WPCf 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ 0d UB* %l U6r U> B) DC AMR U*  v~ B^v{ D3N 0@ AO 0D D/ BIڃ"3|x($ {D|}~{EDDӀ2 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<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  ""   YYY FILED"X July31,1997CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\\RA'\7*OXXdd7R!# A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION EVELYNN.KEISLER,   )C/ANO.03A019704CH00119      ) PlaintiffAppellee,   )KNOXCHANCERY      )v.      )HON.SHARONBELL,      )CHANCELLORCHARLESH.KEISLER,SR.,  )      )AFFIRMEDAND DefendantAppellant.  )REMANDED̜WANDAG.SOBIESKIandCINDYF.FOSTER,SOBIESKI,MESSER&ASSOCIATES,Knoxville,forPlaintiffAppellee.MARTYMcDONALDandJAYW.MADER,McDONALD,LEVY&TAYLOR,Knoxville,forDefendantAppellant.@ OPINION         Franks.J.    Inthisdivorceactionthewifewasgrantedadivorceonthegroundofadultery,andtheCourtordereddivisionofthemaritalproperties,grantedrehabilitativealimony,andattorneysfeestothewife.Thehusbandhasappealed.  Thehusbandsissuesonappealare:0 0 1.0 WhethertheTrialCourtequitablydividedthepartiesmaritalpropertyinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofT.C.A.364121whenitsdivisionresultedinMrs.Keislerreceivingapproximately$181,979andMr.Keislerreceiving$155,441.0 0 2.0 WhethertheTrialCourterredinawardingMrs.KeislerrehabilitativealimonyinexcessofherneedsandthusworkedapunishmentonMr.Keisler.0 0 3.0 WhetherthetrialcourterredbyorderingMr.KeislertopayattorneysfeesforMrs.KeislergiventhesignificantassetsreceivedbyMrs.Keislerfromthecourtsdivisionofthepartiesproperty.  Thiswasamarriageofsome40years,andatthetimeofthedivorcethewifewasaged57andthehusbandaged60.Thehusbandinsiststhatthedivisionofmaritalpropertywasinequitable.Wecannotagree.TheTrialCourtwasrequiredtotakeintoaccountthefactorssetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotated,364121inarrivingatanequitabledivisionoftherealproperty.Thefactorsrelevanthereincludethedurationofthemarriage,theageandhealthofthewife,therelativeabilityofeachpartytoacquirecapitalassetsandincome(thehusbandhadademonstratedearningcapacityofapproximately$40,000.00ayear),andtheeconomiccircumstancesoftheparties.TheevidencerelatingtothesefactorssupportsthedecisionmadebytheCourt.  ThehusbandfurtherarguesinthisregardthattheTrialCourtintendedtomakeequalawardsofthemaritalproperty,butwecannotfindthatintentfromtheexpressionsoftheTrialJudge.Atonejuncture,theTrialJudgesaid:0 0 Soforamoreaccuratefindingthatwouldleavehimwithapproximately$155,000asopposedtoher$182,000,oradifferenceofapproximately$28,000.Moreover,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsfindingthatthedistributionofthemaritalpropertywasequitableunderthecircumstances.  TheTrialJudgeawardedrehabilitativealimonyintheamountof$7,500.00peryearfortwoyears,andorderedhusbandtopayitinalumpsum.Thehusbandessentiallyarguesthatthewifedidnotdemonstrateneed,andthattheawardwas,ineffect,madetopunishhimforhisadultery.TheamountofalimonyawardediswithinthesounddiscretionoftheTrialJudge.Houghlandv.Houghland,844S.W.2d619(Tenn.App.1992),andthefactorstobetakenintoaccountinestablishingalimony,ifapplicable,aresetforthin365101(d).Needandabilityarethe mostcriticalfactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhethertoawardalimony.Lloydv.Lloyd,860S.W.2d409(Tenn.App.1993).TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsfindingofneed,andthetwoyearrequirementofrehabilitation,T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).Moreover,therecorddemonstratesthatthehusbandhastheabilitytopaythealimonyawarded.  TheTrialCourthadthediscretiontotakeintoaccounttherelativefaultsofthepartiesasafactortobeconsideredintheawardofalimony.Whenthefactorsareconsideredtoformthebasisfortheaward,thereisnoindicationthatthisawardwasmadeto punishthehusbandforhisadulterousconductashehascharged.  Finally,defendantarguesthatattorneysfeeswereimproperlyallowed.TheTrialJudgeislikewisevestedwithwidediscretioninallowanceofattorneysfeesandexpenses.SeeElliottv.Elliott,825S.W.2d87(Tenn.App.1991),andasinthiscase,wheretheawardofattorneysfeesisanalimonyaward,theTrialCourtisrequiredtotakeintoaccountthefactorsenumeratedin365101(d).Thesefactorsmilitateinfavorofthewife,andjustifytheawardmadebytheTrialJudge.SeeThompsonv.Thompson,797S.W.2d599(Tenn.App.1990).  Thewiferaisesissuestotheeffectthatthehusbandshouldbeestoppedfromdisputingtheattorneysfeesaward,becauseheagreedtothatamount,andinthealternativeasksthisCourttoawardattorneysfeesfortheTrialCourtsproceedingintheamountof$25,000.00.Ourreviewoftherecordindicatestheamountof$15,000wasagreedtobyhusbandsattorney,however,wedonotbelieveunderthecircumstancesthattherepresentationsmadewouldprecluderaisingtheissueoftheproprietyofawardinganyfeesonappeal.  Finally,wifearguesthattheattorneysfeesincurredshouldbeawardedforprotectingherawardonappeal.Weagreethatitisappropriateforherfeestobeawardedinthiscase.SeeT.C.A.365103(c).WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,andtheTrialJudgeisdirectedtoestablishareasonablefeeforwifesattorneyfordefendingtheenforcementoftheTrialCourtsawardonappeal.  Thecostoftheappealisassessedtotheappellant,andappellesmotiontoconsiderpostjudgmentfactsisoverruled.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________XCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.