WPCW# #VUN %* 0G0UDw4 1m 0K 0D 0d R~ 0J 0T 0^n 0h 0r4 0| 0" 0 1u8U, 0dU,=U>i BB)DC AM0U*}? D3v~ 0@>v~ 0Q 0 0j 0  0 0 0` AOO!! 0cd" 0D" D/ # B:#HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0P  F^ADA (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($X\XXX8u $Z,Century-WP Regular* RSTUVW3|x tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;(3$ !XfwXXX      0  (#$  0  (<1$26.  0  3  0  Hdddddd2 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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd-&C << G<  9p`(Arial 5 !#d##  "  ((   YYY FILED(X February26,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk $$$$'dxd  !#d##   $       Rule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion."(b)TheCourt,with0 theconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2A   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2A(  0  )3  0 (# (#(U$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2A(  a  )3  0h(#(#(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2A(   )3  0h(#h(#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2A  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2A  a  )3  0p(#(#-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$ !XfwXXX  ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##     7fwXXdd7\RA'\  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEWESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON  _____________________________________________________________________________ANNAKATHLEEN    ShelbyCircuitNo.140746R.D.ACKERMANLEGGETT,   C.A.No.02A019408CV00190 Plaintiff/Appellee,    Hon.DArmyBailey,JudgeL')&;+'h|::`  `Lv.TERRYLYLELEGGETT, Defendant/Appellant.DANIELD.WARLICK,Warlick&Todd,Nashville,AttorneyforDefendant/Appellant.GENEVIEVEM.DIX,Memphis,AttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellee. AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED OpinionFiled:_____________________________________________________________________________  MEMORANDUMOPINION +     _____________________________________________________________________________ TOMLIN,Sr.J.    AnnaKathleenAckermanLeggett( plaintiff)obtainedanabsolutedivorcefromTerryLyleLeggett( defendant)intheCircuitCourtofShelbyCountybaseduponapartialconsentagreementbetweentheparties.Thetrialcourtalsodividedthemaritalestateandawardedplaintiffrehabilitativealimonyandattorneysfees.Theonlyissuepresentedonappealbydefendantisthemannerofdivisionofdefendantsretirementpensionaspartofthemaritalestate.Wefindnoerrorandaffirm.̀ PlaintiffanddefendantweremarriedinJuly1982.Atthattime,defendanthadbeenservingasanofficeroftheShelbyCountySheriffsDepartmentforfourteenyears.ThepartiesseparatedinJune1992andweredivorcedinJanuary1994.InDecember1993,defendantbeganreceivingamonthlypensionof$2,832.15fromShelbyCounty,baseduponhis25years,9months,and28daysofservicewiththedepartment.Defendantwas46yearsoldwhenheretired. T.C.A.364121(a)(1991)providesthatmaritalpropertyshouldbedividedequitablywithoutregardtomaritalfault.Thetrialcourtisgivenwidediscretioninadjustingandadjudicatingthepartiesrightsandinterestsinalljointlyownedproperty.Barnhillv.Barnhill,826S.W.2d443,449(Tenn.App.1991).Thetrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyisentitledtogreatweightonappealandwillbepresumedtobecorrectunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Id.at44950. Insofarasitisrelevanttothisissue,T.C.A.364121(b)(1)defines maritalpropertyas8 allrealandpersonalproperty,bothtangibleandintangible,acquiredbyeitherorbothspousesduringthecourseofthemarriage...includingincomefrom,andanyincreaseinvalueduringthemarriage,ofpropertydeterminedtobeseparatepropertyinaccordancewithsubdivision(b)(2)ifeachpartysubstantiallycontributedtoitspreservationandappreciationandthevalueofavestedpension,retirementorotherfringebenefitrightsaccruedduringtheperiodofthemarriage.T.C.A.364121(b)(1)(A)&(B).InBatsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,857(Tenn.App.1988),thiscourtheldthatpensionbenefitsearnedbyaspouseduringmarriagearemaritalpropertyeventhoughtheotherspousedidnotcontributedirectlytotheirpreservationorappreciation. Wemustkeepinmindthatdefendantspensionhadvested,anddefendanthadbegunreceivingthepensionasaresultofhisretirementpriortothedivorcehearing.ThesolewitnessatthetrialbelowwasWaverlySeward,assistantmanagerofbenefitsfortheShelbyCountyGovernment,whotestifiedonbehalfofplaintiffastothemethodusedtocomputedefendantspension.Sewardtestifiedthatdefendantspensionwasdeterminedby(a)hislengthofservicewiththeSheriffsDepartment,and(b)thehighestaveragepayhehadreceivedfor36consecutivemonthsatanytimeduringhistermofemployment.AccordingtoSeward,defendantssalaryduringthehighest36monthconsecutiveperiodproducedanaveragepayof$49,740.09.Applyingaformulaof2.7%peryearofdefendantsaveragesalaryfor25years,and1%ofthatsalaryfortheremaining9monthsand28days,Sewardcalculateddefendantspensiontoamountto$2,832.15permonth.ThisistheamountpaidtodefendantuponhisretirementbeginninginDecember1993. Sewardfurthertestifiedthathaddefendantretiredin1982duringthemonthofhismarriage,his vestedbenefitinhispensionwouldhavebeen$644.60permonth.Thetrialcourtsubtractedthisamountfrom$2,832.15,theamountofdefendantspension,andequallydividedtheremainingamountbetweentheparties.Thecourtroundedoffplaintiffsshareofthepensionto$1,100.00permonth.Thecourtalsofoundthatplaintiffwasentitledto38.84%ofthegrossamountofanyincreasesorotherdistributionsreceivedbydefendantfromtheShelbyCountyGovernmentasapartofhispension. Althoughnotchallengingthefactthathisretirementpensionismaritalproperty,defendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinnottakingintoaccountthathehad15yearsofservicewiththeShelbyCountySheriffsDepartmentpriortomarriageandinnotdeterminingthe truevalueofhispensionatthetimeofmarriage.Defendantcontendsthatthemostequitabledivisionoftheretirementpensionwouldbetoawardplaintiffonehalfofforty(40%)percentofthepension,whichrepresentsthepercentageoftimethepartiesweremarriedduringtheaccrualofpensionbenefits. Wefindthesecontentionstobewithoutmerit.IndeterminingtheamountofdefendantspensionhadheretireduponthemarriageofthepartiesinJuly1982,thetrialcourtdidtakeintoaccountplaintiffspriorservicewiththeSheriffsDepartment.Thecourtsubtractedthisdeterminedamountof$644.60permonthfromtheamountofdefendantspensionuponretirementtoascertaintheamountofappreciationfromthedateofmarriagetothedateofdefendantsretirement. Defendantputonnoproofnordidhecitetotherecordanythingtoshowwhatshouldhavebeenthepropercalculationofthevalueofthepensionpriortomarriage.Hemerelycontendsthattheremaybemorethanonepossiblevalueforhisvestedpensionbenefits.Althoughdefendantpointedoutthatthereweredifferentpossiblevaluesforhispensiondependinguponhislifeexpectancy,thetrialcourtdidnothavetheluxuryofwaitingthirteenyearsuntildefendantreachedtheageof60todeterminetheexactvestedbenefitofdefendantspensionasofthedateofthepartiesmarriageinJune1982.TherecordreflectsthatSewardusedthesameformulatocalculatethevestedbenefitofdefendantspensionasofJune1982assheusedtodeterminehisactualpensionuponretirementin1993.Inouropinion,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdeterminationinthisregard.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit. Plaintiffalsoasksthiscourtfortheassessmentofattorneysfeesandcostsinconnectionwiththisappeal.Althoughweareoftheopinion%  thatreasonableattorneysfeesandcostsofsomenatureshouldbeawarded,wefeelthatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoascertaintheamountofattorneysfeesandthenatureandamountofcoststobereimbursed.Therefore,thiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthislimitedpurpose.Otherwise,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsinthiscauseonappealaretaxedtodefendant,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.            ______________________________________      TOMLIN,Sr.J.      ______________________________________      CRAWFORD,P.J.            ______________________________________      FARMER,J.