ÿWPCc& …# VUNa %¯ 0)µU:Þ U< BT w@– 4Ö ê ù 0m 0Dn 0J² 0Tü 0^P 0h® 0r 0|ˆ 0† 0Š 1u 0dU>óU*1U*[B)…DC® Bñ D3 AMAÓŽ 0@a”¡85v~mvÓë AO¾$Æ % 0DÓ% D/& BF&˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(oû$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑXÑÑXÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XŽXXXÔÓÓÑ7€n·XXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT RomanC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ~U€îD‚Ó€ƒD„Ó€…ˆÓ€’DÒ 3|x’((3û$¤¤Ý ƒoû!ÝÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XµXXXÔÓÓÑ7€‡WXXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd d))))'ÿÿdxd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌMayÏ9,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€ÔRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,Ïwith€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverseÏor€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formalÏopinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€byÏmemorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"Ïshall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€aÏsubsequent€unrelated€case.€Ô€$ÔÌ .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓÓ€€Wife€was€awarded€the€original€marital€home,€the€Chevrolet€Silverado,Ïand€$65,000.00€in€alimony€in€solido.€€In€a€personal€financial€statement€that€wasÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court,€Husband€stated€that€the€original€marital€homeÏwas€worth€$60,000.00€and€that€the€Chevrolet€Silverado€was€worth€$12,000.00.€ÏThe€total€of€Wifeððs€award€is€thus€approximately€$137,000.00€or€approximatelyÏ61%€of€the€marital€estate.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ÔÓÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òLINDA€GAIL€RAY,€ó óà àà àà àà àFROM€THE€WAYNE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCHANCERY€COURT,€No.€9400Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà àà àTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHAMILTON,€JUDGEÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9608„CH„00360Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòAFFIRMEDó óóóÌò òBILLY€GENE€RAY,€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPaul€Bates;€Boston,€Bates€&€HoltÌà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà àà àof€Lawrenceburg,€For€AppelleeÌÙ€€ÙßR€+,(A1-j|ñ` à. `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€D.€Massey€of€Pulaski,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppellantÌ____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌÑ7€‡WXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ. ××  ×Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òòòCRAWFORD,€J.ó óóóÌÌ›ÓÓà àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€Defendant,€Billy€Gene€Ray€(Husband),€appealsÏfrom€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dividing€the€marital€property€and€awardingÏalimony€to€the€plaintiff,€Linda€Gail€Ray€(Wife).Ìà àOn€January€6,€1995,€Wife€filed€a€Complaint€for€Divorce€alleging€thatÏHusband€was€guilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct€including€adultery€andÏmental€and€physical€cruelty.€€The€complaint€prayed€for€an€absolute€divorce,€anÏequitable€division€of€the€marital€property,€alimony,€custody€of€the€partiesððÏminor€child,€child€support€payments,€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€On€February€6,€1995,ÏHusband€filed€an€Answer€that€denied€that€he€was€guilty€of€inappropriate€maritalÏconduct€but€admitted€that€the€parties€had€irreconcilable€differences.€€He€alsoÏfiled€a€Counter„Complaint€for€Divorce€alleging€that€Wife€was€guilty€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€his€counterclaim,€Husband€sought€anÏabsolute€divorce€from€Wife,€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child,€child€supportÏpayments,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€an€equitable€division€of€the€marital€assets.Ìà àThe€case€was€tried€before€the€chancery€court,€sitting€without€a€jury,€onÏSeptember€6,€1995.€€The€record€does€not€contain€a€transcript€of€the€evidence.€ÏInstead,€the€trial€court€adopted€a€Statement€of€Evidence€proposed€by€Wife,Ïwhich€we€quote:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€parties€were€married€on€December€23,Ï1972.€€They€had€both€resided€in€Wayne€County€up€toÏthe€time€the€divorce€was€granted.€€The€couple€hadÏthree€children€with€two€boys€who€are€now€adults€andÏa€daughter€who€was€in€high€school€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce.€€The€plaintiff€has€been€working€as€a€waitressÍin€Collinwood€making€approximately€$5.00€per€hourÏsince€the€separation.€€She€has€no€high€school€diplomaÏnor€any€vocational€training.€€During€the€time€of€theÏmarriage,€defendant€admitted€that€his€wife€worked€asÏa€homemaker€and€that€she€cooked€meals,€kept€cleanÏclothes,€kept€a€clean€house€and€did€a€good€job€lookingÏafter€the€children.€€The€defendant€admitted€to€havingÏnumerous€affairs€while€the€parties€were€married.€€HeÏalso€admitted€that€prior€to€the€divorce€he€had€beenÏliving€with€a€19€year€old€girl€in€the€partiesðð€home€onÏthe€Tennessee€River€in€Clifton,€TN.€€Said€paramourÏbore€him€a€baby€son€on€May€17,€1995.€€He€admittedÏto€beginning€to€live€with€her€in€June€of€1994.€€He€alsoÏadmitted€to€having€a€sexual€relationship€with€her€asÏsoon€as€they€met.€€The€house€that€the€defendant€andÏhis€paramour€were€living€in€at€the€time€of€the€divorceÏwas€new,€it€had€new€furniture,€new€appliancesÏincluding€a€dishwasher.€€He€supported€his€paramourÏand€provided€her€with€an€automobile€to€drive.Ìà8 àà8 àà àPlaintiff,€on€the€other€hand,€lived€in€the€partiesððÏoriginal€marital€residence€which€was€in€need€ofÏrepairs.€€The€stove€did€not€work€properly€nor€did€theÏrefrigerator.€€The€hot€water€heater€needed€repair€andÏshe€did€not€have€a€lawn€mower€to€cut€the€yard.€€InÏaddition,€the€washer€and€dryer€at€the€maritalÏresidence€were€inoperable.€€The€defendant€neverÏbought€a€dishwasher€for€the€plaintiff€during€the€entireÏtime€of€their€marriage.€€The€partiesðð€daughter€wasÏsleeping€in€a€broken€bed€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€ÏThe€defendant€had€yet€to€repair€that€bed.Ìà8 àà8 àà àDuring€the€entire€year€and€three€monthsÏseparation€prior€to€the€divorce,€it€was€admitted€thatÏthe€paramour€lived€with€the€defendant,€she€had€neverÏworked€and€the€defendant€had€supported€her.€€At€theÏtime€of€the€divorce,€the€defendant€was€47€years€oldÏand€his€paramour€was€approximately€20€years€old.€€HeÍalso€admitted€to€putting€crush„rock€on€the€drivewayÏat€the€new€home€after€the€separation.€€Defendant€alsoÏadmitted€to€having€other€affairs€prior€to€his€currentÏone.€€As€to€his€teenage€daughter,€who€is€anÏoutstanding€student€at€Collinwood€High€School,€heÏhad€not€seen€or€talked€to€her€in€over€a€year.€€He€hasÏnot€sent€her€any€gifts,€cards€or€made€contact€with€her.€ÏDuring€the€time€the€children€were€in€school,Ïdefendant€admitted€that€he€never€went€to€school€toÏcheck€on€any€of€the€childrenððs€progress.Ìà8 àà8 àà àDuring€the€course€of€the€marriage,€defendantÏadmitted€that€he€had€struck€plaintiff€on€numerousÏoccasions.€€Plaintiff€has€had€her€nose€broken€by€theÏdefendant.Ìà8 àà8 àà àPlaintiff€recently€suffered€a€severe€cut€and€stabÏwound€to€her€leg€during€a€struggle€with€the€defendantÏat€the€marital€property€on€the€river.€€After€stabbingÏthe€plaintiff€in€the€leg,€he€drove€her€to€the€hospitalÏbut€stopped€half„way€to€tell€her€that€he€didnððt€love€herÏanymore€and€didnððt€have€any€use€for€her€and€that€heÏwasnððt€going€to€live€with€her€anymore.Ìà8 àà8 àà àThe€defendant€is€a€self„employed€contractor€andÏhas€been€in€the€business€of€doing€telephoneÏconstruction€work€under€the€name€of€Billy€RayÏContracting.€€From€1990€until€the€date€of€the€trial,€heÏadmitted€that€Billy€Ray€Contracting€œhad€had›€receiptsÏwell€in€excess€of€$1,000,000.00.€€In€1990,€he€receivedÏ$224,732.15€from€C€&€C€Contracting€alone.€€In€1991Ïhe€had€gross€receipts€of€$259,€606.92€which€providedÏfor€a€total€profit€of€$52,083.56€after€depreciation€andÏinterest€payments.€€In€1992,€he€was€paid€$221,985.81Ïalone€from€Ryan€Lopez.€€Defendant€acknowledged€thatÏin€1993€he€had€over€$77,000.00€worth€of€net€incomeÏand€claimed€a€total€depreciation€of€assets€in€theÏamount€of€$57,589.00.€€In€1994,€Billy€Ray€ContractingÏhad€gross€receipts€in€the€amount€of€$286,421.00.€€HeÍclaimed€to€have€had€expenses€of€$117,701.00€butÏnever€provided€any€documentation€for€those€expensesÏdespite€agreeing€to€do€so€in€his€deposition.€€He€alsoÏacknowledged€the€depreciation€in€1994€of€$51,728.00.€ÏHe€agreed€that€in€1994€he€had€a€total€income€ofÏ$68,861.00.€€As€to€the€depreciations€that€he€claimedÏon€all€his€income€taxes,€he€agreed€that€saidÏdepreciations€were€not€actual€cash€outlays€but€justÏlosses€he€was€allowed€to€take€on€his€income€taxes.Ìà8 àà8 àà àPlaintiff€and€defendant€indicated€that€the€netÏworth€of€the€marital€assets€were€worth€well€overÏ$225,000.00€(Exhibit€8,€December€1994,€prepared€andÏsworn€to€by€Mr.€Ray€six€months€after€the€partiesððÏseparation).€€The€parties€owned€three€pieces€of€realÏestate€which€included€the€marital€residence,€a€twoÏacre€tract€in€the€Collinwood€city€limits€upon€which€aÏgarage€was€located€and€out€of€which€the€defendantððsÏbusiness€operated€and€real€estate€in€Clifton€along€theÏriver€consisting€of€the€one€acre€tract€upon€which€aÏnew€home€has€been€built.Ìà8 àà8 àà àDefendant€testified€to€the€value€of€his€businessÏmachinery€and€tools.€€He€agreed€that€the€values€onÏExhibit€6€were€correct.€€He€also€testified€that€heÏborrowed€$80,000.00€against€the€property€and€againstÏequipment€that€was€already€paid€off€òòafteróó€separatingÏfrom€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€granted€an€absolute€divorce€to€Wife€and€dismissedÏHusbandððs€counterclaim.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€partiesðð€minimum€netÏworth€at€the€time€of€the€separation€was€between€$220,000.00€and€$225,000.00Ïand€that€Husband€owed€less€than€$50,000.00€on€a€note€secured€by€twoÏbulldozers.€€The€trial€court€divided€the€marital€property€and€awarded€WifeÍalimony€in€solido€in€the€amount€of€$65,000.00,€rehabilitative€alimony€in€theÏamount€of€$250.00€per€week€for€five€years,€and€$6,000€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€TheÏtrial€court€also€required€Husband€to€obtain€medical€insurance€for€the€benefit€ofÏWife€for€five€years€and€to€name€Wife€as€the€irrevocable€beneficiary€on€hisÏexisting€life€insurance€policies€for€a€period€of€five€years.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€only€minor€child€to€Wife€with€reasonable€visitation€toÏHusband€and€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$187.00€per€week€in€child€support.€ÏFinally,€the€trial€court€enjoined€Husband€from€contacting,€molesting,€harassing,Ïor€interfering€with€Wife.Ìà àHusband€appeals€from€this€order€of€the€trial€court€and€presents€twoÏissues€for€review:€€1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€determination€relatingÏto€the€equitable€division€of€marital€assets€and€marital€debt;€and€2)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€alimony.€ò òÌó óà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€reviewÏthe€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àThe€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€given€to€any€witnessððs€testimony€lie€inÍthe€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact,€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€beÏgiven€great€weight€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòò òMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2dÏ347,€352€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àIn€the€first€issue,€Husband€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€voidÏof€reasoning,€that€the€record€lacks€sufficient€findings€of€the€value€of€the€maritalÏassets€by€the€trial€court,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€division€of€theÏassets€and€debts.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€took€fault€intoÏconsideration€when€dividing€the€assets.€€He€argues€that€our€review€should€be€deÏnovo€without€a€presumption€of€correctness€because€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€lacksÏsufficient€findings.€€We€believe€that€the€statement€of€the€evidence€reveals€littleÏdispute€of€the€material€facts€and€in€this€light,€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÏsufficiently€outlines€its€findings€so€that€a€presumption€of€correctness€applies.Ìà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Wife€the€marital€residence,€the€furniture€andÏappliances€in€the€residence€,€and€the€1992€Chevrolet€Silverado,€as€her€share€ofÏthe€marital€property€with€a€value€of€approximately€$72,000.00.€€The€trial€courtÏawarded€Husband€the€Clifton€property,€the€business€property,€the€furniture€andÏappliances€in€the€Clifton€property,€and€the€bulk€of€the€personal€property€(whichÏis€mostly€used€in€Husbandððs€business)€to€Husband.€€Husband€assumed€all€of€theÍdebt€on€the€real€estate€including€$24,500.00€from€the€original€marital€property,Ïleaving€a€net€award€to€Husband€of€approximately€$87,462.45.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Wife€$65,000.00€as€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€andÏspecifically€stated€that€the€alimony€in€solido€was€awarded€to€Wife€ð ðin€order€toÏobtain€an€equitable€division€of€the€marital€estate.ððÌà àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€dividing€the€marital€estate€uponÏdivorce.€€ò òòòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€142€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€InÏò òòòBatson€v.€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849€(Tenn.€App.€1988),€this€Court€discussed€theÏequitable€division€of€marital€property:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àTenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(a)€provides€thatÏmarital€property€should€be€divided€equitably€withoutÏregard€to€fault.€€It€gives€a€trial€court€wide€discretionÏin€adjusting€and€adjudicating€the€partiesðð€rights€andÏinterests€in€all€jointly€owned€property.òòò ò€€Fisher€v.ÏFisheró óóó,€648€S.W.2d€244,€246€(Tenn.1983).€ÏAccordingly,€a€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€maritalÏestate€is€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal,€òòò òEdwardsÏv.€Edwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.2d€283,€288€(Tenn.Ct.App.Ï1973),€and€should€be€presumed€to€be€proper€unlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.òòò ò€€Lancaster€v.ÏLancasteró óóó,€671€S.W.2d€501,€502€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1984);€Ïòòò òHardin€v.€Hardinó óóó,€689€S.W.2d€152,€154Ï(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Ìà8 àà8 àà àA€trial€courtððs€division€of€marital€property€is€toÏbe€guided€by€the€factors€contained€in€Tenn.Code€Ann.Ïðð€36„4„121(c).€€However,€an€equitable€propertyÏdivision€is€not€necessarily€an€equal€one.€€It€is€notÍachieved€by€a€mechanical€application€of€the€statutoryÏfactors,€but€rather€by€considering€and€weighing€theÏmost€relevant€factors€in€light€of€the€unique€facts€ofÏthe€case.ÌÌÓÓòòò òBatsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€859.€Ìà àIt€is€not€disputed€that€the€value€of€the€marital€estate€is€deemed€to€beÏmore€than€$225,000.00.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€it€appears€that€WifeÏwas€awarded€approximately€$137,000.00€of€the€assets.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€There€is€no€showingÏthat€the€trial€court€incorrectly€considered€fault€in€the€division€of€the€maritalÏassets.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings,Ïand€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€marital€assets.Ìà àIn€his€second€issue,€Husband€argues€that€the€award€of€rehabilitativeÏalimony€and€attorneyððs€fees€to€Wife€is€improper€in€light€of€the€division€of€theÏmarital€property€and€the€award€of€alimony€in€solido.€€He€claims€that€he€is€notÏin€a€position€to€pay€the€amount€of€the€award.€€The€trial€court€awarded€WifeÏ$250.00€per€week€as€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€period€of€five€years.€€The€trialÍcourt€stated,€ð ðThe€court€specifically€finds€that€the€plaintiff€lacks€a€high€schoolÏdiploma,€has€no€vocational€skills€and€has€a€severely€limited€earning€capacity.€ÏConversely,€the€defendant€has€generated€gross€revenues€approximatingÏ$400,000.00€annually€in€the€recent€past.ððÌà àIn€his€answers€to€interrogatories,€Husband€stated€that€his€1993€and€1994Ïincomes€were€both€between€$40,000.00€and€$50,000.00.€€However,€theÏStatement€of€Evidence€states,€ð ðHe€agreed€that€in€1994€he€had€a€total€income€ofÏ$68,861.ðð€€In€addition,€Husband€acknowledged€in€the€Statement€of€EvidenceÏthat€his€income€was€reduced€on€paper€because€of€business€deductions€and€thatÏthe€deductions€were€not€actual€cash€outlays.Ìà à€The€factors€used€to€determine€the€proper€amount€of€maintenance€andÏsupport€are€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€(1996).€€As€a€general€matter,€theÏcourts€set€the€amount€of€a€support€award€based€on€the€needs€of€the€innocentÏspouse€and€on€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€to€pay.€€òòò òBatsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€atÏ861.€€If€one€spouse€is€economically€disadvantaged€compared€to€the€other,€theÏcourts€are€generally€inclined€to€provide€some€type€of€support.€€œ›Ìà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€necessary€factors,Ïand€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€ÍThe€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€Wife€should€be€awarded€rehabilitativeÏalimony,€and€the€record€reveals€that€Husband€has€the€ability€to€pay€this€award.Ìà àFinally,€Husband€argues€that€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€also€improperÏin€light€of€the€other€awards,€and€he€claims€that€he€does€not€have€the€ability€toÏpay€Wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$6,000.00Ïfor€Wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€trial€court€said,€ð ðIn€awarding€said€attorney€fee,Ïthe€court€notes€that€the€defendant,€Billy€Gene€Ray,€contested€the€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€minor€daughter€in€his€answer€and€counterclaim€although€the€proofÏindicated€that€he€had€no€contact€with€her€since€the€partiesðð€separation.ððÌà àAttorney€fee€awards€are€treated€as€alimony.€€òòò òKincaidó óóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€144.€ÏIn€determining€whether€to€award€attorneyððs€fees,€the€trial€court€should€againÏconsider€the€relevant€factors€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€€Where€the€wifeÏdemonstrates€that€she€is€financially€unable€to€afford€counsel,€and€where€theÏhusband€has€the€ability€to€pay,€the€court€may€properly€order€the€husband€to€payÏthe€wifeððs€attorney€fees.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€€These€awards€are€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court,€and€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€award,€it€willÏnot€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€òòò ò€Idó óóó.Ìà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÍthe€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Wife,€and€we€believe€that€Husband€has€theÏability€to€pay€the€award.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellant.€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó ó