ÿWPCh Š’P{°Füq¬º¦öû -Ï&˜4µõ×y„Ìüý)ŸüܱP¬z‚¼]@7>I‚åˈpRµ¨5]+_ qxEA£ ß“'ßhºY ´ç΀ˆOŽÙÙEE‹ñÉCA2›“ªg²:ñ¶"¹¡õ¼¾:p턲×פïðe~‹YÑ5 ’Æ©–0œ¤N šîïBjW‘PÇã¡ÿPWªLPid[0tÿW Nç„ÂÞ…Gþýf&ªáv™À=bo>m̪}½Dãöe4LX‘  ’g«¾¢H =’‘b©‚ärV1/›“­À~ôÄ4Ãåž:¬¶£ÕÖÚ¿W¬‚NÊ ÔY´Ï öé§ yôlÿD—+çb¿ˆ+Ñh¼!˜an”T½{šŒ]TP‚ñE¶úŸ­²Öðt‹$¶o×Ü-ählÝ·¢¨]EH£®³vë+X"Á(uÕ7&þiìJã]>bþuø¹Œô©‚Sß7ÎÓ¾÷£/iz“º1ìîœ7攟ÌÏ N¦íô@ZßáNå„Cà–a`LñƒBùíšf^ª| ®qM}˜¯_ßÜ^rŒÉ¥˜[I×Ðév~ßm„eµj/Q”WÂßgËøÏ ÄÌæ‡LYÝâFb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë “±ND 0DFfŠEðkòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòb]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] 0ëeeee BPP 0¤m D3 D-D 0Kqq AS¼Æ 0¤Õ 0Dy A«½˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»Ù )â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?Æ(ê:i ûŸ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ‰Ý ƒR]ä$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ&  ÔBecause€Rivermont€is€a€Subchapter€S€corporation,€Husband,€as€a€9.44%€shareholder,€must€pay€taxes€on€hisÐ ° Ðapportioned€share€of€the€corporationððs€earnings,€regardless€of€how€much€of€his€share€is€actually€paid€to€him.Ô'ð ~Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ aÝ ƒR]ä$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€the€trial€court€correctly€pointed€out,€that€court€could€not€have€set€aside€the€conveyance€even€had€it€foundÐ ° Ðit€to€have€been€fraudulently€made€since€Husbandððs€mother€is€not€a€party€to€these€proceedings.- ù-(|G2]ä$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¶»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇŒò»»Ô d(|3A$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¶»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¶»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¶»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼¶»»»ÔÑ8€­cXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€³/ Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îç—¶ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼¶»îîç—q#ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àJune€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X­cX»¼¶ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¶»XX­c]#ÔòòBYRON€LOWELL€MITTSóó€v.€òòóóVIRGINIA€ANN€JONES€MITTSÔ‡X­cX»¼¶Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNos.€97„D„2629€and€97„D„2635€€€€€€W.€Neil€Thomas,€III,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌFILED€AUGUST€16,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ è 8  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00374„COA„R3„CV€Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€dissolved€a€marriage€of€over€26€years.€€Wife€appeals,€arguing€(1)€that€the€increase€inÐ ¶ Ðvalue€of€Husbandððs€separate€property€interest€in€two€stock€holdings€is,€in€each€instance,€maritalÐ ¦ö Ðproperty;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€alimonyòòóó;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ –æ Ðcalculating€Husbandððs€child€support€obligation;€and€(4)€that€she€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððsÐ †Ö Ðfees,€both€at€the€trial€level€and€on€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€the€increaseÐ vÆ Ðin€value€of€Husbandððs€Ô_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€stock€as€his€separate€property.€€We€also€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ f¶ Ðfinding€that€no€portion€of€the€value€of€the€Coca„Cola€stock€is€marital€property.€€We€modify€the€awardÐ V¦ Ðof€rehabilitative€alimony€so€as€to€provide€for€a€monthly€payment€of€$2,000€for€a€period€of€four€yearsÐ F– Ðbeginning€with€the€first€full€month€after€the€entry€of€the€divorce€judgment€below.€€We€find€that€WifeÐ 6† Ðis€entitled€to€her€attorneyððs€fees€at€both€stages€of€this€proceeding.€€We€remand€this€case€for€the€trialÐ &v Ðcourt€to€determine€if€the€child€support€obligation€should€be€increased€due€to€Husbandððs€lack€ofÐ f Ðstandard€visitation.Ô#†¼¶»XX­cÝ#ÔÔ‡X­cX»¼¶Ô€Ð V ÐÓ#ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ æ6 ÐAffirmed€in€Part;€Modified€in€Part;€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ö& ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¶»àX­cÚ #ÔÔ‡X­cX.¼¶ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ ¶!  ÐòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ¦"ö! ÐÌPhillip€C.€Lawrence€and€David€H.€Lawrence,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€VirginiaÐ †$Ö# ÐAnn€Jones€Mitts.Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌRosemarie€L.€Bryan€and€William€R.€Hannah,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€ByronÐ V'¦"& ÐLowell€Mitts.Ð F(–#' ÐÓÛ ÓÌò òOPINIONÐ  &*v%)ýÿ Ðó óÔ#†¼¶»XX­c #ÔÔ‡X­cX»¼¶ÔI.€€òòGeneral€OverviewóóÐ ° ÐòòóóÔ#†¼¶»XX­cd#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X­cX»¼¶ÔÌà  àByron€Lowell€Mitts€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Virginia€Ann€Jones€Mitts€(ð ðWifeðð)€were€married€inÐ à Ð1972.€€At€the€time€of€their€divorce,€Husband€was€47€years€old;€Wife€was€46.€€They€had€two€children,Ð €Ð Ðthe€younger€of€which,€Byron€Adam€Mitts€(ð ðAdamðð),€was€17€at€the€time€of€trial.€€The€older€child€hasÐ pÀ Ðreached€the€age€of€majority.Ð ` ° ÐòòóóÌà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€Wife€an€absolute€divorce€upon€stipulated€grounds.€The€parties€wereÐ @  Ðawarded€joint€custody€of€Adam,€with€Wife€being€designated€as€the€primary€residential€custodian.€Ð 0 € ÐHusband€was€awarded€ð ðreasonableðð€visitation€rights.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€childÐ  p  Ðsupport€of€$642€per€month,€based€upon€a€finding€that€his€monthly€gross€income€was€$4,151.€€TheÐ `  Ðcourt€awarded€Wife€rehabilitative€alimony€of€$2,000€per€month€until€Adam€graduated€from€highÐ P  Ðschool€in€June,€2000,€a€period€of€approximately€14€months€after€the€final€divorce€judgment€wasÐ ð@  Ðentered.€€The€trial€court€divided€the€marital€property€as€follows:Ð à0  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€Asset€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  à€€€Value€€à À àà  àà p à€€€€Wife€€à  àà x àHusbandÐ À ÐÌMarital€Residenceà ¸ àà  à$€€81,436à À àà  àà p à$€47,500à  àà x à$€33,936Ð  ð Ð1996€Blazerà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€14,000à À àà  àà p à€€€14,000Ð à ÐFurnishingsà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€3,000à À àà  àà p à€€€€€3,000Ð €Ð ÐInsurance€Policiesà ¸ àà  àòò€€€€45,930óóà À àà  àà p àòò€€€14,125óóà  àà x àòò€€€31,805óóÐ pÀ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€Totalà ` àà ¸ àà  àò ò$144,366ó óà À àà0  àà0p(#(#àò ò$€78,625ó óà  àà x àò ò$€65,741ó óÐP p(#p(# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€all€balances€owed€on€the€partiesðð€jointly„held€creditÐ 0€ Ðcards€and€charge€accounts.€€The€court€did€not€specify€the€sum€of€these€debts,€noting€that€the€evidenceÐ  p Ðon€this€subject€was€ð ðconfusing.ðð€€It€further€held€that€the€appreciation€in€value€of€Husbandððs€stock€inÐ ` ÐRivermont€Golf€and€Country€Club,€Inc.€was€the€separate€property€of€Husband.€€With€regard€to€theÐ P Ðshares€of€Coca„Cola€stock€that€Husband€had€owned€jointly€with€his€mother€for€a€period€of€timeÐ ð@ Ðduring€the€marriage,€the€court€concluded€that€the€stock€was€not€marital€property€subject€to€division.€Ð à0 ÐThe€trial€court€declined€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€to€either€party.Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€òòStandard€of€ReviewÐ °"  ÐÓ¡ÓÌóóà  àOur€review€of€this€non„jury€case€is€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÐ $à" Ðcorrectness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings,€ð ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ €%Ð # Ðotherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€not€accorded€the€sameÐ p&À!$ Ðdeference.€€ò òòòBrumit€v.€Brumit,ó óóó€948€S.W.2d€739,€740€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð `'°"% ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€òòIncrease€in€Value€of€Rivermont€StockÐ @)$' ÐóóÓÎÓÌà  àThe€first€issue€Wife€raises€on€appeal€addresses€the€classification€of€the€increase€in€value€ofÐ  +p&) Ðthe€Rivermont€stock.€€Although€Wife€does€not€dispute€that€the€value€of€the€stock€when€it€wasÐ ,`'* Ðtransferred€to€Husband€is€his€separate€property,€she€argues€that€the€increase€in€its€value€during€theÐ ° Ðmarriage€should€be€classified€as€marital€property€and€equitably€divided€between€the€parties.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(b)€provides€that€marital€property€includes€ð ðany€increase€in€value€duringÐ €Ð Ðthe€marriage€of,€property€determined€to€be€separate€property...if€each€party€substantially€contributedÐ pÀ Ðto€its€preservation€and€appreciation....ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B)€(1996).€€To€be€consideredÐ ` ° Ðsubstantial,€a€spouseððs€contribution€to€the€preservation€and€appreciation€of€the€property€must€be€ð ðrealÐ P   Ðand€significant.ðð€€ò òòòBrown€v.€Brown,ó óóó€913€S.W.2d€163,€167€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€Whether€a€spouseÐ @  Ðmade€substantial€contributions€to€the€preservation€and€appreciation€of€separate€property€is€a€questionÐ 0 € Ðof€fact.€€ò òòòSherrill€v.€Sherrill,ó óóó€831€S.W.2d€293,€295€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).Ð  p  ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€marriage,€Husband€was€employed€by€Rivermont€Golf€and€CountryÐ P  ÐClub,€Inc.,€a€corporation€that€operated€a€golf€course€and€country€club€in€Chattanooga,€Tennessee.€Ð ð@  ÐHusband€worked€as€the€general€manager€of€the€entire€operation€for€most€of€the€partiesðð€marriage.€Ð à0  ÐHe€often€worked€long€hours,€especially€during€the€spring€and€summer€months.€€Husband€performedÐ Ð  Ðmany€duties,€€including€hiring€and€scheduling€employees,€maintaining€the€grounds,€working€in€theÐ À Ðpro€shop,€and€organizing€the€golf€tournaments.€€€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€Ô_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€corporation€was€formed€in€1952€by€Husbandððs€father,€Russell€Mitts,€whoÐ à Ðwas,€at€the€time€of€its€formation,€the€sole€shareholder€of€the€corporation.€€For€a€number€of€years,Ð €Ð ÐÔ_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€leased€the€premises€on€which€the€golf€course„country€club€was€located.€€In€1967,Ð pÀ ÐÔ_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€purchased€the€property€for€$400,000.€€From€1978€to€1982,€Russell€Mitts€made€gifts€ofÐ `° ÐRivermont€stock€to€each€of€his€three€children,€including€Husband.€€By€1982,€each€child€had€receivedÐ P  Ðshares€of€stock€representing€a€9.44%€interest€in€Rivermont.€€Russell€Mitts€remained€the€majorityÐ @ Ðshareholder.€€In€March,€1997,€Rivermont€sold€the€land€on€which€it€operated€the€golf€course€andÐ 0€ Ðcountry€club€to€a€developer€who€intended€to€use€the€property€for€residential€development.€Ð  p ÐRivermont€auctioned€off€its€equipment€and€inventory.€€When€the€developer€received€the€property,Ð ` Ðhe€removed€the€golf€course,€the€clubhouse,€the€sprinkler€system,€and€the€swimming€pool€in€order€toÐ P Ðdevelop€the€property€into€a€residential€subdivision.€€In€exchange€for€the€property,€RivermontÐ ð@ Ðreceived€commercial€properties€with€a€net€value€of€$6,500,000.€€Rivermont€currently€receives€theÐ à0 Ðlease€income€from€these€commercial€properties.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€finding€that€the€increase€in€value€of€the€Rivermont€stock€is€Husbandððs€separate€property,Ð °"  Ðthe€trial€court€relied€upon€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€ò òòòHarrison€v.€Harrison,ó óóó€912€S.W.2d€124Ð  #ð! Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€In€that€case,€the€husband€owned€separate€property,€which,€because€of€the€constructionÐ $à" Ðof€an€interstate€highway€across€the€property,€had€increased€in€value€from€$7,000€to€$1,361,750€atÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€time€of€the€divorce.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€125.€€The€parties€agreed€that€the€sole€cause€of€the€increase€in€theÐ p&À!$ Ðpropertyððs€value€was€the€construction€of€the€interstate.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€trial€court€found,€however,€that€theÐ `'°"% Ðincrease€in€value€should€nevertheless€be€classified€as€marital€property,€citing€Wifeððs€contributionsÐ P( #& Ðto€raising€cattle€on€the€property€and€the€use€of€marital€funds€to€satisfy€a€debt€secured€by€the€property.€Ð @)$' Ðò òòòId.ó óóó€at€126.€€The€Supreme€Court€rejected€the€lower€courtððs€conclusion,€finding€that€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„Ð 0*€%( Ð121(b)(1)(B)€does€not€ð ðpermit€the€conclusion€that€òòany€óóincrease€of€value€during€marriage€constitutesÐ  +p&) Ðmarital€property.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€127.€€(Emphasis€in€ò òòòHarrisonó óóó).€€The€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€theÐ ,`'* Ðincrease€in€the€propertyððs€value€was€not€marital€property,€finding€that€the€increase€was€notÐ ° Ðattributable,€either€directly€or€indirectly,€to€Wifeððs€efforts.€€ò òòòId.Ð  ð ÐÌó óóóà  àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€in€the€instant€case€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€increase€in€value€of€Husbandððs€Ô_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€stock€is€the€separate€property€of€Husband.€€WhileÐ pÀ ÐHusbandððs€efforts€in€his€role€as€general€manager€„„€and€Wifeððs€efforts€in€her€role€as€parent€andÐ ` ° Ðhomemaker€„„€most€certainly€contributed,€directly€or€indirectly,€to€the€success€of€the€òògolf€course€andÐ P   Ðthe€country€clubóó,€the€increase€in€value€of€the€corporationððs€stock€resulted€not€from€the€golf€courseÐ @  Ðand€country€club€but€rather€from€the€attractiveness€of€the€raw€land€òòas€Ô_ÔdevelopableÔ_Ô€residentialÐ 0 € Ðpropertyóó.€€Neither€party€by€his€or€her€efforts,€directly€or€indirectly,€contributed€to€the€increase€inÐ  p  Ðvalue€of€the€underlying€property€as€it€is€presently€being€used€and€for€which€it€was€purchased€by€theÐ `  Ðdeveloper.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€correctly€classified€the€increase€in€value€as€Husbandððs€separateÐ P  Ðproperty.€€The€rationale€of€ò òòòHarrisonó óóó€applies€to€the€fact€of€this€case.€€This€issue€is€found€adverse€toÐ ð@  ÐWife.Ð à0  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€òòAppreciation€in€Coca„Cola€StockÐ À ÐÓÏ7ÓÌóóà  àWife€contends€that€the€increase€in€value€of€the€Coca„Cola€stock€that€Husband€had€ownedÐ  ð Ðduring€the€marriage€should€be€classified€as€marital€property.€€Although€Husband€did€not€own€theÐ à Ðstock€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€„„€having€conveyed€it€to€his€mother€„„€Wife€argues€that€the€increaseÐ €Ð Ðin€value€of€that€stock€should€be€considered€marital€property€because€Husband€fraudulently€conveyedÐ pÀ Ðthe€stock€to€his€mother€in€anticipation€of€filing€for€divorce.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àWife€did€not€allege€at€trial€that€Husband€had€committed€a€fraudulent€conveyance.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€An€issueÐ @ Ðnot€raised€at€trial€cannot€be€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€ò òòòSparks€v.€Metropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€ofÐ 0€ ÐNashville€and€Davidson€County,ó óóó€771€S.W.2d€430,€434€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Even€assuming€thatÐ  p Ðthe€issue€is€properly€before€us,€however,€there€is€no€indication€that€any€part€of€the€stockððs€valueÐ ` Ðconstitutes€marital€property.€€Wife€does€not€dispute€that€the€stock€itself€was€Husbandððs€separateÐ P Ðproperty€initially;€moreover,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€increase€in€its€value€was€a€result€of€aÐ ð@ Ðsubstantial€contribution€by€either€of€the€parties.€€Because€the€stock€was€Husbandððs€separate€property,Ð à0 Ðthe€transaction€between€him€and€his€mother€is€not€directly€relevant€to€the€issue€of€the€equitableÐ Ð  Ðdivision€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property.€€This€issue€is€also€found€adverse€to€Wife.€€€Ð À! ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓV.€€òòAlimony€and€Attorneyððs€FeesóóÐ  #ð! ÐÌÓ?Óà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€Wife€$2,000€per€month€in€rehabilitative€alimony€until€June,€2000,Ð €%Ð # Ðwhich€was€the€expected€graduation€date€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child.€€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€courtÐ p&À!$ Ðfailed€to€award€her€an€adequate€amount€of€alimony€for€a€sufficient€duration.Ð `'°"% ÐÐ P( #& Ðà  àThe€amount€and€duration€of€alimony€are€issues€with€respect€to€which€the€trial€court€exercisesÐ ° Ðwide€discretion.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔGarfinkelÔ_Ô€v.€Garfinkel,ó óóó€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€makingÐ  ð Ðan€alimony€determination,€a€court€should€be€guided€by€the€factors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„Ð à Ð101(d)(1)(A)€„€(L)€(Supp.€1999).€€The€ð ðreal€needðð€of€the€requesting€spouse€ð ðis€the€single€mostÐ €Ð Ðimportant€factor.ðð€€ò òòòCranford€v.€Cranford,ó óóó€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€ð ðIn€additionÐ pÀ Ðto€the€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse,€the€courts€most€often€consider€the€ability€of€the€obligorÐ ` ° Ðspouse€to€provide€support.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ P   ÐÌà  àThe€relevant€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101,€clearly€reflects€a€bias€in€favor€of€rehabilitativeÐ 0 € Ðalimony.€€òòSee€óóT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€(Supp.€1999).€€However,€it€is€also€clear€that€rehabilitativeÐ  p  Ðalimony€is€favored€only€in€cases€where€rehabilitation€is€feasible.€€òòSeeóó€ò òòòid.Ð `  Ðó óóóÌà  àIn€its€memorandum€opinion,€the€trial€court€noted€that€although€Wifeððs€income€and€expenseÐ ð@  Ðstatement€indicates€that€she€needs€$3,334€per€month,€that€amount€includes€expenses€being€paid€byÐ à0  ÐHusband.€€Thus,€the€court€concluded€that€Wifeððs€monthly€need€is€actually€$2,192.€€Citing€WifeððsÐ Ð  Ðabsence€from€the€labor€market€for€a€significant€amount€of€time€and€her€lack€of€marketable€skillsÐ À Ðð ðexcept€in€the€teaching€arena,ðð€the€court€awarded€Wife€rehabilitative€alimony€of€$2,000€per€monthÐ ° Ðuntil€June,€2000.€€The€court€noted€that€€ð ð[Wife]€testified€that€she€would€only€need€alimony€untilÐ  ð ÐAdam€graduates€from€high€school.ððÐ à ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€reflects€that€Wife€was€employed€for€the€first€three€years€of€the€partiesððÐ pÀ Ðmarriage,€first€as€a€bank€teller€and€then€as€an€elementary€school€teacher.€€The€parties€mutually€agreedÐ `° Ðthat€she€would€stay€home€after€the€children€were€born.€€This€she€did€for€the€next€23€years.€€WifeÐ P  Ðtestified€that€she€wished€to€stay€at€home€until€Adam€graduated€from€high€school€so€she€could€beÐ @ Ðthere€for€him€as€she€had€been€there€for€the€partiesðð€daughter€and€so€she€could€continue€to€volunteerÐ 0€ Ðat€his€high€school.€€Regarding€Wifeððs€need€for€alimony,€the€following€exchange€during€her€cross„Ð  p Ðexamination€is€pertinent:€Ð ` ÐòòóóÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àOkay.€€So€if€the€Judge€were€to€rule€that€you€needed€some€sortÐ ð@ Ðof€money€to€sustain€yourself,€and€Iððm€not€talking€about€child€support,Ð à0 Ðyouððd€only€need€that€until€Adam€graduated€from€high€school,€correct?ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àI€suppose.€€I€would,€I€suppose.€€Ð°" ` x` x ÐÌòòóóà  àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€rehabilitativeÐ $à" Ðalimony€is€appropriate€in€this€case.€€Wife€was€46€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial€and€was€in€good€health.€Ð €%Ð # ÐShe€has€a€bachelorððs€degree€in€education€and€can€return€to€the€teaching€profession€once€she€renewsÐ p&À!$ Ðher€certification.€€We€find,€however,€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÐ `'°"% Ðthat€a€period€of€approximately€14€months€is€sufficient€to€rehabilitate€Wife.€€Although€weÐ P( #& Ðacknowledge€that€Wife€agreed€„„€albeit€somewhat€ambivalently€„„€on€cross„examination€that€sheÐ @)$' Ðð ðÔ_Ôsuppose[dÔ_Ô]ðð€that€she€would€only€need€support€to€sustain€herself€until€Adam€graduated€from€highÐ 0*€%( Ðschool,€the€conclusion€that€Wife€could€be€rehabilitated€by€that€time€flies€in€the€face€of€the€otherÐ  +p&) Ðevidence€in€this€case,€such€as€the€relatively€small€amount€of€marital€property€awarded€to€Wife;€herÐ ,`'* Ðabsence€from€the€workforce€for€approximately€23€years;€her€lack€of€liquid€assets€or€an€incomeÐ ° Ðstream;€and€the€indefiniteness€of€her€plans€for€successfully€re„entering€the€workforce.€€The€evidenceÐ  ð Ðshows€that€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Husband€had€gross€income€of€$49,800€a€year€and€stock€in€aÐ à Ðvery€substantial€income„producing€corporation,€while€Wife€had€no€income€and€no€job€prospects.€Ð €Ð ÐWife€is€clearly€economically€disadvantaged€relative€to€Husband.€€After€careful€consideration€of€theÐ pÀ Ðfactors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),€we€find€that€an€award€of€four€years€of€rehabilitativeÐ ` ° Ðalimony€is€the€appropriate€decree€in€this€case.€€Based€on€the€evidence€before€us,€we€find€thatÐ P   ÐHusband€has€the€ability€to€pay€the€alimony€decreed€in€this€opinion.Ð @  ÐÌà  àWe€further€find€that€Wife€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€at€trial€and€on€this€appeal.€Ð  p  ÐAn€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€in€the€nature€of€alimony.€€ò òòòSmith€v.€Smith,ó óóó€912€S.W.2d€155,€161Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Because€we€find€that€Wife€has€demonstrated€the€requisite€need€and€thatÐ P  ÐHusband€has€the€ability€to€pay,€we€also€reverse€the€trial€court€on€this€issue.Ð ð@  ÐòòÌóóÓ  ÓVI.€€òòChild€SupportÐ Ð  ÐÓKWÓÌà  àóóWife€next€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€Husbandððs€child€supportÐ ° Ðobligation.€€Specifically,€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€in€failing€to€find€that€Husband€wasÐ  ð Ðwillfully€unemployed€or€underemployed;€(2)€in€failing€to€consider€Rivermontððs€retained€earningsÐ à Ðin€calculating€Husbandððs€income;€and€(3)€in€failing€to€deviate€upwardly€from€the€Child€SupportÐ €Ð ÐGuidelines€because€of€Husbandððs€lack€of€parenting€time€with€the€child.€€We€will€consider€each€ofÐ pÀ Ðthese€arguments€in€turn.Ð `° ÐÌÓ  ÓA.Ð @ ÐÓ"ZÓÌà  àWife€first€argues€that€Husband€was€willfully€unemployed€or€underemployed.€€The€evidenceÐ  p Ðreflects€that€in€1997,€Husband€was€earning€a€annual€salary€of€$49,800€as€the€general€manager€of€theÐ ` Ðgolf€course„country€club€operation.€€After€the€property€was€sold,€Rivermont€began€distributingÐ P Ðincome€to€Husband€in€an€amount€equal€to€his€former€salary.€€Thereafter,€Husband€obtained€hisÐ ð@ Ðrealtorððs€license€and€became€an€agent€with€a€realty€company.€€He€testified€that€he€regularly€reportsÐ à0 Ðfor€work€and€that€he€has€performed€some€work€for€the€company.€€He€testified,€however,€that€he€hasÐ Ð  Ðrecently€developed€health€problems.€€Husband€was€diagnosed€with€sleep€apnea€and€had€surgery€toÐ À! Ðtreat€this€condition€in€1998.€€He€testified€that€he€continues€to€suffer€from€sleep€apnea€and€that€heÐ °"  Ðhopes€to€work€more€when€his€health€improves.Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€refused€to€find€that€Husband€was€willfully€unemployed€or€underemployed.€Ð €%Ð # ÐGiven€his€recent€health€problems,€his€efforts€to€start€working€in€the€real€estate€field,€and€the€fact€thatÐ p&À!$ ÐHusband€is€receiving€the€same€amount€from€Ô_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€as€he€did€when€he€was€employed€at€the€club,Ð `'°"% Ðwe€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€on€this€issue.€€WifeððsÐ P( #& Ðargument€is€found€to€be€without€merit.Ð @)$' ÐÐ  0*€%( ÐÓ  ÓB.Ð ° ÐÓ§`ÓÌà  àWife€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€the€earnings€retained€byÐ à ÐRivermont€in€calculating€Husbandððs€gross€income.€€She€argues€that€Husbandððs€obligation€should€beÐ €Ð Ðbased€upon€$76,587,€Husbandððs€distributable€share€of€the€corporationððs€earnings€in€1998.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourt€based€the€child€support€obligation€on€the€payments€that€Husband€actually€received€from€theÐ ` ° Ðcorporation,€which€totaled€$49,800.€Ð P   ÐÌà  àThis€court€has€held€that€where€a€business€is€òòsolely€ownedóó,€the€businessðð€accumulation€ofÐ 0 € Ðretained€earnings€can€be€considered€in€determining€an€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ôððs€income€for€the€purpose€of€childÐ  p  Ðsupport.€€òòSee€ò òSandusky€v.€Sandusky,ó óóó€C/A€No.€01A01„9808„CH„00416,€1999€WL€734531,€at€*4Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€M.S.,€filed€September€22,€1999).€€That€is€because€ð ð[a]€self„employment€situationÐ P  Ðwhere€an€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€spouse€or€parent€can€control€the€salary€he€or€she€receives€may€raise€issues€requiringÐ ð@  Ðthe€court€to€examine€whether€the€potential€exists€for€the€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€to€manipulate€his€reported€incomeÐ à0  Ðeither€by€failing€to€aggressively€solicit€business€or€by€inflating€his€expenses,€thereby€minimizing€hisÐ Ð  Ðincome.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(internal€quotation€marks€and€citation€omitted).€€However,€Husband€in€the€instant€caseÐ À Ðis€not€the€sole€shareholder€of€Ô_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô.€€On€the€contrary,€he€is€a€minority€shareholder,€and€theÐ ° Ðdistribution€of€the€corporationððs€income€is€within€the€control€of€the€majority€shareholder,€his€father.€Ð  ð ÐThus,€Husband€does€not€have€the€ability€ð ðto€manipulate€his€reported€incomeðð€as€a€sole€shareholderÐ à Ðwould.€€Wife€has€not€cited€any€authority€„„€and€we€are€not€aware€of€any€„„€that€would€require€a€courtÐ €Ð Ðto€consider€a€corporationððs€retained€earnings€in€calculating€an€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ôððs€income€where€the€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_ÔÐ pÀ Ðis€a€minority€shareholder€and€thus€lacks€control€over€the€distribution€of€the€corporationððs€income.€Ð `° ÐWe€therefore€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€based€Husbandððs€minimum€child€support€obligationÐ P  Ðon€the€payments€Husband€actually€received€from€the€corporation.Ð @ ÐÌà  àWife€has€filed€a€motion€to€consider€post„judgment€facts€in€this€case,€asking€this€Court€toÐ  p Ðconsider€Husbandððs€amended€1998€tax€return,€which€reflects€that€Husbandððs€gross€income€isÐ ` Ð$104,812.€€We€note€that€the€bulk€of€the€changes€that€prompted€the€filing€of€the€amended€tax€returnÐ P Ðrelate€to€Husbandððs€interest€in€Ô_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô.€€Upon€reviewing€the€amended€return,€we€find€that€it€doesÐ ð@ Ðnot€alter€our€finding€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€basing€Husbandððs€child€support€obligation€uponÐ à0 Ðthe€amount€of€income€actually€distributed€to€him€rather€than€upon€the€higher€gross€amount€ofÐ Ð  ÐÔ_ÔRivermontÔ_Ô€income€upon€which€Husband€was€required€to€pay€federal€income€taxes.€€Ð À! ÐÌÓ  ÓC.Ð  #ð! ÐÓoÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àFinally,€Wife€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€deviated€upwardly€from€the€ChildÐ €%Ð # ÐSupport€Guidelines€because€Husband€has€not€exercised€standard€visitation€with€the€child.€€HusbandÐ p&À!$ Ðargues€that€Wife€did€not€raise€this€issue€at€trial€and€therefore,€so€the€argument€goes,€the€issue€shouldÐ `'°"% Ðnot€be€considered€by€us€on€this€appeal.€€We€find€that€the€issue€of€the€amount€of€visitation€exercisedÐ P( #& Ðby€Husband€was€litigated€at€trial.€€Both€Husband€and€Wife€testified€as€to€the€amount€of€timeÐ ° ÐHusband€spent€with€the€child,€and€both€parties€were€questioned€as€to€whether€Husband€exercisedÐ  ð Ðovernight€visitation.€€Child€support€was€the€only€issue€upon€which€this€testimony€was€relevant.€€InÐ à Ðthis€connection,€it€should€be€noted€that€Husband€did€not€seek€to€be€the€childððs€primary€residentialÐ €Ð Ðcustodian.€€Upon€reviewing€the€partiesðð€testimony,€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€thatÐ pÀ ÐHusband€has€not€exercised€any€overnight€visitation€with€the€child.€€The€trial€courtððs€memorandumÐ ` ° Ðopinion€does€not€address€this€testimony.€€Thus,€we€find€that€it€is€appropriate€to€remand€this€case€soÐ P   Ðthe€trial€court€can€consider€this€testimony€and€determine€whether,€and,€if€so,€to€what€extent,€anÐ @  Ðincrease€in€child€support€is€appropriate€in€view€of€the€fact€that€the€minor€child€did€not€spend€theÐ 0 € Ðamount€of€visitation€time€contemplated€by€the€Guidelines.€€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Ô_ÔRegsÔ_Ô.,€ch.€1240„Ð  p  Ð2„4„.04(1)(b).Ð `  Ðòòò òó óóóÌÓ  ÓVII.€€òòConclusionóóÐ ð@  ÐÓ}vÓÌà  àWe€modify€the€trial€courtððs€rehabilitative€alimony€award€and€remand€for€the€entry€of€anÐ Ð  Ðappropriate€order€on€this€subject.€€We€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decree€regarding€Wifeððs€request€forÐ À Ðattorneyððs€fees€at€the€trial€court€level.€€We€remand€this€case€for€further€proceedings€on€the€issue€ofÐ ° Ðchild€support€and€the€appropriate€amount€to€be€awarded€Wife€as€attorneyððs€fees,€both€for€professionalÐ  ð Ðservices€and€expenses€at€the€trial€level€and€on€appeal,€all€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Except€asÐ à Ðreversed,€modified,€or€otherwise€changed€or€altered€by€this€opinion,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ €Ð Ðis€affirmed.€€Exercising€our€discretion,€we€tax€the€costs€on€appeal€half€to€each€of€the€parties.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0€ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE