ÿWPC' “fRúó­cºõTtãœínŽ ›2I±ìU#šmÛòá]´\ ¡í<§ì¶i_Î.xL®ü‚ÓaÛ»etÇÃ¥ö!'‡¨»ÞŠÎ¾fŸî®ˆM=éô¹%ßz^@87~×ýM *,ëÞ5‚g嵸2öï¡Ë‰Èù'¥«Çô˜º,82EÊmú–b¦‚°¹?ÜŸii%/Lgíí±ž±×'÷¿þuÒ8Œ§–µvÆžÆILÇLãþT…˜ Ò”„6ç#ÐêGÐÊãÛOꤓ͞Ub›÷rð(*,ûUÚN^šÖiõÉ É*¸®ðÇ;wÛ€47úQòS:q.‰&–…ÿäçþ± cø£ìET¾òDÞÈȳ}j/ôŒôBã!a®•¯òºcÐcÿûj*; Íå(1wfT(.ÖéÞ•ä¬*Aae<®nTqD ¹Ê1ñå4zø(®Ex˜k‚Úɹp )þ¤òAün>Ù&rr/<ÀÀPÖn¿Ïuâ‘÷%ïû.ùûñŒÓµ››,Ð!RÜùl0ƒÕOu´K¤ßF–4‘.œ—,°è«òÚò†„b…û¦Ó]ëºÎ¥dáSãçæÏªi/ K[Ó7žåÒÞàüµX•¢)m´`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T U:Ž 0PÈ UN f U:i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i AQ£ Æô 0Dº º 0Dþ þ D/B Bq BŽ D3« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « 0DÞ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ A" D?¡ BGà˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÑDÒDÓUÔÕÖרÙÓ€ã%sŒ&tttttt3|xãwaiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xg_XXXÔÔ€xpXXg_ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xg_XxpÔÐ  ÐÌApril€23,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼|¼XXÔÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœñãññÙñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñÙññãññãñßt€ )>.*jxb¦` `€€@EVV` 8ttxPŽ°ð ¦ tßñãñJACKIE€N.€MULLINAX,à 8 àà  à)›Ð ° Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àœ01„A„01„9803„CH„00137›Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àœDeKalb€Chancery›Ð  P МTERRY€O.€MULLINAX,›€à  à)à  àNo.€œ96„149›Ð  ` Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à  à)à  àÐ 0 € Ðà Ø àà  àÌÌÌÔ#†X–LX¼¼|8#ÔÔ‡»ü »XX–LÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ pÀ  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€œDeKALB€COUNTY›ÌÌAT€œSMITHVILLE,›€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€œVERNON€NEAL,€CHANCELLOR›ÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓœÔ#†X–LX»»ü Ï#ÔÔ‡¼|¼XX–LÔJ.€HILTON€CONGERÐ p"À Ð200€South€Third€StreetÌSmithville,€Tennessee€€37166Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÔ#†X–LX¼¼|#ÔÔ‡»ü »XX–LÔÌÌWM.€KENNERLY€BURGERÌSunTrust€Bank€Building,€Suite€306Ì201€East€Main€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€1969ÌMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€€37133„1969€›ÌœÔ#†X–LX»»ü Þ#ÔÔ‡¼|¼XX–LÔà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANT›Ð  .p)' ÐÌœÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌñÙñÑ foÑÑ7€–LXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñÙñÌñÙñÑ foÑÑ7€–LXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÙñà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:063¿ ÐÑ foÑÑ7€–LXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÙñÑ foÑÑ7€¶IXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñÙñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X–LX¼¼|#ÔÔ€è:·èXX–LÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼|¼èè:·ÔÔ€¼|¼¼¼|ÔÓ€Óà  àThis€appeal€arises€out€of€the€dissolution€of€the€parties'€twenty„three€yearÐ ´ Ðlong€marriage.€€€The€trial€court€granted€the€wife€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€two„¼year€period.€€The€husband€has€appealed€raising€only€the€issue€of€the€propriety€ofÏthe€lower€court's€alimony€award.€€We€disagree€with€the€husband's€assertion€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€this€alimony€award,€and€accordingly,€weÏaffirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ìà  àÌà  àTerry€Mullinax€(the€Husband)€and€Jackie€Mullinax€(the€Wife)€wereÏmarried€in€1975€and€were€divorced€by€final€decree€in€1998.€€During€the€course€ofÏtheir€twenty„three€year€marriage,€one€child€was€born€to€the€parties.€€This€child,ÏBradley€Mullinax,€is€now€an€adult,€and€he,€along€with€both€parties,€were€the€onlyÏwitnesses€who€testified€at€the€divorce€hearing.ÌÌà  àThe€Wife€testified€that€she€initiated€the€divorce€proceedings€due€to€theÏHusband's€infidelity.€€She€claims€that€while€the€Husband€had€called€her€derogatoryÏnames€for€years,€his€unfaithfulness€was€what€prompted€the€divorce.€€At€theÏhearing,€the€Wife€testified€as€to€what€she€felt€was€evidence€of€the€Husband'sÏunfaithfulness.€€€However,€even€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€hearing,€the€Wife€statedÏthat€she€still€hoped€for€reconciliation.€€The€parties'€son€testified€and€confirmedÏthat,€on€one€occasion,€a€woman€had€been€at€his€father's€home€and€answered€theÏphone€when€he€called.ÌÌà  àThe€Wife,€who€is€now€50€years€old,€testified€that€she€has€worked€for€theÏentirety€of€her€adult€life.€€She€was€initially€trained€and€worked€as€a›€œcosmetologist›Ïfor€eleven€years.€€Before€filing€for€divorce,€the€Wife€had€been€working€as€anÏinsurance/personnel€benefits€coordinator€for€ten€years€and€was€earningÏapproximately€$20,000€per€year.€€œShe›€testified€that€she€left€this€job€in€May€of€1997Ïafter€having€a€nervous€breakdown€at€which€time€she€spent€a€week€in€treatment€atÏParthenon€Pavilion.€€Even€before€leaving€her€job,€œshe›€felt€that€her€ability€toÏperform€her€job€had€decreased€in€April€of€1996€when€her€carotid€artery€tore.€€SheÏexpressed€that€she€would€love€to€go€back€to€work€as€soon€as€she€was€able.Ì€€à  àÐ 9l4@ Ðà  àThe€Wife€introduced€the€deposition€testimony€of€a€psychologist,€JohnÏAveritt,€who€first€saw€the€Wife€in€June€of€1997€after€she€was€discharged€fromÏParthenon€Pavilion.€€The€Wife€was€referred€to€Dr.€Averitt€from€Dr.€Pate,€aÏpsychiatrist.€€At€the€January€9,€1998€date€of€his€deposition,€when€Dr.€Averitt€hadÏseen€the€Wife€fourteen€times,€he€diagnosed€her€as€having€a€major€depressiveÏdisorder€that€was€secondary€to€her€medical€condition€and€to€her€divorce.€€Dr.ÏAveritt€stated€his€opinion€as€follows:€"I€would€rate€her€as€being€impaired€orÏdisabled€because€of€her€depression,€and€I€would€say€it€is€a€permanent€disability."€ÏWhen€asked€what€about€her€condition€was€disabling,€Dr.€Averitt€responded€asÏfollows:ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€ü(€ è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà8  àà  à[The€Wife]€has€significant€problems€withÏconcentration€and€memory.€€She€tends€to€œluminateñÔñ€(sic)ñÔñ›€aboutÏthings€consistently.€€She€luminated€œñÕñ(sic)€ñÕñabout›€her€husbandÏand€the€divorce.€€Now,€she€luminates€œñÖñ(sñÖññ×ñiñ×ññÖñcñÖññØñ)€ñØñabout›€other€things,Ïher€inability€to€focus,€carry€on€conversations.€€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  àShe€is€very€dependent,€and€probably€was€passiveÏdependent€before€the€divorce€ever€occurred.€€She€is€presentlyÏnot€able€to€live€alone.€Much€of€the€time,€she€lives€with€herÏsisters,€one€of€her€sisters,€at€least.€€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  àShe€had€difficulty€with€sleep.€Dr.€Gillespie€hadÏchanged€her€sleep€medication€several€times€to€try€to€addressÏthat€problem.€€She€also€had€difficulty€with€a€depressed€affect.Ó€lÓÓ€Ó€ÏñÏñœñÏñà  àIn€my€opinion,€she€is€not€able€to€concentrate€on€a€job,Ïor€to€deal€with€job€stress€in€her€current€circumstances.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓDr.€Averitt€concluded€that€the€Wife's€prognosis€was€poor€œdue€to›€the€fact€that€herÏdepression€was€probably€based€on€a€medical€condition€rather€than€based€upon€theÏloss€of€marriage.€€Dr.€Averitt€testified€that€he€referred€the€Wife€to€a€psychiatrist,ÏDr.€Gillespie,€for€medication€management.€€ÌÌà  àThe€Wife€testified€that€her€total€monthly€financial€need€œis›€$1,681.07.€ÏThis€included€a€mortgage€of€$285€per€œmonth,›€an€automobile€payment€of€$324€perÏmonth€and€medical€expenses€of€$100€per€month€for€her€psychiatrist€andÏpsychologist.€€The€Wife€testified€that€her€monthly€income€œis›€€$735€per€month€fromÏSocial€Security.€€In€addition,€the€final€decree€awarded€the€Wife€at€least€one€pieceÏof€property€with€income„producing€potential€other€than€the€house€in€which€sheÏwas€living.€€Testimony€was€that€this€property€could€be€rented€for€$325€to€$350€perÏmonth.ÌÐ H9˜4= Ðà  àThe€Husband,€who€is€47€years€old,€testified€that€he€œhañÏñ›ñÏñs›€been€employedÏby€the€DeKalb€Telephone€Company€for€the€past€twenty„two€years.€€As€of€recently,Ïhe€also€holds€a€part„time€position€as€an€affiliate€broker€with€a€realty€company.€€HeÏearns€approximately€$30,000€a€year€with€the€phone€company€and€an€additionalÏ$5,000€to€$6,000€per€year€for€his€realty€work.€€He€testified€that€his€monthlyÏexpenses€œare›€$1,962.00.ÌÌà  àThe€Husband€denied€the€Wife's€accusations€of€infidelity€claiming€thatÏhe€desired€reconciliation€during€the€first€months€of€their€separation.€€The€HusbandÏœdescribeñÏñ›ñÏñd›€an€increasing€frustration€€throughout€his€marriage€of€what€he€œassertñÏñ›ñÏñed›Ïwere€unfounded€charges€of€infidelity€that€dated€back€ten€or€fifteen€years.€€Indeed,Ïhe€œciteñÏñ›ñÏñd›€this€as€the€sole€problem€in€the€marriage.€€The€Husband€testified€that€thisÏpattern€of€behavior€on€the€Wife's€part€dated€from€her€first€marriage.€€He€œclaimñÏñ›ñÏñed›Ïthat€these€accusations€have€caused€an€estrangement€in€his€relationship€with€hisÏson.ÌÌà  àThe€Wife€filed€a€petition€for€divorce€and€the€Husband€subsequentlyÏcounterclaimed€for€the€same.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€parties€reached€agreementÏregarding€all€matters€of€property€and€debt€division€leaving€only€the€issue€ofÏalimony€for€the€trial€court€to€determine.€€In€the€final€decree,€€the€trial€court€œfound›Ï"that€it€is€appropriate€to€award€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€the€plaintiff€for€purposes€ofÐ $à( Ðrehabilitation€as€set€out€œbelow."›€€The€court€then€ordered€the€Husband€to€pay€theÏWife€alimony€in€futuro€in€the€amount€of€$400€per€month€for€a€two„year€period€andÏstated€that€this€was€rehabilitative€alimony.ÌÌà  àAlthough€the€court€describes€the€alimony€as€both€"in€futuro"€andÏ"rehabilitative,"€the€language€in€the€court's€Final€Decree€and€bench€rulingÏindicates€clearly€that€the€court's€award€is€one€for€rehabilitative€alimony.€ÏRehabilitative€support€is€designed€to€accomplish€a€stated€result,€to€rehabilitate€anÏeconomically€disadvantaged€spouse,€within€a€limited€time€whereas€alimony€inÏfuturo€continues€the€support€that€was€incident€to€the€marriage€relationship.€€òòSeeóóÐ €4Ð/< ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101€(Supp.€1998);€€Janet€Richards,€òòRichards€onÐ 6h1> ÐTennessee€Family€Lawóó,€ðð€12„3,€284€(1997);€€òòLong€v.€Longóó,€968€S.W.2d€292,€294Ð °73@ Ð(Tenn.€App.€1997)€(upholding€the€trial€court's€award€of€alimony€in€futuro€overÐ H9˜4B Ðhusband's€challenge€that€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€œwife›€alimony€in€futuro€ratherÏthan€rehabilitative€alimony).€€ÌÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€different€types€of€alimony,€the€relevant€part€of€theÏTennessee€Code€provides€as€follows:Ô‡ ¼@¼¼¼Œ#ÔÐ  ` ÐÔ#†¼Œ#¼¼ ¼@Ï'#ÔÓ€Óà8  àà  à(d)(1)€It€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€aÐ ¨ ø  Ðspouse€who€is€economically€disadvantaged,€relative€to€theÏother€spouse,€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€theÏgranting€of€an€order€for€payment€of€rehabilitative,€temporaryÏsupport€and€maintenance.€€Where€there€is€such€relativeÏeconomic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€inÏconsideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€including€those€set€out€inÏthis€subsection,€then€the€court€may€grant€an€order€for€paymentÏof€support€and€maintenance€on€a€long-term€basis€or€until€theÏdeath€or€remarriage€of€the€recipient€except€as€otherwiseÏprovided€in€subdivision€(a)(3).€€Rehabilitative€support€andÏmaintenance€is€a€separate€class€of€spousal€support€asÏdistinguished€from€alimony€in€solido€and€periodic€alimony.€ÏIn€determining€whether€the€granting€of€an€order€for€paymentÏof€support€and€maintenance€to€a€party€is€appropriate,€and€inÏdetermining€the€nature,€amount,€length€of€term,€and€mannerÏof€payment,€the€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors,Ïincluding:Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,Ïand€financial€resources€of€each€party,€including€income€fromÏpension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€otherÏsources;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,Ïthe€ability€and€opportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€suchÏeducation€and€training,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€to€secureÏfurther€education€and€training€to€improve€such€party's€earningÏcapacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,Ïbut€not€limited€to,€physical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€aÏchronic€debilitating€disease;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€aÏparty€to€seek€employment€outside€the€home€because€suchÏparty€will€be€custodian€of€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€andÏpersonal,€tangible€and€intangible;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€maritalÏproperty€as€defined€in€ðð€36-4-121;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€establishedÏduring€the€marriage;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€suchÏtangible€and€intangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€asÐ H9˜44 Ðmonetary€and€homemaker€contributions,€and€tangible€andÏintangible€contributions€by€a€party€to€the€education,€trainingÏor€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€theÏcourt,€in€its€discretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€€andÐ  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€taxÏconsequences€to€each€party,€as€are€necessary€to€consider€theÏequities€between€the€parties.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€&(ÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101€(Supp.€1998).€€While€all€of€these€factors€areÏimportant,€the€most€common€factors€are€the€need€of€the€spouse€requesting€supportÏand€the€ability€to€pay€of€the€obligor€spouse.€€òòBull€v.€Bullóó,€729€S.W.2d€673,€675Ð øH  Ð(Tenn.€App.€1987).ÌÌà  àA€trial€court's€decision€regarding€the€award€of€spousal€support€is€heavilyÏfact-dependent€and€requires€the€careful€balancing€of€many€factors,€including€theÏabove€factors€of€section€œ35-6-101(d)(1).›€€òòCrain€v.€Crainóó,€925€S.W.2d€232,€233Ð ð@ Ð(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€theÏparties€and€witnesses€as€they€testify,€and€it€resolves€many€conflicts€that€œrestñÊñsñÊñ›€on€theÏcredibility€of€witnesses.€€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,€157€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€Ð ¸ ÐTherefore,€these€decisions€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal.€€òòBatson€v.Ð P    ÐBatsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Appellate€review€is€pursuantÐ è!8" Ðto€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Accordingly,€"forÏa€support€decision€to€be€upheld,€it€must€be€based€upon€the€proper€application€ofÏthe€relevant€legal€principles€and€upon€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€òò€CranfordÐ °&"( Ðv.€Cranfordóó,€œ772›€S.W.2d€48,€œ50›€(Tenn.€App.€1989).Ð H(˜#* ÐÌ€à  àAs€stated,€the€court€awarded€the€Wife€rehabilitative€alimony€for€twoÐ x+È&. Ðyears.€€At€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€court€made€a€ruling€from€the€bench€inÏwhich€it€acknowledged€that€there€was€some€degree€of€fault€on€the€part€of€bothÏparties.€€With€regard€to€the€Wife's€ability€to€work,€the€court€made€the€followingÏfinding:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€Court€is€convinced€in€its€mind€that€at€this€time,€Mrs.ÏMullinax€is€unable€to€work.€€Based€upon€her€testimony,€basedÏupon€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Averitt,€the€psychologist,€who€hadÏreviewed€also€the€medical€records€of€Dr.€Pate€and€Dr.ÏGillespie,€Dr.€Gillespie,€the€psychiatrist€who€had€been€seeingÏMrs.€Mullinax,€and€based€upon€the€fact€that€she€is€drawingÏsocial€security€disability€benefits.€€Social€Security€is€notÐ Ð9 5> Ðgenerally€to[o]€liberal€in€granting€benefits€to€folks€that€are€notÏdisabled.€€Obviously,€they€had€to€make€some€sort€of€findingÏthat€she€was€disabled€in€order€to€do€that,€grant€those€benefits.Ð  Ð  Ð  ЀÌà8  àI€don't€know€how€much€of€the€disability€may€be€associatedÏwith€the€trauma,€the€emotional€trauma€of€this€divorce€action,Ïbut€there€are€numerous€appellate€court€cases€that€even€that€Ïtype€of€disability,€the€Court€has€to€take€note€of.€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àAnyway,€the€proof€is€to€the€effect€that€in€the€spring€of€1996,Ïshe€had€a€ruptured€or€torn€carotid€artery,€which€I'm€sureÏcontributed€to€her€problems€that€she's€had.€€She's€described€itÏas€being€a€nervous€breakdown€and€I€believe€a€lay€person€canÏtestify€about€their€own€condition€especially€you€know,€I€think,Ïif€you've€had€a€nerve€problem.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àIt€appears€certainly€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€at€thisÏtime,€she's€not€able€to€work.€€She's€got€the€training€and€theÏexpertise€when€she€does€become€able,€she€has€ten€yearsÏexperience€in€working€at€Cooper€Moog€Industries,€CooperÏIndustries€Division.€€She€seemed€to€have€a€very€prominent€jobÏthere€in€charge€of€benefit€sections.€€She's€a€cosmetologist€andÏhas€worked€some€eleven€years€as€a€cosmetologist€inÏWoodbury.€€Also,€she's€trained€as€a€certified€nurse€assistant.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àSo€she€has€the€ability,€the€training€and€the€experience€to€earnÏa€livelihood€if€and€when€she€is€mentally€and€physically€ableÏto€work.€€I€don't€know€if€once€this€divorce€case€is€over€with,Ïhopefully€her€emotional€situation€will€improve.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court€feels€that€this€is€a€proper€case€to€grant€alimony€inÏfuturo€for€a€period€of€two€years€at€$400€a€month.€€If€she€doesÏnot€recover€to€the€extent€she€is€able€to€work,€obviously€withinÏthat€period€of€time,€she€can€petition€the€Court€to€extend€theÏalimony.€€This€would€be€considered€also€as€rehabilitativeÏalimony.€It€is€the€Court's€opinion€it€will€take€at€least€that€longÏunder€the€circumstances€for€her€to€rehabilitate€herself€to€getÏback€into€the€work€force.€€œÐ  Ð  Ð  ЛÌà8  àI'm€not€really€basing€any€of€this€on€fault,€although€it€is€a€factorÏfor€the€court€to€consider.€€I€have€looked€at€all€of€the€factors€asÏset€out€in€the€Code,€but€based€primary€on€need€and€ability.€ÏShe€has€the€need,€in€the€Court's€opinion,€he€has€the€ability€toÏpay€that€amount.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ð;ÓÌœñÐñÌñÐñ›à  à€On€appeal,€the€Husband€argues€that€the€record€does€not€support€aÏconclusion€that€the€Wife€has€demonstrated€a€need€for€alimony.€€He€claims€first€thatÏthe€final€decree€reflects€that€the€Wife€received€substantial€assets€in€the€division€ofÏthe€parties'€marital€estate.€€Secondly,€the€Husband€disputes€œñÍñ€ñÍñthat›€the€Wife€hasÐ Ð9 54 МñÎñnot›ÏñÎñshown€she€in€unable€to€work€ñËñbecause,€he€claims,€ñËññÌñas›€ñÌñher›€medical€diagnosis€was€notÏsupported€by€competent€evidence.€€It€is€the€Husband's€position€that€where€theÏcentral€issue€of€a€case€involves€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment,€a€party'sÏpronouncement€that€he€or€she€is€sick€may€not€be€the€basis€of€the€court's€decision.€ÏÌœñÑñÌñÑñ›à  àThe€gist€of€the€Husband's€position€is€that€the€Wife€is€not€really€depressedÏand€unable€to€work.€€More€than€once,€counsel€for€the€Husband€referred€to€the€factÏthat€it€would€be€better€for€the€Wife€to€work€than€to€sit€at€home€and€watch€"RickiÏLake"€and€"dwell€on€her€problems."€€On€cross„examination€after€the€Wife€assertedÏthat€she€could€not€do€her€job,€the€Husband's€attorney€countered€"that€is€simplyÏbecause€you€have€decided€that€you€can't€do€it."€€In€spite€of€the€fact€that€theÏHusband€does€not€believe€the€Wife,€the€trial€court€œdid.›€€œ"[O]n›€an€issue€whichÏhinges€on€witness€credibility,€[the€trial€court]€will€not€be€reversed€unless,€otherÏthan€the€oral€testimony€of€the€witnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,Ïconcrete€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary."€€òòGivler€v.€Givleróó,€964€S.W.2dÐ P Ð902,€905€(Tenn.€App.€1997)€(òòquoting€Tennessee€Valley€Kaolin€v.€Perryóó,€526Ð ˜è ÐS.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€App.€1974)).€€ÌÌà  àWe€find€that€this€record€fully€supports€the€trial€court's€decision€to€awardÏthe€Wife€rehabilitative€alimony.€€In€addition€to€the€Wife's€testimony€of€her€presentÏinability€to€work,€the€trial€court€relied€on€the€deposition€testimony€of€the€Wife'sÏtreating€psychologist,€Dr.€Averitt.€€Dr.€Averitt€opined€with€detail€that€the€Wife€wasÏsuffering€from€a€major€depression€disorder€such€that€she€was€unable€to€work.€€ItÏwas€Dr.€Averitt's€opinion€that€the€Wife€was€being€honest€regarding€her€portrayalÏof€her€condition.€€Moreover,€there€was€undisputed€testimony€of€the€Wife's€currentÏfinancial€needs€as€well€as€of€the€Husband's€current€income€and€ability€to€pay.ÌÌà  àThis€record€contains€no€grounds€for€concluding€that€the€trial€courtÏmisapplied€the€factors€influencing€the€alimony€decision.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court'sÏbench€ruling€evidences€a€thorough€application€of€the€statutory€factors€to€theÏrecord.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court's€decision€was€supported€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€award€of€rehabilitativeÏalimony€to€the€Wife.€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€the€costs€of€this€appeal€should€beÏtaxed€against€the€Husband.à è àœÐ H9˜4B ÐñÎñ›ñÎñÓ€ÓñÓñÌÌñÓñÌñÎñ›ñÎññÒñÌñÒññÎñ›ñÎñÓ?€ü(€ À@’X€ü(€ è“X?Óà  àà  àà À àñÎñ›ñÎñ_______________________________________Ìà  àà  àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE›