ÿWPCK …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 8 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0| 0†Š 0 1u  U, 0dA U,¥ U*Ñ B)û DC$ AMg´v~Å BCvÓ` D33 0@f AO¦Æõ 0D» D/ÿ B.˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ïDðñDòóôUõDö÷Ó€nnG ù 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌFebruary€28,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€‡ØXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑSTELLA€ROETGER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9507„CV„00327ÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|‘#` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSumner€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€13634„CÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌDAVID€A.€ROETGER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SUMNER€COUNTYÌAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌF.€DULIN€KELLYÌ629€East€Main€StreetÌHendersonville,€Tennessee€€37075Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌTIMOTHY€L.€TAKACSÌ201€Walton€Ferry€RoadÌHendersonville,€Tennessee€€37077„0364Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌLEWIS,€J.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòÔ€îÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€Mrs.€Roetger€an€absolute€divorce€and€custodyÏof€the€parties'€minor€child.€€The€court€also€divided€the€marital€property,€andÏordered€Mr.€Roetger€to€pay€child€support,€rehabilitative€alimony€and€attorney€fees.€ÏMr.€Roetger€appealed€the€award€of€alimony€and€attorney€fees.€€We€affirm€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€parties€had€been€co„workers€at€a€Peterbilt€Motors€facility€inÏCalifornia.€€They€began€a€relationship€that€resulted€in€the€birth€of€a€son,€Joshua,€inÏ1979.€€Early€in€their€relationship€the€couple€lived€in€the€wifeððs€apartment,€with€aÍchild€from€the€wifeððs€earlier€marriage€and€the€husbandððs€two€children€from€his€ownÏearlier€marriage.€€Six€months€prior€to€the€1984€marriage€between€the€parties,€theyÏbought€a€home€in€both€their€names,€using€for€down€payment€$15,000€that€theÏhusband€had€received€through€a€previous€divorce€settlement.ÌÌà àà àIn€1986€Peterbilt€transferred€the€Roetgers€from€California€toÏTennessee.€With€the€equity€from€the€sale€of€their€California€home€as€down„payment,€they€were€able€to€qualify€for€a€mortgage€loan€on€a€house€with€a€presentÏfair€market€value€of€about€$205,000.€€Mr.€Roetger€subsequently€enrolled€as€a€part„time€student€at€Trevecca€Nazarene€College€in€Nashville.€€The€wife,€a€high€schoolÏgraduate,€continued€to€work€and€take€care€of€the€children.€€Mr.€Roetger€alsoÏcontinued€to€work,€and€was€able€to€attend€classes€at€night.€€He€ultimately€earnedÏhis€degree.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€1993,€the€husband€left€the€marital€home€to€cohabitate€withÏanother€woman,€and€stayed€away€for€one€year.€€During€that€year€he€contributedÏ$1,288€per€month,€the€amount€of€the€mortage€payment,€to€Mrs.€Roetger,€but€he€didÏnot€support€the€household€in€any€other€way.€€The€wife€remained€responsible€forÏthe€living€expenses€and€the€care€of€both€Joshua€and€Mr.€Roetgerððs€son,€David,Ï(the€older€children€having€grown€up€and€moved€away)€and€for€upkeep€on€theÏhouse€and€the€automobile.€ÌÌà àà àWhen€Mr.€Roetger€returned€to€the€marital€home,€he€continued€toÏcontribute€only€the€amount€of€the€mortgage€payments€to€the€support€of€his€family.€ÏOn€November€18,€1994,€Mrs€Roetger€filed€for€divorce.€€A€pendente€lite€orderÏobligated€the€husband€to€pay€the€wife€$533€monthly€for€child€support€and€$470€forÏalimony,€and€to€vacate€the€marital€home.€Ì€à àÌà àà àThe€case€came€up€for€hearing€on€March€22,€1995.€€The€partiesÏstipulated€that€the€wife€was€entitled€to€divorce€on€the€ground€of€adultery,€and€thatÏshe€was€to€have€custody€of€Joshua,€and€child€support€in€accordance€with€theÏguidelines,€which€was€found€by€the€court€to€be€$574€per€month.€€She€was€alsoÏgranted€rehabilitative€alimony,€in€the€amount€of€$470€per€month,€until€JoshuaÏgraduates€from€high€school.€€The€court€divided€the€marital€estate€between€theÏparties,€with€the€wife€receiving€property€with€a€total€value€of€$72,071.14,€and€theÏhusband€receiving€property€with€a€total€value€of€$61,467.89.€The€court€alsoÏawarded€the€wife€her€attorney€fees,€in€the€amount€of€$5,022.25€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àMr.€Roetgerððs€primary€objections€are€related€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdisposition€of€the€partiesðð€interest€in€the€marital€home.€€The€court€permitted€theÏwife€to€continue€to€live€in€the€marital€home€until€Joshua€graduates€from€highÏschool.€€At€that€time,€the€wife€will€either€have€to€sell€the€home€and€from€theÍproceeds€pay€the€husband€his€share€of€the€equity€(which€the€court€fixed€atÏ$26,253.64),€or€keep€the€home€and€pay€the€husband€the€same€amount€for€hisÏinterest€in€the€residence.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€argues€that€ownership€of€the€home€might€have€madeÏsense€when€both€parties€were€living€together€and€sharing€expenses,€but€that€it€isÏentirely€too€expensive€for€the€wife€to€maintain€on€her€income€alone.€€He€notes€thatÏthe€wife€would€be€unable€to€make€the€mortgage€payments€without€the€alimony€heÏhas€been€ordered€to€pay,€and€he€argues€that€an€award€of€rehabilitative€alimonyÏfor€such€a€purpose€is€inconsistent€with€the€act€by€which€the€LegislatureÏestablished€this€form€of€spousal€support.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àMrs.€Roetger€testified€that€Joshua€had€been€in€the€marital€homeÏsince€he€was€seven€years€old,€that€at€the€time€of€trial€he€was€fourteen€years€oldÏand€a€freshman€in€high€school,€that€he€had€many€friends€in€the€neighborhood€andÏin€his€school,€and€that€if€he€had€to€move€out,€it€would€have€a€detrimental€effect€onÏhim.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€an€immediate€sale€of€the€marital€home€is€frequentlyÏordered€in€divorce€cases,€often€because€it€is€the€only€way€for€the€trial€court€toÏachieve€an€equitable€division€of€the€prime€marital€asset,€without€placing€anÏimpossible€financial€burden€on€either€of€the€parties.€€In€such€cases,€though€theÍsale€of€the€home€may€disrupt€the€life€of€one€of€the€parties€more€than€is€desirable,Ïthis€is€considered€an€acceptable€price€to€pay,€to€enable€the€parties€to€disentangleÏtheir€finances€and€their€lives€from€each€other€as€much€as€is€possible.€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€an€immediate€sale€would€not€be€an€optimalÏsolution€for€either€Mrs.€Roetger€or€for€Joshua.€€Fortunately,€the€trial€court€was€ableÏto€fashion€a€remedy€that€avoided€adding€to€the€trauma€of€divorce,€or€pauperizingÏeither€the€husband€or€the€wife.ÌÌà àà àWhile€Mr.€Roetger€argues€that€retaining€the€house€increases€bothÏpartiesðð€cash„flow€problems€and€places€an€additional€financial€burden€upon€him,Ïit€appears€to€us€that€he€should€be€able€to€meet€his€court„ordered€obligations€andÏhis€own€personal€needs€from€his€current€annual€salary€of€approximately€$44,024.€ÏLikewise,€the€wife€should€be€able€to€meet€her€needs€and€those€of€Joshua,Ïincluding€the€mortgage€payments,€on€her€salary€of€$33,494,€provided€that€theÏhusband€continue€to€pay€child€support€and€alimony€as€ordered.€€There€was€noÏtestimony€at€trial€that€either€party€had€an€earning€capacity€in€excess€of€currentÏincome,€or€that€there€was€any€likelihood€of€a€reduction€of€income€for€theÏforeseeable€future.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€has€argued€that€ordering€the€husband€to€pay€alimonyÏto€enable€the€wife€to€remain€in€a€house€she€could€not€afford€on€her€income€aloneÍis€contrary€to€the€purpose€of€rehabilitative€alimony,€which€was€established€toÏenable€a€disadvantaged€spouse€to€achieve€economic€independence.€€He€furtherÏargues€that€as€her€income€would€be€adequate€for€her€own€support€if€she€wereÏliving€in€less€expensive€housing,€she€is€not€in€need€of€rehabilitative€alimony.ÌÌà àà àWe€feel,€however,€that€regardless€of€the€appropriateness€ofÏclassifying€it€as€rehabilitative€alimony,€the€award€was€proper€when€considered€inÏthe€light€of€the€the€factors€the€trial€court€is€instructed€to€take€into€account€inÏgranting€spousal€support€under€the€Alimony€and€Child€Support€Statute,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101.ÌÌà àà àThese€factors€include€the€relative€earning€capacities€of€the€parties;Ïthe€standard€of€living€established€by€the€parties€during€the€marriage;€theÏcontribution€made€by€each€party€to€the€marriage,€and€to€the€training,€education€orÏincreased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;€and€the€relative€fault€of€the€parties.ÏThe€record€indicates€that€the€above„mentioned€factors€weigh€heavily€in€favor€ofÏthe€correctness€of€the€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€alimony.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€husband€also€appeals€the€award€of€attorney€fees,€arguing€thatÏsuch€awards€are€only€appropriate€where€the€spouse€is€disadvantaged,€and€doesÍnot€have€sufficient€assets€with€which€to€pay€a€lawyer.€€He€notes€that€in€the€presentÏcase,€the€property€division€leaves€the€wife€with€liquid€assets€of€$12,130.50,€anÏamount€in€excess€of€the€attorney€fees€ordered€by€the€court.€€We€do€not€believe,Ïhowever,€that€such€a€showing€in€and€of€itself€necessarily€prevents€the€trial€courtÏfrom€including€attorney€fees€in€its€order.€€ÌÌà àà àAn€award€of€reasonable€attorney€fees€may€be€properly€allowed€as€aÏpart€of€alimony.€òò€Raskind€v.€Raskind,óó€45€Tenn.€App.€583,€325€S.W.2d€617€(1959)ÏSuch€an€award€is€a€matter€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€òò€Crouch€v.ÏCrouchóó,€53€Tenn,€App.€594,€606,€385€S.W.2d€288,€293€(1964).€€Our€casesÏvariously€say€that€the€appellate€court€will€not€interfere€except€upon€a€clearÏshowing€of€abuse€of€that€discretion,€òòCrouch€v.€Crouchóó,€or€unless€the€decision€isÏnot€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€òòLuna€v.€Lunaóó,€718€S.W.2dÏ673,€676€(Tenn.App.€1986).ÌÌà àà àThe€same€factors€supporting€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€awardÏalimony€to€the€wife€also€support€an€award€of€attorney€fees.€€See€òòStorey€v.€Storeyóó,Ï835€S.W.2d€593,€598€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€Taking€into€account€both€the€propertyÏsettlement€and€the€relative€income€levels€of€the€parties,€it€does€not€appear€to€usÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€Nor€do€weÏbelieve€that€the€fees€awarded€to€help€the€wife€defray€the€costs€of€proceedingsÍinitiated€as€a€result€of€the€husbandððs€own€misbehavior€are€excessive€or€that€theyÏindicate€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€à àÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇÑ  Ñ