WPCf O]1iv\g3v$x1a55|zƺD(3-ji\(*eN^Do[{+=R闞܆Iw)$ $@ N Debt ')H%? '@3AmountofDebt ')H%@ ' FirstUSA_Waldenbooks_ԀVisa 'x+&A ' $6,000.00 'x+&B ' FirstUnionMasterCard 'd ' $3,000.00 'd ' DiscoverCard ' ' $4,528.00 "  "ValueofMaritalPropertyAwardedtoHusband:0 p $138,464.42p(#p(# AmountofMaritalDebtAllocatedtoHusband:0  0p(#(#13,528.00 p(#p(# NetAmountofMaritalEstateAwardedtoHusband:0 p $124,936.42 ' #  1      ` p(#p(# @MaritalPropertyAwardedtoWife 8   *#V$dd<dd <<dd <(V)(#(#,dd ,dd ,dd ,dd +  ` `  @33Itemof t  @Property  `  @ ValueStated t  @byHusband  `  @,ValueStated t  @jj/byWife  `  @<YValueFound t  @;YbyTrialCourt  `   Farm(153Acres)   0   $282,500.00  0   $282,500.00  0   $282,500.00  0   PersonalProperty, ` HouseholdGoods, L andFurnishingsin 8 WifesPossession  $t  $25,507.00  `  $12,857.00  `  N/A   `  Livestock(2horses)     $2,000.00  !  $2,000.00  "  $2,000.00  #  IndianLake $t$ Membership  `%  $500.00  $t&  $500.00  $t'  $500.00   $t(  WifesPersonal ) BankAccounts  |*  $163.12  +  $163.12   ,  $163.12  -  ofTaxRefund  L.  $2,400.00  L/  $2,400.00   L0  $2,400.00  L1  1991Ford_Aerostar_ |2 Van  h 3  $2,700.00  |4  $2,700.00   |5  $2,700.00   |6  ProceedsFromSallie d  MaeStudentLoan   P  $7,240.35  d  $7,240.35  d  $7,240.35  d  WifesRetirement  Accounts   l  $251,314.62    $251,314.62      $251,314.62    @MaritalDebtAllocatedtoWife `    *%V*d ddd dd dd dd #V$(#(#,<dd ,<dd +  8 8   @ N Debt     @3AmountofDebt    Bankof_Dickson_ԀLoan(FarmIndebtedness)  l  $27,505.02  l  GreenPointCredit    $54,508.51    SallieMaeStudentLoans  l  $26,642.83 l   VanderbiltNursingLoans   $1,265.68    ValueofMaritalPropertyAwardedtoWife:0   p $568,000.09(#(# AmountofMaritalDebtAllocatedtoWife:0  0p(#(#109,922.04p(#p(# NetAmountofMaritalEstateAwardedtoWife:0  0p(#(#$458,078.05ip(#p(#  HusbandsubsequentlyfiledamotionseekinganawardofcostspursuanttoRule68oftheTennessee A RulesofCivilProcedure,whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.ThisappealbyHusbandfollowed. -}   TheissuesraisedbyHusbandonappeal,asweperceivethem,areasfollows: U! 8  I.8`   Didthetrialcourterrinitsdivisionofthepartiesmaritalproperty?-#` x` x  (uh83! !" 3"  8   332uh  II  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrinawardingrehabilitativealimonytoWife? 3364݌$` `  Ќ  " 3"  8   352uh  III  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrinawardingattorneysfeestoWife? 35W5݌ %` `  Ќ  " 3"  8   3<62uh  IV  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrindenyingHusbandsmotionforcostspursuanttoRule !& 68? 3<6u6݌"'` `  Ќ  " 3"  8   372uh  V  .3  0`     IsHusbandentitledtoanawardofattorneysfeesonappeal? 377݌y#(` `  Ќ  8      ! !#XXXX` #XXXXTotheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de Q% * novo withapresumptionofcorrectnessandthuswemaynotreversethecourtsfactualfindings A&!+ unlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937 1'", S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);_T.R.A.P._Ԁ13(d).Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions, !(q#- however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyder )a$. v._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999); *Q%/ _T.R.A.P._Ԁ13(d). *A&0  +1'1 @ZZ DivisionofMaritalProperty     Whendividingmaritalpropertyupondivorce,thetrialcourtmustconsiderallrelevant  factors,includingthosesetforthinsection364121oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated. #  2      ׀ See Tenn.  CodeAnn.364121(c)(1996).#XXXX9#X`XXXThesefactorsareasfollows:#XXXX`?#XXXX      x  p  8   ` (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;`    8   ` (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills,employability, P  earningcapacity,estate,financialliabilitiesandfinancialneedsofeachoftheparties;@    8   ` (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyone(1)partytotheeducation, 0   trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty; p    8   ` (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionsofcapitalassets `  andincome;P    8   ` (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation, @  appreciationordissipationofthemaritalorseparateproperty,includingthe 0  contributionofapartytothemarriageashomemaker,wageearnerorparent,withthe   contributionofapartyashomemakerorwageearnertobegiventhesameweightif  eachpartyhasfulfilleditsrole;   8   ` (6)Thevalueoftheseparatepropertyofeachparty;   8   ` (7)Theestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthemarriage;   8   ` (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivisionof  propertyistobecomeeffective;p   8   ` (9)Thetaxconsequencestoeachparty;and`   8   ` (10)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweenthe P parties.@   Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(1996).Althoughthetrialcourtsdistributionofthepartiesmarital  p propertymustbeequitable,thecourtisnotrequiredtodividethepartiesmaritalpropertyequally. `  SeeCohenv.Cohen ,937S.W.2d823,832(Tenn.1996); _Watters_Ԁv._Watters_ ,959S.W.2d585,591 P (Tenn.Ct.App.1997); _Bookout_Ԁv._Bookout_ ,954S.W.2d730,732(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).The @ equityorinequityofacourtsdistributionofmaritalpropertyisdeterminedbyexaminingthefinal  0 resultofthecourtsrulingratherthanthedivisionofanyparticularpieceorcategoryofmarital !  property. See_Watters_ ,959S.W.2dat591; _Bookout_ ,954S.W.2dat732; Wadev.Wade ,897 "  S.W.2d702,717(Tenn.Ct.App.1994); Thompsonv.Thompson ,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.Ct. #! App.1990).#XXXX`?#XXXXԀAdditionally,wenotethattrialcourtsareaffordedagreatdealofdiscretionwhen $" dividingmaritalproperty. SeeFisher ,648S.W.2dat246; _Bookout_ ,954S.W.2dat732; Wade ,897 % # S.W.2dat715; Kochv.Koch ,874S.W.2d571,579(Tenn.Ct.App.1993); _Loyd_Ԁv._Loyd_ ,860 &!$ S.W.2d409,411(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Consistentwiththisgeneralprinciple,thedistributionof p'"% maritalpropertymadebythetrialcourtintheinstantcaseisentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectness  andmaynotbereversedunlessitiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g.,  _Dellinger_Ԁv._Dellinger_ ,958S.W.2d778,780(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)(citing _Hass_Ԁv._Knighton_ ,676  S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984); Daltonv.Dalton ,858S.W.2d324,327(Tenn.Ct.App.1993));  _T.R.A.P._Ԁ13(d). p    Thepartiesweremarriedformorethanseventeenyears.Atthetimeoftrial,bothofthe P  partieswerefortyfiveyearsofage.Althoughbothofthepartieswereingoodphysicalandmental @  healthanddidnotsufferfromanydisabilitiesatthetimeoftrial,Husbandhadexperiencedsome 0  hearttroubleduringthemarriage.Bothofthepartiesarewelleducatedandcapableofearninga  p  living.Husbandhasanassociateofartsdegree,abachelorofartsdegree,amasterofdivinity `  degree,andthreeyearsofpostgraduateresidenttraining.Heearnsagrosssalaryof$5,520.00per P  monthastheChiefofChaplainsfortheMurfreesboroandNashvilleVeteransAdministration @  MedicalCenter.Wifehasabachelorofartsdegreeinbiology,abachelorofsciencedegreeinallied 0  health,twentyninehoursofcredittowardsamasterofdivinitydegree,andisexpectedtocomplete   therequirementsofamasterofsciencedegreeinnursinginAugustof2000.Duringtheparties  marriage,Wifewasemployedasasurgeonsassistant,asaMaryKayrepresentative,andasapart  timeinterimdirectorofchildrenatthepartieschurch.Shealsostayedathomeduringpartofthe  partiesmarriageinordertoraisetheirtwochildren.Atthetimeoftrial,Wife,inadditiontobeing  afulltimestudent,workedfivetosixdayspermonthasasubstituteteacherandearnedanaverage  ofbetween$200.00and$250.00permonth.Intermsofthefinancialneedsoftheparties,Husband p submittedastatementindicatingthathisexpensesare$3,685.00permonthandWifetestifiedthat ` sheincursexpensesintheamountof$3,725.00permonth.BothHusbandandWifesignificantly P contributedtoeachotherseducation,training,andincreasedearningpower.Wifesupported @ husbandwithrespecttohiscareergoalsandwasthemajorbreadwinnerduringtheearlyyearsofthe 0 partiesmarriagewhenHusbandwascompletinghiseducation.Likewise,Husbandfinancially  p supportedWifeinhercareerendeavorsandwhenshedecidedtogobacktoschoolandobtaina ` masterofsciencedegreeinnursing.Giventheirlevelsofeducationandemploymenthistories,we P thinkthatbothHusbandandWifehavetheabilitytoearnincomeandacquirecapitalassetsinthe @ future.Bothofthepartiescontributedtotheacquisitionoftheirmaritalpropertyaswageearners. 0 Additionally,Wifecontributedtotheacquisitionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyasahomemaker   duringtheperiodoftimethatshewasastayathomemothertothepartiestwochildren.Although ! thereisnodisputeregardingwhichofthepartiesitemsqualifyasseparateproperty,thepartiesdo "  disagreeregardingthevaluesoftheseitems.AccordingtoHusband,thevalueofhisseparate #! propertyis$3,100.00andthevalueofWifesseparatepropertyis$5,495.00.Wifecontends, $" however,thatthevalueofHusbandsseparatepropertyis$1,460.00whilethevalueofherseparate % # propertyis$2,515.00.Onthedateofthepartiesmarriage,Husbandspropertyconsistedofa1978 p&!$ Subarucompactcar,akingsizebed,awalnutwardrobe,anoaktable,amaplerocker,andsome `'"% chinaandcrystalwhileWifeownedafullyfurnishedhome,a1979Beetleconvertible,andother P(#& variousitemsofpersonalproperty.Withrespecttotheeconomiccircumstancesofthepartiesatthe @)$' timeoftheirdivorce,Husbandtestifiedthathehastakencashadvancesinordertopayhisattorneys 0*%(  feesandhashadtoplacemanyofhisexpensesoncreditcards.Similarly,Wifetestifiedthatshehas  +p&) hadtochangeherlifestylesinceherseparationfromHusbandandhashadtoborrow$8,500.00from  herfatherinordertopayherexpensesandattorneysfees.      `     h      p       Asstatedabove,thetrialcourtawardedHusbandmaritalpropertyhavinganetvalueof  $124,936.42whileawardingWifemaritalpropertyhavinganetvalueof$458,078.05.Thus,Wife p wasawardedmaritalpropertyhavinganetvalueofmorethanthreeandonehalftimesthenetvalue `  ofthemaritalpropertyawardedtoHusband.Afterconsideringthefactorssetforthinsection364 P  121(c)thatareapplicabletothecaseatbar,weagreewithHusbandthatthecourtsdivisionofthe @  partiesmaritalpropertyisinequitable.ItwasstipulatedpriortotrialthatWifewouldreceivethe 0  titletoandretainpossessionofthefamilyfarm,whichisthepartiesmostvaluableasset.Attrial,  p  however,Husbandsoughtcompensationforhisequityinthefarmthroughanawardofpartof `  Wifesretirementaccounts.ThevalueofWifesretirementaccountsatthetimeoftrialwas P  $251,314.62.Weconcludethat$75,000.00fromWifesretirementaccountsshouldbeawardedto @  Husbandinordertoeffectuateanequitabledivisionofthepartiesmaritalproperty.Wetherefore 0  modifythetrialcourtsrulingtoreflectthat,inadditiontothemaritalpropertythatthecourt   awardedHusband,Husbandisalsoawardedatotalof$75,000.00fromWifesretirementaccounts.  Onremand,thecourtshouldenteraqualifieddomesticrelationsorderassigningthisamountto  Husband.  #XXXXL#XXXX @77RehabilitativeAlimony     Asstatedabove,thetrialcourtorderedthatHusbandisobligatedtopayrehabilitative ` alimonytoWifeintheamountof$600.00permonthuntilDecemberof2000.Husbandargueson P appealthat,givenWifeseducation,employmenthistory,andcurrentincomeopportunities,an @ awardofalimonyisinappropriateinthecaseatbar. 0   Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontodeterminewhetheralimonyisappropriateand,ifso,the ` nature,amount,anddurationofthealimonyawarded. See_Anderton_Ԁv._Anderton_ ,988S.W.2d675, P 682(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(citing _Garfinkel_Ԁv._Garfinkel_ ,945S.W.2d744,748(Tenn.Ct.App. @ 1996); Jonesv.Jones ,784S.W.2d349,352(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)).  #XXXXqj#XXXXTherearenohardandfast 0 rulestobeappliedincasesinvolvingarequestforalimony. Seeid. (citing _Crain_Ԁv._Crain_ ,925   S.W.2d232,233(Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Stonev.Stone ,409S.W.2d388,39293(Tenn.Ct.App. ! 1966)).Rather,decisionsregardingalimonyhingeontheuniquefactsofthecaseandinvolvethe "  carefulconsiderationandbalancingofmanyfactors,includingthosesetforthinsection365 #! 101(d)(1)oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated. Seeid. at683  (citing Hawkinsv.Hawkins ,883 $" S.W.2d622,625(Tenn.Ct.App.1994); _Loyd_ ,860S.W.2dat412).#XXXXo#XXXXThesefactorsareasfollows: % # 8   ` (A)Therelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancialresources `'"% ofeachparty,includingincomefrompension,profitsharingorretirementplansand P(#& allothersources;@)$'   8   ` (B)Therelativeeducationandtrainingofeachparty,theabilityand 0*%(  opportunityofeachpartytosecuresucheducationandtraining,andthenecessityof  +p&) apartytosecurefurthereducationandtrainingtoimprovesuchpartysearning  capacitytoareasonablelevel;    8   ` (C)Thedurationofthemarriage;   8   ` (D)Theageandmentalconditionofeachparty;   8   ` (E)Thephysicalconditionofeachparty,including,butnotlimitedto, p physicaldisabilityorincapacityduetoachronicdebilitatingdisease;`    8   ` (F)Theextenttowhichitwouldbeundesirableforapartytoseek P  employmentoutsidethehomebecausesuchpartywillbecustodianofaminorchild @  ofthemarriage;0    8   ` (G)Theseparateassetsofeachparty,bothrealandpersonal,tangibleand  p  intangible;`    8   ` (H)Theprovisionsmadewithregardtothemaritalpropertyasdefinedin P  364121;@    8   ` (I)Thestandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage;0    8   ` (J)Theextenttowhicheachpartyhasmadesuchtangibleandintangible   contributionstothemarriageasmonetaryandhomemakercontributions,andtangible  andintangiblecontributionsbyapartytotheeducation,trainingorincreasedearning  poweroftheotherparty;   8   ` (K)Therelativefaultofthepartiesincaseswherethecourt,initsdiscretion,  deemsitappropriatetodoso;and   8   ` (L)Suchotherfactors,includingthetaxconsequencestoeachparty,asare p necessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.`   Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(Supp.1999).Themostimportantfactorsthatacourtmust @ considerwhendeterminingwhethertoawardalimonyare(1)theneedofthespouseseekingsupport 0 and(2)theabilityoftheotherspousetopaysupport. SeeYoungv.Young ,971S.W.2d386,391  p (Tenn.Ct.App.1997); _Watters_ ,959S.W.2dat593; Smithv.Smith ,912S.W.2d155,159(Tenn. ` Ct.App.1995). P   HusbandistheChiefofChaplainsattheMurfreesboroandNashvilleVeterans 0 AdministrationMedicalCenterandearnsagrosssalaryof$5,520.00permonth.Wifeworksfive   tosixdayspermonthasasubstituteteacherandearnsanaverageofbetween$200.00and$250.00 ! permonth.ThetrialcourtallocatedthepartiesmaritaldebtinsuchawaythatHusbandhasdebt "  totaling$13,528.00andWifehasdebttotaling$109,922.04.Intermsofthefinancialneedsofthe #! parties,Husbandsubmittedastatementindicatingthathisexpensesare$3,685.00permonthand $" Wifetestifiedthatsheincursexpensesintheamountof$3,725.00permonth.#XXXXr#XXXXWifewasawarded % # thefamilyfarmand,ifnecessary,couldobtainadditionalincomebyrentingoutaportionofthis p&!$ property,rentingoutavacanthousethatisontheproperty,orsellingtimberthatisontheproperty. `'"% Husbandhasanassociateofartsdegree,abachelorofartsdegree,amasterofdivinitydegree,and P(#& threeyearsofpostgraduateresidenttraining.Wifehasabachelorofartsdegreeinbiology,a @)$' bachelorofsciencedegreeinalliedhealth,twentyninehoursofcredittowardsamasterofdivinity 0*%( degree,andisexpectedtocompletetherequirementsofamasterofsciencedegreeinnursingin  +p&) Augustof2000.Thepartiesweremarriedformorethanseventeenyears.Atthetimeoftrial,both ,`'* HusbandandWifewerefortyfiveyearsofageanddidnothaveanyphysicalormentaldisabilities.  ThereisnoevidencethatitwouldbeundesirableforWifetoworkoutsideofthehomebecauseshe  isthecustodianofthepartiestwominorchildren.Rather,Wifetestifiedthatsheexpectsto  completehereducationinAugustof2000andtakethenursepractitionerboardexamthatfall,which  willqualifyhertoobtainemploymentasanacutecarenursepractitioner.Thepartiesdisagree p regardingthevalueoftheirseparateproperty.AccordingtoHusband,thevalueofhisseparate `  propertyis$3,100.00andthevalueofWifesseparatepropertyis$5,495.00.Wifecontends, P  however,thatthevalueofHusbandsseparatepropertyis$1,460.00whilethevalueofherseparate @  propertyis$2,515.00.ThetrialcourtawardedHusbandmaritalpropertyhavinganetvalueof 0  $124,936.42andawardedWifemaritalpropertyhavinganetvalueof$458,078.05.Intheprevious  p  sectionofthisopinion,however,wemodifiedthecourtsrulingsothatHusbandsportionofthe `  partiesmaritalpropertyisincreasedby$75,000.00andWifesportionofthispropertyisdecreased P  by$75,000.00.Thepartiesenjoyedacomfortablestandardoflivingduringtheirmarriage.Wife @  testifiedthat wewereprettymuchlivingtotheextentofourmeansandindicatedthat,sincethe 0  partiesseparation,shehashadtoalterherlifestyle,makesomecutbacks,andborrowmoneyfrom   herfatherinordertopayherbills.BothHusbandandWifehavecontributedaswageearners,and  Wifehascontributedasahomemaker,tothemarriageandtotheotherpartyseducation,training,  andincreasedearningpower.Finally,itisundisputedthatHusbandhadanextramaritalaffairwith  oneofhiscoworkersduringthepartiesmarriageandthusisguiltyofinappropriatemaritalconduct  andadultery.    Afterconsiderationofthefactorsdiscussedabove,wedisagreewithHusbandscontention ` thatanawardofalimonyisinappropriateinthecaseatbar.GivenWifescurrentincomeandstatus P asafulltimestudent,wethinkthatsheisinneedof_spousal_Ԁsupport.Husbandearnsagrosssalary @ of$5,520.00permonthandthusiscapableofprovidingthissupport.AlthoughtheneedofWife 0 andabilityofHusbandtopayareourprimaryconsiderations,wearealsomindfulofthecourts  p findingofmaritalfaultonthepartofHusband.  InTennessee,thereisastatutorypreferencefor ` temporary,rehabilitativealimonywhenaneconomicallydisadvantagedspouseisinneedofsupport. P  See Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(Supp.1999).Thepurposeofrehabilitativealimonyisto @ enableaneconomicallydisadvantagedspousetobecomemoreselfsufficientbyacquiringadditional 0 jobskills,education,ortraining. See_Anderton_ ,988S.W.2dat682(citing Smith ,912S.W.2dat   160; _Cranford_Ԁv._Cranford_ ,772S.W.2d48,51(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)).Inanattempttomake ! herselfmoreselfsufficient,Wifewentbacktoschoolandhasbeenworkingtowardamasterof "  sciencedegreeinnursing.Wifetestifiedthatshewillcompletetherequirementsforthisdegreein #! Augustof2000andshouldbeabletoobtainemploymentasanacutenursepractitionerandbeable $" tosupportherselfbyDecemberof2000.Underthesecircumstances,andbasedonallofthe % # evidencepresentedinthecaseatbar,wedonotthinkthatthetrialcourterredingranting p&!$ rehabilitativealimonytoWifeorintheamountordurationofthealimonyaward.Wetherefore `'"% affirmthecourtsrulingwithrespecttothismatter. P(#& #XXXX#XXXX  ,`'* @ee#AttorneysFees    Inthecontextofdivorce,anawardofattorneyfeesis,inessence,anawardofalimony. #XXXXG#X`XXXSee  _Sannella_Ԁv._Sannella_ ,993S.W.2d73,77(Tenn.Ct.App.1999); Smith ,912S.W.2dat161;   _Kincaid_Ԁv._Kincaid_ ,912S.W.2d140,144(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); _Gilliam_Ԁv._Gilliam_ ,776S.W.2d | 81,86(Tenn.Ct.App.1988); Duncanv.Duncan ,652S.W.2d913,915(Tenn.Ct.App.1983); h   _Ligon_Ԁv._Ligon_ ,556S.W.2d763,768(Tenn.Ct.App.1977). #XXXX`T#XXXX Indeterminingwhethertoaward T  attorneysfeesinadivorcecase,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoconsiderthesamefactorsusedwhen T  consideringaspousesrequestforalimony. See_Houghland_Ԁv._Houghland_ ,844S.W.2d619,623 D  (Tenn.App.1992)#XXXX#XXXX ;Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(Supp.1998).#XXXXL#XXXXԀThequestionofwhetherto 4   awardattorneyfeesinsuchcases,andtheamountthereof,arelargelyleftwithinthediscretionof $t  thetrialcourtandwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlessthetrialcourtsrulingiscontrarytothe d  preponderanceoftheevidence. See_Houghland_ ,844S.W.2dat623(citing _Batson_Ԁv._Batson_ ,769 T  S.W.2d849,862(Tenn.App.1988); Lyonv.Lyon ,765S.W.2d759,76263(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)). D    Wifesoughtattorneysfeesintheamountof$6,500.00.Whenquestionedbythetrialcourt $ regardingabillforhisservices,counselforWifeindicatedthathewouldsubmitanaffidavitlisting  hisservicesandthefeescorrespondingtotheseservices.Nosuchaffidavitisincludedintherecord  onappeal.Attheconclusionofthetrial,thecourtgrantedattorneysfeestoWifeintheamountof  $4,000.00.#XXXX͞#XXXXHusbandarguesonappealthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninawardingattorneys  feestoWifebecause(1)Wifesattorneydidnotfileanaffidavitofhisfees,(2)noproofwasheard  regardingtheservicesprovidedbyWifesattorneyorthevalueoftheseservices,and(3)Wifedid t nottestifyregardingherrequestforattorneysfees.#XXXX#XXXX  d    In Kahnv.Kahn ,756S.W.2d685(Tenn.1988),thetrialcourtorderedMr.KahntopayMrs. D Kahn$5,000.00fortheattorneysfeesthatsheincurredinconnectionwiththepartiesdivorce. See 4 id. at686.ThisCourtvacatedtheawardofattorneysfees,inpartbecauseoftheabsenceofproof $t regardingtheservicesrenderedbyMrs.Kahnsattorney. Seeid. at686,696.TheTennessee d SupremeCourtreversed,statingasfollows: T 8   `  Connors doesnotsaythatafullydevelopedrecordofthenatureofthe  4 servicesrenderedisaprerequisitetoanawardofanattorney'sfeeinadivorcecase. !$ Thepartiesinthatcasesettledallpropertyissuesexcepttheamountofwife'sfeeto "  bepaidbyhusbandwhichtheyexpresslyreservedforlitigation.Inthose #! circumstances,andforthatreason,therewasafullydevelopedrecordin Conners . $" However,thereisnothingintheopinionbythisCourt,expresslyorbyimplication, % # mandatingproofonthatissuetosupportandawardmadebyatrialjudge.&!$   8   ` In WilsonManagementv.StarDistributors ,745S.W.2d870(Tenn.1988), d(#& wesaid:T)$'   8  8`   Again,weagreewith Trice [ v._Hewgley_ ,53_Tenn.App_.259,381 4+&) S.W.2d589_(1964)]_Ԁthatatrialjudgemayfixthefeesoflawyersin $,t'* causespendingorwhichhavebeendeterminedbythecourt,withor  withoutexperttestimonyoflawyersandwithorwithoutaprimafacie  showingbyplaintiffsofwhatareasonablefeewouldbe.Obviously,  theburdenofproofonthequestionofwhatisareasonablefeeinany  caseisupontheplaintiffandplaintiffshouldbeinapositionto p tendersuchproof.However,ifatrialjudgeispreparedtofixa `  reasonablefeebasedupontheappropriateguidelineswithoutfirst P  hearingplaintiff'sproof,defendantmustbeaccordedfullopportunity @  tocrossexamineplaintiff'switnessandpresentevidenceonthat 0  issue. p ` x` x 8  Id .at873.P    8   ` Theabovequotefrom WilsonManagement involvingacontractprovision 0  callingforareasonableattorney'sfeeisapplicabletoadivorcecase.    8   ` Noproofwaspresentedwithrespecttothevalueoftheservicesrenderedwife  intheinstantcase.Duringoralargumentinthetrialcourt,whenwife'slawyerurged  thecourttoawardareasonableattorney'sfeethejudgeaskedhimtonameanamount  andhisresponsewas$20,000.Duringhusband'slawyer'sargument,whichfollowed,  nomentionwasmadeofthefeeissue.Atnotimeinthetrialcourt,norinthisCourt, p hashusbandinsistedthatwifeadduceproofonthisissue.`   8   ` Obviously,thetrialjudgefeltthatthe _pendente_Ԁlite proceedingswhichhad @ beenheardbyhim,thepre-trialbriefs,depositionsandthethreedaytrialhad 0 sufficientlyacquaintedhimwiththefactorswedelineatedin Connors tomakea  p properawardofanattorney'sfeewithoutprooforopinionsofotherlawyers.When ` thetrialjudgedidso,itwasincumbentuponhusband'slawyertorequestahearing P ifdissatisfiedwiththeaward,orconvincetheappellatecourtsthathewasdeniedthe @ opportunitytodosothroughnofaultofhisown.0    Kahn ,756S.W.2dat69697. !   Inlightoftherulingofoursupremecourtin Kahn ,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnot #! abuseitsdiscretioninawardingattorneysfeestoWife.Attheconclusionofthetrialintheinstant $" case,counselforWifestatedtothecourtthathewouldprepareanaffidavitofhisfeesandsubmit % # ittothecourtonalaterdate.JustmomentsaftercounselforWifemadethisstatement,thetrial p&!$ courtgrantedWifeanawardofattorneysfees.Atthetimeofthisruling,counselforHusbandwas `'"% onnoticethatnoproofhadbeenpresentedbyWiferegardingherattorneysfees.Yet,counselfor P(#& Husbanddidnotobjecttoorquestiontheaward.Likewise,whencounselforHusbandreceiveda @)$' copyofthepartiesfinaldecreeofdivorce,shedidnotseektohavethedecreeamendedonthe 0*%( groundsthatcounselforWifehadfailedtosubmitanaffidavitofhisfees.Havingheardtheproof  +p&) presentedandtheargumentmadebytheattorneysattrialandhavingentertainedthevarious ,`'* pleadingsfiledinthecause,wethinkthatthetrialcourtwasinapositiontodeterminethenatureand  valueoftheservicesrenderedbyWifesattorney.Furthermore,afterreviewingtheentirerecordon  appeal,weconcludethat#XXXX#XXXX$4,000.00isareasonable,ifnotconservative,estimateofWifesattorneys  fees.Consequently,thetrialcourtsrulingwithrespecttoWifesrequestforattorneysfeesis  affirmed.  p   @HusbandsRule68Motion P    Priortotrial,HusbandmadeanofferofjudgmenttoWife,butshedidnotacceptthisoffer. 0  OnJune11,1999,HusbandfiledamotionseekingtorecoverhiscostsfromWifepursuanttoRule  p  68oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Rule68providesasfollows:  `   #XXXX8#X`XXX8   ` Atanytimemorethan10daysbeforethetrialbegins,apartydefending @  againstaclaimmayserveupontheadversepartyanoffertoallowjudgmenttobe ,  takenagainstthedefendingpartyforthemoneyorproperty,ortotheeffectspecified   intheoffer,withcoststhenaccrued.Likewiseapartyprosecutingaclaimmayserve  upontheadversepartyanoffertoallowjudgmenttobetakenagainstthatadverse  partyforthemoneyorpropertyortotheeffectspecifiedintheofferwithcoststhen  accrued.Ifwithin10daysafterserviceoftheoffertheadversepartyserveswritten x noticethattheofferisaccepted,eitherpartymayfiletheofferandnoticeof d acceptance,togetherwithproofofservicethereof,withthecourtandthereupon P judgmentshallberenderedaccordingly.Anoffernotacceptedshallbedeemed < withdrawnandevidencethereofisnotadmissibleexceptinaproceedingto (x determinecosts. Ifthejudgmentfinallyobtainedbythe_offeree_Ԁisnotmore d favorablethantheoffer,the_offeree_Ԁshallpayallcostsaccruingafterthemaking P oftheoffer. Thefactthatanofferismadebutnotaccepteddoesnotprecludea 8 subsequentoffer.$   _T.R.C.P._Ԁ68(emphasisadded).ThetrialcourtsubsequentlydeniedHusbandsmotionforcosts.#XXXX`A#XXXX      Husbandarguesonappealthat,pursuanttoRule68,thecourtwasrequiredtoawardhim   costsbecausethetermsofhisofferofjudgmentweremorefavorabletoWifethanthetermsofthe x! judgmentultimatelyobtainedbyWife.Therearesomesignificantdifferencesbetweentheterms h"  ofHusbandsofferofjudgmentandthefinaldecreeofdivorceenteredbythetrialcourt.First,the X#! offerofjudgmentpurportstograntthepartiesastipulateddivorcewhilethefinaldecreegrantsan H$" absolutedivorcesolelytoWifeonthegroundsofinappropriatemaritalconductandadultery. 8% # Additionally,thevisitationrightsgrantedtoHusbandintheofferofjudgmentaresomewhat (&x!$ differentfromthoseinthefinaldecree.Theofferofjudgmentalsopurportstoawardslightlyless 'h"% childsupporttoWifethandoesthefinaldecree.Finally,theofferofjudgmentprovidesthateach (X#& ofthepartiesshallpaytheirownattorneysfeeswhilethefinaldecreegrantsanawardofattorneys (H$' feestoWifeintheamountof$4,000.00.Giventhesedifferences,wedonotagreethatthetermsof )8%(  HusbandsofferofjudgmentweremorefavorabletoWifethanwerethetermsofthepartiesfinal *(&) decreeofdivorce.WethereforeaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofHusbandsmotionforcosts  pursuanttoRule68.   @AttorneysFeesonAppeal     Finally,Husbandrequeststhathebegrantedattorneysfeesonappeal.Thisappealhasbeen `  resolvedpartiallyinfavorofHusbandandpartiallyinfavorofWife.Anawardofattorneysfees P  onappealisinappropriatewhenbothpartiestotheappealarepartiallysuccessful. SeeStoreyv. @  Storey ,835S.W.2d593,598(Tenn.Ct.App.1992)(citing   _Baggett_Ԁv._Baggett_ ,512S.W.2d292,294 0  (Tenn.Ct.App.1973)).#XXXX1#XXXX  Additionally,asdiscussedabove,Wifeiscurrentlyafulltimestudentand  p  WifesincomeissubstantiallysmallerthanHusbandsincome.Inourdiscretion,weconcludethat `  WifeshouldnotberequiredtopayanyorallofHusbandsattorneysfees.Thus,Husbandsrequest P  forattorneysfeesonappealisdenied. @  Ѐ  0  @%Conclusion     Basedontheforegoing,thetrialcourtsdivisionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyismodified  toreflectthat,inadditiontothepropertyawardedtoHusbandbythetrialcourt,Husbandisalso  awarded$75,000.00fromWifesretirementaccounts.Onremand,thecourtisinstructedtoenter  aqualifieddomesticrelationsconsistentwiththismodification.#XXXX#XXXXInallotherrespects,however,the  rulingofthecourtisaffirmed.ThecostsofthisappealareassessedonehalftoThomas_Hickman_ p PhillipsandonehalftoMelanieDiannePhillips,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ` #XXXX#X`XXX#XXXX`-#   `     h     ___________________________________  \    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE