lot€and€equally€divide€the€proceeds,€as€well€asÐ ôD Ðthe€distribution€of€the€retirement€funds€is€vacated,€and€the€case€is€remanded€forÐ h Ðfurther€fact€finding€regarding€the€present€value€of€the€retirement€accounts€and€forÐ <Œ Ðconsideration€of€an€equitable€distribution€which€will€not€require€sale€of€theÐ `° Ðmarital€residence€and€will€result€in€a€more€equitable€distribution€in€accordanceÐ „ Ô Ðwith€this€opinion.€€The€trial€court's€decision€on€the€alimony€€award€is€affirmed€asÐ ¨"ø Ðmodified.€€The€award€of€attorney€fees€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€theÐ Ì$  Ðtrial€court€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion€and€such€furtherÐ ð&@"  Ðproceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€to€be€shared€equallyÐ )d$" Ðbetween€the€parties.Ð 8+ˆ&$ ÐÌÓÓà " àà ¼ à____________________________Ð €/Ð*( Ðà " àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ ’0â+) ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð Ú4*0- ÐÌÌ_________________________________Ð 8`30 ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ "9r41 ЇÌÌ_________________________________à è àÐ Ô$ ÐWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE