ÿWPCr 1# ¾U DÉ %  0( 0”;4Ïãòw@ú 0D: 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ 0d[ 0@¿ D3ÿ B)2 DC[ AMž Bë U* 2 AQ6 Ƈ 0DM 0D‘ D/Õ Bv~!vÓŸ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóäzz!3|xl XUYZ [\]D^e_D`Ó€l(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial úÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMarch€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌJOHN€RUSSELL€OKERSON,à àà àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€œ142325R.D.›ÌœÙ€*ÙßR€%($A1-j|{¯` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9507„CV„00147Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Wyeth€Chandler,€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌBARBARA€BUHR€OKERSON,ÌÌà àDefendant/Appellee.ÌÌCHARLES€A.€SEVIER,€The€Sevier€Law€Firm,€Memphis,€Attorney€forÏPlaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌLARRY€RICE€and€KENDRA€H.€ARMSTRONG,€Rice,€Rice,€Smith,€Bursi,€Veazey,€&ÏAmundsen,€L.L.P.C.,€Memphis,€Attorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌœò òòòMODIFIED€IN€PART€AND€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€ó óóó›ÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àThese€two€consolidated€appeals€stem€from€a€divorce€action€initiatedÏby€John€Russell€Okerson€(ð ðPlaintiffðð€or€ð ðHusbandðð)€against€Barbara€BuhrÏOkerson€(ð ðDefendantðð€or€ð ðWifeðð)€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County.€ÏFollowing€an€abbreviated€bench€trial,€the€trial€judge€granted€Wife€aÏdivorce€on€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€divided€theÍpartyððs€marital€property,€awarded€Wife€custody€of€the€two€minor€childrenÏand€awarded€temporary€child€support€and€alimony.€€The€case€was€continuedÏto€a€later€date.€€œDuring€the€course€of›€that€hearing,€it€was€announced€onÏbehalf€of€the€parties€that€they€had€reached€a€settlement€agreement€thatÏequally€divided€the€marital€property.€€In€addition,€it€was€announced€thatÏthe€amount€and€method€of€payment€of€alimony€by€Husband€to€Wife€had€beenÏfinalized,€along€with€the€payment€of€child€support€and€some€attorney€fees.Ìà àFollowing€the€entry€of€a€final€divorce€decree€(identified€asÏð ðSupplemental€Final€Decree€of€Divorceðð),€Husband€filed€a€petition€œciting›ÏWife€for€contempt€alleging€a€œdeprivation›€of€visitation€rights€with€theÏpartyððs€children.€€This€petition€was€withdrawn€by€Husband€prior€to€œaÏhearing.›€€Counsel€for€Wife€petitioned€the€court€œfor€an€award›€of€attorneyÏfees€to€Wife€for€work€performed€in€defending€Husbandððs€contempt€œpetition,›Ïas€well€as€a€request€for€prospective€attorney€fees€pending€appeal.€€TheÏtrial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€Wifeœ€$1,000.00€toward€attorney€feesÏfor€services€rendered€in€connection€with€the€contempt€petition€andÏ$4,000.00€in€prospective€attorney€fees€for€handling€of€Wifeððs€case€onÏappeal.€›€œThese›€two€appeals€were€subsequently€consolidated.€Ìà àHusband€has€raised€five€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€Did€the€trial€court€errÏin€ordering€Husband€to€pay€as€alimony€the€sum€ofœ€$117,000.00,›€payable€inÏinstallments€over€a€ten€year€period,€or€was€it€a€subterfuge€to€provide€forÍthe€payment€of€œthe€college›€œeducation›€œof›€his€œtwo€children?›€(2)€Did€HusbandÏhimself€or€by€and€through€his€attorney€consent€in€full€to€the€two€orders€ofÏdivorce€entered€in€this€cause?€(3)€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€the€division€of€certain€marital€property€of€the€parties,€specifically€theÏNorthwest€Airlines€Pension€and€Prudential€Ñ7€meXXdðXXdð7ÑAnnuity€and€the€IRA€at€J.€C.ÏBradford€and€Co.?€Ìà àHusbandððs€fourth€and€fifth€issues€on€appeal€stem€from€the€post„divorce€hearing€pertaining€to€attorney€fees€and€may€be€consolidated€asÏfollows:€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretion€in€awarding€Wife€attorneyÏfees€in€the€amount€of€œ$1,000.00›€for€legal€services€pertaining€to€theÏcontempt€petition€filed€by€œHusband,›€and€in€awarding€Wifeœ€$4,000.00€inÏprospective€attorney€fees€for€legal€services€in€connection€with€herÏappeal?€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,›€we€affirm€as€to€all€issuesÏexcept€the€awarding€of€prospective€attorney€fees€for€œWifeððs€legal›€servicesÏon€appeal.Ìà àThe€basic€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€The€parties€were€married€inÏFebruary€1977.€€It€was€Wifeððs€first€marriage€and€Husbandððs€secondÏmarriage.€€Husband€was€serving€in€the€military€at€the€time€of€marriageÏbut,€subsequently€left€the€service€and€was€employed€as€an€airline€pilot€byÏNorthwest€Airlines.€€Two€daughters€were€born€of€the€marriage:€Georgina,Íin€February€1978€and€Justine,€in€April€1983.€€The€record€reflects€that€bothÏdaughters€are€extremely€intelligent.€€Ìà àHusband€left€the€family€in€May€1991.€€Some€two€years€later€he€filedÏa€complaint€for€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences,Ïwhich€he€later€amended€to€œallege›€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€WifeÏfiled€a€counter€complaint€for€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€œadultery.›€€In€1993,Ïthe€last€full€year€prior€to€the€divorce€hearing€in€July€1994,€Husband€earnedœÏ$140,000.00€as€an€airline€pilot.€€At€that€time€Wife€was€a€professor€atÏMemphis€State€University,€and€earned€in€the€same€year€$28,500.00.›€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€as€a€result€of€wage€negotiations€between€managementÏand€the€pilots€union,€Husbandððs€income,€without€potential€overtime,€forÏ1994€œand€the€years›€immediately€following€would€be€in€excess€ofœÏ$120,000.000€a€year.€€Wife€was€in€the€process€of€obtaining€her€doctorateÏdegree,€which€would€bring€about€a€slight›€increase€in€her€annual€incomeÏwhen€completed.Ìà àPrior€to€the€initial€hearing,€Husband€stipulated€that€he€had€engagedÏin€inappropriate€marital€conductð"ði.e.,€adultery.€€At€œthat›€hearing€heÏadmitted€having€œadulterous›€affairs€with€three€different€women,€during€theÏperiod€between€separation€and€trial.€€Following€a€œthree„day›€œhearing,›€theÏtrial€court€granted€Wife€an€absolute€divorce€on€the€ground€of€inappropriateÍmarital€conduct€on€the€part€of€Husband.€€The€court€also€awarded€Wife€theÏcustody€of€the€partyððs€minor€children€and€at€the€same€time€grantedÏHusband€liberal€visitation€privileges€with€the€children.€€œÌà àHusband€was€directed€to€pay€Wife€as€temporary€child€support€theÏamount€of€$2,300.00€per€month€and€temporary€alimony€in€the€amount€ofÏ$700.00€per€month,€each€amounts€to€be€adjusted€as€to€amount€and€lengthÏof€time€of€payments€at€a€subsequent€hearing€set€by€the€same€order€toÏbegin€on€August€31,€1994.€€The€trial€court€also€finalized€an€agreementÏreached€between€the€parties€concerning€the€division€of€the€partyððsÏseparate€property€and€a€portion€of€the€partyððs€marital€property.€€Ìà àAfter€the€resumption€of€the€hearing€on€August€31,€1994,€extendingÏinto€the€first€days€of€September,€in€open€court,€with€the€parties€present,Ïcounsel€for€Wife€announced€that€the€parties€had€reached€a€settlement€asÏto€the€matters€remaining,€which€were€financial€in€nature,€consisting€ofÏalimony,€child€support,€division€of€certain€marital€property€and€attorneyÏfees.€€Ìà àIn€the€weeks€and€months€that€followed,€there€were€multipleÏexchanges€of€documents,€including€copies€of€correspondence€written€byÏHusband€and€counsel€for€both€parties,€as€well€as€drafts€and€redrafts€of€aÏproposed€final€order,€to€be€entitled€ð ðSupplemental€Final€Divorce€Decree.ðð€ÍThis€decree€was€entered€in€March€1995.€€Immediately€after€filing€hisÏnotice€of€appeal,€Husband€filed€a€petition€seeking€to€have€Wife€cited€forÏcontempt€for€being€in€violation€of€the€court€order€giving€him€visitationÏrights.€€This€petition€was€subsequently€withdrawn€by€Husband€following€aÏconference€with€the€trial€judge,€prior€to€any€hearing.€€Thereafter,€counselÏfor€Wife€sought€additional€attorney€fees€for€services€rendered€inÏconnection€with€these€proceedings.€€The€trial€court€awarded€$1,000.00€in›Ïattorney€fees€to€Wife€relative€to€the€contempt€œproceedings,›€œas€well€asÏordering›€additional€attorney€fees€for€Wife€in€the€amount€ofœ€$4,000.00,Ïprospectively,€to€cover€in€part€Wifeððs€legal€expenses€on€appeal.€€€ÌÓÓÌ›ÓÓà@ àò òI.€The€Alimony€Issuesð"ðDid€Husband€Consent€and€Was€ItÏReasonable?ó óÌÓӜ̛ÓÓà àFor€the€sake€of€brevity€and€judicial€economy,€œthis€court€willÏconsider€these€›€two€issues€œtogether.›€€Husbandððs€counsel€on€appeal€did€notÏparticipate€in€the€trial€of€the€case.€€From€the€filing€of€the€originalÏœcomplaint›€through€the€entry€of€the€supplemental€final€œdecree,›€Husband€wasÏat€all€times€represented€by€Ms.€Kathleen€D.€Norfleet€of€the€Memphis€Bar.€ÏOn€œappeal,›€counsel€for€Husband€œstrongly€contends›€that€it€was€unreasonableÏœthat›€alimony€œbe›€conceived€and€structured€for€the€purpose€of€providing€œaÍcollege€education,€or€some€part€thereofÔ€Ô,€for€the›€œpartiesðð€two€minorÏchildren.€€Husband€contends€that€the€structuring€of€alimony€for€thisÏpurpose€was€a€concept€developed€by€Wifeððs€counsel€at€trial€and€that€it€wasÏnot€only€accepted€by€the€trial€court,€but€became€a€òòcause›€œclbreóó›€of€theÏœcourt.›Ìà àA€reading€of€this€œrecord›€œindicates›€without€question€that€WifeððsÏcounsel,€early€on€in€œthe›€first€hearing,€advocated€œthat€(if€possible)›€someÏprovision€should€be€made€œfor›€Husband€to€bear€a€substantial€portion€of€theÏresponsibility€of€educating€his€daughters.€€The€record€also€reflects€thatÏearly€on€the€trial€court€would€not€hear€of€such€a€suggestion.€€However,€asÏthe€hearing€œproceeded,›€the€trial€judge€became€more€actively€œinvolved›€andÏfrom€time€to€time€œclearly›€stated€that€he€desired€in€some€way€to€see€thatÏHusband€provided€for€his€daughters€and€their€education.Ìà àœWhile€stating€that€he›€did€not€consent€to€such€a€decree€as€the€oneÏentered€by€the€trial€judge,€Husband€further€states€that€if€there€wasÏconsent€that€he€was€ð ðpressuredðð€by€the€trial€judge€to€give€œhis›€consent.€€WeÏwill€look€at€these€two€aspects€one€at€a€time.€€First,€as€to€œð ðconsentðð›€or€ð ðnoÏœconsent.ð𛀀Ìà àThe€Supplemental€Final€Decree€contains€the€following€provisions,€inÏpart,€relative€to€alimony€to€be€paid€by€Husband:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àThe€Court€finds€that€the€alimony€agreement€reached€byÏthe€parties€is€proper€under€the€current€circumstances€andÏHusband€shall€therefore€pay€alimony€to€the€Wife€in€the€amountÏof€One€Hundred€Seventeen€Thousand€($117,000.00)€DollarsÏpayable€in€monthly€installments€as€set€forth€hereinbelow.€ÏSaid€alimony€shall€be€modifiable€only€upon€a€substantialÏchange€of€circumstance€as€set€forth€below€and€shall€terminateÏupon€the€death,€but€not€the€remarriage,€of€JOHN€RUSSELLÏOKERSON€or€BARBARA€BUHR€OKERSON.€€Further,€the€Court€foundÏthat€the€award€of€alimony€to€Wife€shall€be€modified€only€uponÏa€showing€of€a€substantial€unforeseen€change€of€circumstanceÏnot€contemplated€by€this€Court.€.€.€.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌÌà8 àà à4.à àJOHN€RUSSELL€OKERSON€shall€pay€to€BARBARA€BUHRÏOKERSON,€One€Hundred€Seventeen€Thousand€($117,000.00)ÏDollars€as€alimony€necessary€for€her€support€as€follows:€SixÏHundred€Fifty€($650.00)€Dollars€per€month€for€twenty„one€(21)Ïmonths€beginning€September,€1994€through€May,€1996;€OneÏœThousand›€Two€Hundred€Fifty€($1,250.00)€Dollars€per€month€forÏthree€months€beginning€June,€1996,€through€August€1996;€OneÏThousand€Six€Hundred€($1,600.00)€Dollars€per€month€for€aÏperiod€of€thirty„six€(36)€months€beginning€September,€1996,Ïthrough€August,€1999;€One€Thousand€Fifty€($1,050.00)€DollarsÏper€month€for€a€period€of€thirty„six€(36)€months€beginningÏSeptember,€1999,€through€August,€2002;€and€Two€Hundred€FiftyÏ($250.00)€Dollars€to€be€made€in€January,€2004.€€Said€paymentsÏshall€be€payable€in€two€equal€monthly€payments€on€the€œ16th›Ïand€œ30th›€day€of€each€month.€€Said€alimony€shall€terminate€uponÏthe€death€but€not€the€remarriage€of€either€JOHN€RUSSELLÏOKERSON€or€BARBARA€BUHR€OKERSON€and€shall€be€modifiableÏonly€upon€the€showing€of€a€substantial€change€in€circumstanceÏwhich€was€not€contemplated€by€this€Court€at€the€time€of€theÏtrial€as€set€forth€in€the€premises€hereinabove.ÌÌà8 àà à5.à àIn€the€event€that€BARBARA€BUHR€OKERSON€shouldÏdie€before€JOHN€RUSSELL€OKERSON€has€satisfied€his€alimonyÏobligation€under€this€agreement,€JOHN€RUSSELL€OKERSONÏagrees€to€make€payments€in€an€amount€equal€to€his€remainingÏalimony€obligation€for€or€on€behalf€of€the€education€of€theÏpartiesðð€two€children€for€a€period€no€longer€than€the€periodÏoriginally€scheduled€for€the€alimony€payments€or€until€theÏchildren€have€completed€four€years€of€undergraduate€collegiateÏwork,€whichever€occurs€first.€€In€the€event€that€a€child€doesÏnot€pursue€her€college€education€after€BARBARA€BUHRÏOKERSONððs€demise€then€JOHN€RUSSELL€OKERSONððs€agreementÏfor€continuing€support€payments€to€that€child€equal€to€half€ofÏthe€remaining€alimony€payments€shall€cease.ÌÌÌÓÓà àœWe€note›€first€of€œall›€that€the€first€numerical€paragraph€œrefers€to€ð ðthe›Ïalimony€agreement€reached€by€the€parties.ðð€€That€this€was€an€agreement€isÏinitially€reflected€by€portions€of€the€transcript€of€the€September€7,€1994Ïhearing€which€œshows›€that€the€parties€and€their€counsel€from€time€to€timeÏwould€assemble€œfor›€a€œdiscussion,›€œoutside€of›€the€presence€of€the€œcourt,Ïseeking›€to€œreach›€some€œagreement:›€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àAll€right.€€Mr.€Rice,€if€you€can,€announce€to€the€CourtÏwhat€the€decision€and/or€agreement€is.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€œRICE€[Counsel€for€Wife]:›€Pursuant€to€the€Child€SupportÏGuideline€the€husband€will€be€paying€support€in€the€amount€ofÏ$2,350€per€month€for€the€first€two€years.€ÌÌà8 àà àHe€will€pay€alimony€for€the€first€two€years€of€$650.00Íper€month.ÌÌà8 àà àFollowing€that,€for€three€years€he€will€pay€child€supportÏin€the€amount€of€$1,500€a€month€„„€Child€support€will€be€at€theÏrate€of€$1,500.€€Alimony€for€the€next€three€years€will€be€atÏ$1,600.ÌÌà8 àà àThen€alimony€for€the€next€three€years€will€be€at€$1,050Ïper€month.ÌÌà8 àà àThen€alimony€will€drop€for€the€next€two€years€to€$250Ïper€month.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€alimony€is€subject€to€change€of€circumstances€„„€ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€Well,€the€alimony€is€not€subject€to€change€ofÏcircumstances.€€Alimony€is€going€to€be€lump€sum€alimony,Ïwhatever€it€totals€up,€paid€at€the€certain€rate.ÌÌà8 àà àMS.€NORFLEET:€Your€Honor,€thatððs€what€we€agreed€„„ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€The€child€support€is€going€to€be€at€a€certainÏrate.ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€RICE:€And€the€child€support€is€going€to€be€subject€toÏmodification€after€five€years€„„ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€The€child€support€is€going€to€be€subject€toÏmodification.ÌÌà8 àà àMS.€NORFLEET:€Your€Honor,€thatððs€weird.€€We€had€alreadyÏagreed€œthat€that›€would€be€modifiable€depending€on€the€changeÏin€circumstance.ÌÌÌÓÓ€à àAt€the€time€œthis€dialogue€took€place,›€both€Husbandððs€counsel€andÏHusband€were€present.€€At€no€time€did€Husband€or€his€counsel€ever€makeÍany€statements€to€the€court€voicing€any€objection€œin€generalÔ€Ô€to›€theÏœagreement›€or€to€any€specific€œprovision›€as€announced€by€Wifeððs€counsel.€€AsÏa€matter€of€fact,€both€Husband€and€his€counsel€œparticipated›€in€affirmativeÏdialogue:ÌÓÓÌà8 àMR.€RICE:à àWeððve€got€child€support.€€Weððve€got€alimony.€€TheÏœJ.C.›€Bradford€account€„„ÌÌà8 àMS€NORFLEET:à àWell,€wait.€€We€hadnððt€finished€with€theÏalimony.€€Larry,€there€was€another€thing€about€the€alimony.ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:à àWhat€else€was€there€about€alimony?ÌÌà8 àMS.€NORFLEET:à àIt€would€terminate€upon€her€death€or€theÏdeath€of€husband€or€upon€her€remarriage.ÌÌà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*€ÌÌà8 àMS.€NORFLEET:à àHe€[Mr.€Okerson]€just€asked€does€(sic)€he€haveÏto€pay€Barbaraððs€estate.ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:à àWell,€if€she€dies,€of€course,€sheððs€going€to€haveÏenough€insurance€to€give€to€those€children€to€get€through€anyÏschool€in€the€world.ÌÌà8 àMR.€OKERSON:à àAnd€the€children€would€clearly€come€to€me,ÏYour€Honor.̛̜à8 àTHE€COURT:à àWhatððs€that?ÌÌà8 àMR.€OKERSON:à àAnd€the€children€would€clearly€come€to€me.ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:à àAnd€theyððd€come€to€you.ÌÌà@ à******ÌÌà8 àTHE€COURT:€à à.€.€.€.€He€can€agree€to€pay€these€alimonyÏpayments€under€this€provision€as€long€as€she€is€alive€or€untilÏpaid€in€full€and€in€case€she€dies€pay€the€same€amount€of€moneyÏfor€or€on€behalf€of€the€education€of€his€two€children€in€theÏamount€scheduled€in€these€payments€until€they€have€completedÏfour€years€of€undergraduate€collegiate€work.Ìà8 àà àNow,€some€way€that€can€be€put€in€there.€€We€may€have€toÏdraw€a€Marital€Settlement€Agreement€on€this€thing€and€haveÏall€that€in€there.€€You€know,€for€me€to€order€to€do€that€is€aÏlittle€strange.€€Thatððs€„„ÌÌà8 àMS.€NORFLEET:à àYour€Honor,€he€is€agreeable€for€that.ÌÌà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*ÌÌà8 à(As€to€Direct€Deposit€of€Support)Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:à à.€.€.€Why€not€just.€.€.€take€it€out€of€your€check€and€[it]Ïpays€right€on€over.Ìà8 àà àDoes€that€„„€Does€that€bother€you€or€does€that€„„ÌÌà8 àMR.€OKERSON:à àYes,€Your€Honor,€it€bothers€me.€€I€will€beÏhappy€to€send€her€the€check€by€mail.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThere€are€œother›€indications€that€while€he€may€not€have€been€happyÏabout€it,€Husband€nonetheless€readily€consented€and€agreed€to€theÏprovisions€of€alimony€and€its€structure€for€the€daughtersðð€education€asÏencompassed€in€the€œsupplemental›€œfinal›€œdecree.›Ìà àIn€the€deposition€of€Ms.€Norfleet,€taken€œsubsequent›€to€the€entry€ofÏthe€œsupplemental›€œfinal›€œdecree›€and€the€œnotice›€of€œappeal›€filed€by€Husband,ÍMs.€œNorfleet›€confirms€that€Husband€was€present€at€all€times€during€theÏAugustð"ðSeptember€1994€proceedings€before€the€trial€œjudge,›€that€he€wasÏnot€under€any€disability€and€that€she€discussed€all€œoffers€and›Ïcounteroffers€that€were€made€with€him,€and€that€he€understood€them.€ÏFurthermore,€she€admits€that€both€she€and€Husband€were€present€whenÏcounsel€for€Wife€announced€that€an€agreement€had€been€reached€and€thatÏHusband€understood€what€took€place.€€Following€the€œconclusion›€of€theÏSeptember€1994€hearing,€œit›€took€counsel€for€both€parties€and€their€clientsÏalmost€six€months€to€œdevelop›€a€œfinal€draft€both€sides€could€agree€to.€€Ìà àDuring€this€time€frame,€counsel€for€Wife€and€counsel€for€HusbandÏfaxed€back€and€forth€to€each€other€drafts€of€proposed€final€decreesÏencompassing€their€respective€suggestions.€€Ìà àOne€example€is€in€a€letter€written€by€Husband€to€his€counsel€duringÏthe€course€of€negotiations,€dated€January€30,€1995,€wherein€he€states€inÏpart:ÌÓÓÌà8 àBarbara€and€I€agreed€to€an€electronic€transfer€of€a€semi„monthly€child€support€and€alimony€payments€[sic]€to›€herÏaccount€at€a€local€credit€union.€€This€has€been€going€for€oneÏfull€month,€and€works€flawlessly.€€We€each€get€a€receipt€byÏmail€at€our€respective€address,€mine€for€the€withdrawal€andÏhers€for€the€deposit.ÌÌà8 àBarbara€has€expressed€the€need€for€consistent€alimonyÍpayment€amounts.€€I€have€a€proposal€which€would€accommodateÏher€requirement€for€the€level€alimony€payments,€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà à(1)€pay€twenty€one€(21)€months€at€$650€per€month€(Sept€à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à1994„May›€1996),Ìà8 àà à(2)€pay€ninety€eight€(98)€months€at€$1044€per€monthÏ(June€à àà àœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€1996„July›€2004),Ìà8 àà à(3)€pay€one€(1)€month€at€$1038€per€month€(Aug€2004).ÌÌà8 àà à$€650€x€21€=€$€13,650Ìà8 àà à$1044€x€98€=€$102,312Ìà8 àà àòò$1038€x€€€1€=€$€€1,038óóÌà àà àà àà à€€$117,000€total€alimony€over€10€yearsÌÌà8 àThis€offer€is€still€modifiable€in€the€event€of€substantialÏchange€of€circumstance€and€in€the€event€either€child€does€notÏpursue€her€college€education€as€set€out€in€paragraph€5€on€pageÏ7€of€our€proposal.€€This€offer€assures€a€level€flow€of€dollars.ÌÌÌÓÓà àœIn›€her€œdeposition,€Ms.€NorfleetÔ€Ô›€admitted€that€once€the€œsupplemental›Ïœfinal›€œdecree›€œwas›€œentered,›€she€never€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÏjudgment€or€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€judgment.€€She€also€stated€that€sheÏnever€advised€the€trial€judge€that€her€client€in€any€way€disagreed€with€œtheÏcontents€of€the›€decree€that€they€were€œseeking€to›€formulate.€€Her€reasonÏfor€not€doing€œso›€œwas›€that€she€was€trying€to€œcarry€out›€some€type€ofÏð ðdamage€œcontrol,ðð›€and€that€once€œshe€realized€that€the€court€was€going€toÏorder€some€type€of€alimony€to€help€pay€for€the€childrenððs€education,€sheÏthought€it€was€in€Husbandððs€best€interest€to€attempt€to€negotiate€theÏterms€and€provisions€of€the€decree.Ìà àThere€was€pressure€exerted€on€both€parties€by€the€court€in€an€effortÏto€bring€about€a€settlement€that€the€parties€could€live€with€for€the€benefitÏof€all€concerned.€€There€is€substantial€proof€in€this€record€that€theÏbreakup€of€the€marriage€was€caused€principally€and€primarily€by€theÏactions€and€conduct€of€Husband.€€The€record€reflects€that€he€desired€andÏintended€to€marry€his€girlfriend€once€the€divorce€proceedings€becameÏfinal.€€He€could€not€deny€the€substantial€difference€in€the€ability€toÏacquire€assets€and€the€earning€capacity€of€his€Wife€as€compared€to€him.€€Ìà àIn€our€opinion,€the€record€supports€the€contention€that€HusbandÏconsented€to€the€amount,€form€and€terms€of€payment€of€the€alimony€in€thisÏcase.€€This€is€borne€out€by€his€actions,€his€testimony€and€the€testimony€ofÏhis€trial€counsel.€€Furthermore,€if€he€did€not€consent€nor€give€his€attorneyÏthe€right€to€consent€to€this€decree,€and€having€failed€to€plead€the€presenceÏof€fraud€or€mistake€in€the€negotiation€of€the€provisions€of€this€decree,ÏHusband€should€have€either€attacked€the€decree€by€filing€a€motion€to€alterÏor€amend€the€judgment€or€should€have€attacked€the€decree€collaterally€onÏwhatever€the€grounds€he€felt€to€be€compelling.€€This€he€did€not€do.€€òòSeeÏóóòòNance›€v.€œPankey›óó,€880€S.W.2d€944€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€Ìà àIn€our€opinion,€the€œevidence›€fails€to€support€œHusbandððs›€contentionÏthat€he€did€not€consent€to€the€terms€and€provisions€of€the€final€decree€inÍthis€œcase.€€We›€are€of€the€opinion€that€he€did€consent,€œboth€personally›€andÏby€and€thru€his€œcounsel.›€œ€If›€there€was€œan€absence›€of€consent€he€did€œnotÏassert›€œit.›€€œWe›€resolve€this€issue€in€favor€of€Wife.à àÌà àWe€now€address€the€second€prong€of€this€issueð"ðthe€ð ðjustificationððÏfor€or€the€ð ðreasonablenessðð€of€the€award.€€The€trial€courts€are€given€œwide›Ïdiscretion€in€the€award€of€alimony€in€domestic€relations€cases.€€òòGilliam€v.ÏGilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86€(Tenn.€App.€1988);€òòHoughland€v.€Houghlandóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€619,€621€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€appellate€courts€will€not€reverseÏor€modify€an€alimony€award€unless€we€find€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€œÏòòIngram€v.€Ingramóó,€721€S.W.2d€262,€264,€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ìà àIn€determining€alimony,€the€trial€court€is€to€consider€those€factorsÏset€out€in€T.C.A.€ðþÿð€36„5„101(d),€which€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs€andÏfinancial€resources€of€each€party,€including€income€fromÏpension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€otherÏsources;Ìà8 à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€theÏability€and€opportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€such€educationÏand€training,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€furtherÏeducation€and€training€to€improve€such€partyððs€earningÏcapacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ìà8 à(C)›€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ìà8 à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;Ìà8 à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€notÏlimited€to,€physical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronicÏdebilitating€disease;Ìà8 à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€toÏseek€employment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€beÏcustodian€of€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;Ìà8 à(G)€œThe›€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,Ïtangible€and€intangible;Ìà8 à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€asÏdefined€in€ðþÿð€36„4„121;Ìà8 à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€theÏmarriage;Ìà8 à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€andÏintangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€andÏhomemaker€contributions,€and€tangible€and€intangibleÏcontributions€by€a€party€to€the€education,€training€or€increasedÏearning€power€of€the€other€party;Ìà8 à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,Ïin€its€discretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€and€Ìà8 à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€eachÏparty,€as€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€theÏparties.ÌÌÌÓÓà àœThe€real€need€of€the€spouse€seeking€support€is€the€single€mostÏimportant€factor€in€awarding€support.€€òòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48Ï(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€The€ability€of€the€obligorÔ€Ô€to€pay€spouse€is€the€nextÏmost€important€factor€to€be€considered.€€òòIdóó.€€In€addition,€the€fault€of€theÏoffending€party€is€also€to€be€considered.€€òòStorey€v.€Storeyóó,€835€S.W.2d€593,Ï596„597€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Ìà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€marriageð"ðand€the€familyð"ðhas€beenÏdestroyed€and€uprooted€by€Husbandððs€misconduct.€€Wife,€as€the€partyÏobtaining€the€divorce,€should€not€be€left€in€a€worse€financial€conditionÍthan€she€was€before€Husbandððs€misconduct€brought€about€the€divorce.€€òòSeeóóÏòòShackleford›€v.€Shacklefordóó,€611€S.W.2d€598,€601€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€œWeÏalso›€note€that€the€agreement€left€Husband€with€œa€substantially›€œgreaterÏproportion€of€the€marital€assets.›Ìà àœWhile›€apparently€overlooked€by€both€the€trial€court€and€the€parties,Ïour€Supreme€Court€in€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó,€846€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€1993),€hasÏestablished€œclear›€guidelines€by€which€a€parent€with€substantial€incomeÏexceeding€the€highest€amount€listed€in€the€Child€Support€Guidelines,€couldÏbe€assessed€with€child€support€by€the€use€of€an€educational€trust€toÏprovide€funding€for€a€college€education€of€his€or€her€child.€€As€the€òòNashóóÏcourt€observed:ÌÓÓÌà8 àGiven€the€public€policy€favoring€higher€education€in€Tennessee,Ïlikewise€evidence€by€our€many€colleges€and€universities,€œitÏwould›€be€highly€improper€in€this€case€to€cast€the€burden€ofÏœMelissaððs›€higher€education€entirely€on€her€mother,€or€on€theÏð ðbounty€of€the€œstate,ðð›€when€her€father€can€provide€for€herÏeducation€without€unduly€burdening€himself.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€809.ÌÌÌÓÓà àœIt›€appears€that€all€the€factors€are€present€that€would€have€permittedÏthe€trial€court€to€fashion€the€very€same€relief€agreed€œupon,›€following€theÏguidelines€œin›€òòNashóó,€had€there€been€an€absence€of€cooperation€and€a€failureÍof€consent€on€the€part€of€Husband.€€œWe›€resolve€this€aspect€of€this€issue€inÏfavor€of€Wife.ÌÓÓÌà@ àœò òII.›€The€Division€of€a€Portion€of€the€Marital€Property.Ìó óÌÌÓÓà àœHusband›€complains€of€the€trial€courtððs€awarding€75%€of€HusbandððsÏNorthwest€Pension€and€Prudential€Annuity€to€him€and€25%€to€Wife,€whileÏat€the€same€time€awarding€83%€of€the€J.C.€Bradford€and€Co.€IRA€account,Ïconsisting€of€cash,€to€Wife€and€17%€to€Husband.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€While€the€trial€court€is€required€toÏequitably€divide€the€marital€property€between€the€parties,€this€standardÏapplies€to€the€totality€of€the€award.€€It€is€inappropriate€to€take€each€andÏevery€asset€and€seek€to€find€an€equitable€division€of€that€particular€asset.Ìà àœWe›€are€again€faced€with€œthe€issue€that€the›€divisions€complained€œofÏwere›€consented€to€by€Husband.€€When€the€parties€œannounced€in›€open€œcourt›Ïthat€they€had€reached€an€agreement,€œboth€Husband€and€Husbandððs€counselÏwere€present.€€At€that€time,€Mr.›€Rice,€attorney€for€Wife,€announced€thatÏthe€parties€had€agreed€to€a€œfifty/fifty›€division€of€their€marital€property.€ÏRegarding€these€two€assets€now€in€question,€the€division€of€theseÏproperties€were€stated€to€be€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àMR.€RICE:à àAll€right.€€The€J.C.€Bradford€account€is€going€to€beÏdivided€on€the€following€basis:€The€wife€will€receive€$95,500,Ïand€the€husband€will€receive€$18,949.€€To€the€extent€there€isÏmore€or€less€in€that€account€than€the€numbers€weððveÏannounced,€the€difference€will€be€divided€between€the€partiesÏdepending€on€the€ratio€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:à àProportion.Ìà8 àMS.€NORFLEET:à àProportion.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:à àNo€ratio.Ìà8 àMS.€NORFLEET:à àYes,€proportion.ÌÌà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*ÌÌà8 àMR.€RICE:à àThe€Northwest€retirement€would€be€divided€on€theÏratio€of€her€receiving€$36,168.49€and€him€receivingÏ$108,505.45.€€These€are€present€values.ÌÌà8 àà àà àAnd€the€parties€through€their€attorneys€will€draftÏQDRO€Order€dividing€it€between€them.€€That€will€be€one„fourthÏto€her€and€three„fourths€to€him.ÌÌà8 àà àà àLikewise.€€Northwest€Prudential€Annuity€would€beÏdivided€one„fourth€and€three„fourths€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àœNeither›€Husband€nor€his€counsel€voice€any€objections€to€these€terms.€ÏœDuring€the€period€the€final€decree€was€being€negotiated,€counsel›€for€bothÏparties€œexchanged›€œdrafts.›€€At€least€six€drafts€of€œthe›€proposed€final€œdecree,›Ïas€submitted€œto€Wifeððs€attorney€by›€œHusbandððs›€œattorney,›€contained€theÏexact€division€of€these€two€assets€as€was€ultimately€œcontained›€in€theÏfinal€œdecree.›€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€œHusband›€agreed€to€the€specificÏdivisions€of€these€œtwo›€assets.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÓÓÌà@ àœò òIII.›€The€Attorney€Fee€Issues.ó óÌÌò òA.€Husbandððs€Contempt€Proceedingsó ó.ÌÌÓÓà àOne€day€after€the€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€Husband€sought€toÏhave€the€court€cite€Wife€for€contempt€for€œallegedlyÔ€Ô€violating›€theÏvisitation€privileges€granted€œto€him€in›€the€œdecree.›€œ€Prior€to€a€hearing,›€theÏtrial€court€interviewed€both€minor€œchildren,›€then€sixteen€and€eleven.€ÏAfter€determining€that€as€of€that€time€the€oldest€daughter€wished€to€haveÏnothing€to€do€with€her€father,€the€court€œpersuaded›€the€œHusband›€œto›€dismissÏhis€petition.€€By€way€of€hindsight,€at€least€it€appears€clear€that€fatherÏwould€have€wound€up€at€the€same€place€had€a€hearing€been€held,€exceptÏthat€his€potential€liability€for€attorney€fees€would€be€at€least€double,€ifÏnot€triple,€the€amount€the€court€awarded.€€Ìà àThe€trial€courts€are€vested€with€wide€discretion€in€matters€ofÏallowing€attorney€fees,€and€appellate€courts€should€not€interfere€exceptÏupon€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòThreadgill€v.€Threadgillóó,Ï740€S.W.2d€419,€426€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€An€issue€pertaining€to€parentalÏvisitation€rights€may€probably€be€considered€under€the€topic€of€œchild›Ïœcustody›€œmatters.›€€€òòDeas€v.€Deasóó,€774€S.W.2d€167,€170€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€ourÏopinion,€the€evidence€does€œnot›€demonstrate€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€theÍtrial€court€in€its€award€of€attorney€œfees.›Ìœò òÓÓÌÓÓB.›€Prospective€Attorney€Fees.ó óÌà àAs€part€of€the€post€judgment€hearing€on€attorney€fees,€which€is€alsoÏbefore€this€court€in€this€consolidated€appeal,€Wifeððs€counsel€asked€forÏprospective€attorney€œfees€for€expenses€to€be€incurred€on€appeal.€›€œThe›€trialÏcourt€responded€by€œawarding›€œ$4,000.00.›Ìà àœDuring›€the€year€in€which€this€hearing€took€placeð"ð1995ð"ðcounsel€forÏWife€had€been€paid€œapproximately€$42,500.00ð"ð$30,000.00€by€Wife€andÏ$12,500.00€by€Husband.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€attorney€fees€issue€inÏNovember€1995,€Wife€testified€that€she€owed€her€counsel€an€amount€inÏexcess€of€$25,000.00.€€Considering€what€had€already€been€paid€to€WifeððsÏcounsel,€the€cash€assets€awarded€to€Wife€as€part€of€the€division€ofÏmarital€property,€and€the€amount€of€alimony€being€paid€to€Wife,€this€courtÏis€of€the€opinion€that€this€prospective€attorney€fee€award€was€an€abuse€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€We€accordingly€resolve€this€issue€in€favor€ofÏHusband.Ìà àLastly,€Wife€requests€this€court€to€make€an€additional€award€toÏdefray€the€legal€expenses€she€has€incurred€on€appeal.€€The€trial€courtsÏhave€the€discretion€to€make€awards€for€appellate€legal€expenses.€€òòBatsonÍv.€Batsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€862€(Tenn.€App.€1988).›€€On€remand,€the€trialÏcourt€is€œrespectfully›€directed€to€address€this€issue€and,€after€hearing€suchÏproof€as€it€deems€œnecessary,›€in€its€œdiscretion›€make€an€additional€award€toÏWife€for€her€legal€expenses€œon€appeal€if›€it€determines€that€an€additionalÏaward€is€justified.€€Ìœà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àThe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€as€modified€in€this€opinion,€isÏaffirmed.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€three/fourths€to€Husband€andÏone/fourth€to€Wife,€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.€€ÌÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.€J.€W.S.€à à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì