WPC .wQ}k$'O B-5_?t}±o8sK#gbˇWqdSҔ]8B,KCaD L"Z:K HSu38[C \rZsE-D7u '',1cz4(*#@t"";u+"=4E=n0 AmQ V/ȧľ_R6٥&|s݁C_# u#҅SW6C=A=uݸߞ`+c%uT*ttF.'nZ^ZV78|;Qk+:h(/RC3yJ>ǩIև'a 6Y{Ip1:Kj_4Pߣ9Hr(هf&ŻYTh T>`D,C}` egJdb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz    d 0D*NnpfEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS1 0J 0D A2HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?(bk1 | C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU w RcX$      1    _TheorderofremandsimplyprovidesthattheSupremeCourtremandedtheinstantcasetous for  reconsiderationinlightof _Crabtree_Ԁv._Crabtree_ ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   RcX$      2    _TheSupremeCourthadearlierdiscussedthissubjectin Selfv.Self ,861S.W.2d360(Tenn.1993).  RcX$      3    _Shortmarriagesaretypicallyapproacheddifferently.Forexample,onthesubjectofdivisionofproperty,see   _Batson_Ԁv._Batson_ ,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.Ct.App.1988). RcX$      4    _TheNewJerseystatuteisfoundatN.J.Stat.Ann.2A:3423(West1987).- -(|G2cX$ !.8ddd8         0   d(|3A$ !.8ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _  d83XXdd8  @ 7dINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#d7 #Ԉ ,   June2000Session X X3Xd #dXX3#GARYWAYNEROBERTSONv.LORI_VANHOOSER_ԀROBERTSONX3Xd   ` @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  h @@No.96DR2492W.NeilThomas,III,Judge  X FILEDAUGUST25,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E200001698_COA_ԄRMCV '  AV) ` dE<` A      TheSupremeCourtgrantedMr.Robertsonsapplicationforpermissiontoappealandremandedthis  casetous forreconsiderationinlightof _Crabtree_Ԁv._Crabtree_ [16S.W.3d356(Tenn.2000)].Upon  reconsideration  ,weadheretoouroriginalopinion.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt v AffirmedinPart;ModifiedinPart;ReversedinPart;CaseRemanded  f   #dX3#X3X.dCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, F _P.J._,joined.DonT._McMurray_,J.,whosignedtheoriginalopinioninthiscase,diedwhilethis 6 matterwaspendingbeforetheSupremeCourt. &v LeroyPhillips,Jr.,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Lori_Vanhooser_ԀRobertson. V SherryB._Paty_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,GaryWayneRobertson. 6 X OPINION #dXX3#X3Xd   #dXX3 #X3Xd    TheSupremeCourtin _Crabtree_ focusedonseveralissues,primaryamongthembeing "!  whetheratrialcourtmayorderconcurrentorsuccessiveawardsofalimonyinfuturoand #" rehabilitativealimonyintheinitialdecreeofdivorce. Id .at357.TheSupremeCourtconcluded $# that aconcurrentawardofbothtypesofalimonyisinconsistent. Id .at360.Itopinedthat [_a]t_ v% $ thetimeofthedecree,atrialcourtmustnecessarilyfindthattherecipientofalimonyeithercanbe f&!% orcannotberehabilitatedalthoughthatdeterminationissubjecttolatermodification. Id .It V'"& concludedthattheevidencepreponderatedinfavorofafindingthatMs._Crabtree_Ԁcouldbe F(#' rehabilitated. Id .Whileincreasingtheamountofmonthlyrehabilitativealimony,itreversedthe 6)$( trialcourtsawardofalimonyinfuturoanawardthatwastohavefollowedthetrialcourtsaward &*v%) offiveyearsofrehabilitativealimony. Id .at361. +f&*   Theprimaryissuein _Crabtree_ isnotpresentintheinstantcase.Neitherthetrialcourtnor ,F(, thisCourtorderedconcurrentorsuccessiveawardsofrehabilitativealimonyandalimonyinfuturo. -6)- Webelieve  #  1      ׀theSupremeCourtremandedtheinstantcasetousbecauseitwantedustoreevaluate  ourdecisionthatMs.Robertsoncannotberehabilitated.Thiswewilldo.    In _Crabtree_ ,theSupremeCourtagain  #  2      ׀lookedatthesubjectofrehabilitativealimonyasthat  conceptiscodifiedat_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(d)(Supp.1999).Amongotherthings,itsaidthefollowing: p   8 ` [_T]he_Ԁlegislaturehasdemonstratedapreferenceforanawardof P  rehabilitativealimonytorehabilitateaneconomicallydisadvantaged @  spouse.0 ` x` x @%*** `    8 ` In Self [ v.Self ,861S.W.2d360(Tenn.1993)],weheldthat#dXX3 #X3Xd365 @  101reflectsanobviouslegislativepolicytoeliminatethedependency 0  ofoneexspouseupontheotherandtorelievethepartiesof    impedimentsincidenttothedissolvedmarriage.Accordingly,  alimonyinfuturoshouldbeawardedonlywhenthetrialcourtfinds  that economicrehabilitationisnotfeasibleandlongtermsupportis  necessary.` x` x @%*** p   8 ` In Aaron [ v.Aaron ,909S.W.2d408(Tenn.1995)]thisCourt P awardedalimonyinfuturotoahomemakerwithahighschool @ educationwhohadneverworkedoutsidethehome.ThisCourtnoted 0 thatalthoughtheawardwould notputherinthesamepositionin  p whichshewaspriortothedivorce,itwillprovideherwithclosing ` inmoney;thatisshewillbeenabledtomorecloselyapproachher P formereconomicposition.Thisstatement,however,wasintended @ neithertoprovideanewstandardforawardingalimonynorto 0 suggestthateveryspouseshouldbeentitledtobeplacedinthesame   financialconditionoccupiedpriortothedivorce. Aaron merely ! acknowledgedthat,whererehabilitationisnotfeasible,anawardof "  alimonyinfuturowillnotalwaysbesufficienttoplacea #! disadvantagedspouseinthefinancialpositionoccupiedpredivorce.$"` x` x @%*** p&!$  `'"%   8 ` AnawardofrehabilitativealimonypursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.  365101mustbepredicateduponafindingthattherecipientcanbe  economicallyrehabilitated.` x` x  Id .at35860(citationsomitted)(emphasisin _Crabtree_ ).WebelievetheSupremeCourtsremand p oftheinstantcasemayindicatethatbodysdoubtsregardingthecorrectnessofourdecisionthatMs. `  Robertsoncannotberehabilitated,whenviewedinthecontextoftheabovequotedprinciples.If P  thisbethecase,wewelcometheopportunitytofurtherexplaintherationaleforourdecision. @    Westartbynotingthatthewords, rehabilitated, rehabilitative,and rehabilitation,are  p  notdefinedin_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(d)(Supp.1999).Allarederivativesoftheword rehabilitate, `  whichisalsonotdefinedinthestatute.Whatdidthelegislatureintendbytheuseofthese P  derivativesof rehabilitate?Thecasesclearlyholdthatcourtsaretoascertaintheintentofthe @  legislature primarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguagecontained...whenread 0  incontextwiththewholestatute. JamesCablePartnersv.CityofJamestown ,818S.W.2d338,   341(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).    Thecommonthreadtothevariousdefinitionsoftheword rehabilitateisthatofrestoration.  Thefollowingisonefourprongdefinitionoftheword rehabilitate:    8 ` 1.Torestore(e.g.,ahandicappedperson)tocustomaryactivity p througheducationandtherapy.2.Toreinstatethegoodnameof.3. ` Torestoretheformerrank,privileges,orrightsof.4.Torestoreto P aformerstate.@` x` x WebstersIINewRiversideUniversityDictionary991(1994).SeealsoAmericanHeritage  p Dictionary1096(1978).While,generallyspeaking,thesedefinitionsallembracetheconceptof ` restoration,theydonotdirectlysupplytheobjectofthatrestoration,especiallyastheconceptof P rehabilitatingisembodiedin_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(d).Weareleftwiththequestion:Rehabilitateor @ restoretowhat? 0   Attheoutset,itshouldbenotedthatacourtdoesnotreachtheissueofrehabilitationunless ! thespouserequestingalimonyis economicallydisadvantaged,relativetotheotherspouse._T.C.A._ "  365101(d)(1).Ifthecourtdoesnotfind suchrelativeeconomicdisadvantage, id .,itshouldgo #! nofurther;intheabsenceofsucheconomicdisadvantagetherequestingpartyisnotentitledto $" alimony,rehabilitativeorotherwise.Ontheotherhand,ifthecourtfindsthatthespouserequesting % # alimonysuffersfromarelativeeconomicdisadvantagevisavishisorherspouse,thecourtshould p&!$ continuetheinquiryanddecide thenature,amount,lengthofterm,andmannerofpaymentof `'"% alimony. Id . P(#&   Intheinstantcase,itiscleartousthatMs.Robertsoniseconomicallydisadvantagedrelative 0*%( toMr.Robertsonforthereasonsexpressedinouroriginalopinion.Wewillnotrepeatthatanalysis  +p&) here. ,`'* Ї  Wereturntothequestionofrehabilitation.Incontemplatingthequestionposedearlier  rehabilitationtowhat?webelievethestatutesuggeststheanswer.Expandingoursearchto  anotherpartof_T.C.A._Ԁ365101,specificallysubsection(d)(1)(I),wefindthat indeterminingthe  natureoftheappropriatespousalsupport,seesubsection(d)(1),wearetoconsider,amongother  things, [_t]he_Ԁstandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage._T.C.A._Ԁ365 p 101(d)(1)(I).Webelievethismeansthatinmarriagesoflongduration #  3      ׀whereaspouseis `  economicallydisadvantagedvisavistheotherspouse,thepartiesstandardoflivingshouldbethe P  measuringstickbywhichandagainstwhichacourtdetermineswhetherornotanindividualcanbe @  rehabilitated.Thisisnottosaythatthecourtmustfindthattherequestingspousecanbe 0  rehabilitatedtotheexactstandardoflivingthatheorsheenjoyedduringthemarriage.Thatstandard  p  oflivingissimplyameasuringstickagainstwhichtherehabilitationanalysisismade.Inthefinal `  analysis,thecourtshoulddeterminewhethertheevidencepreponderatesthattherequestingspouse P  canberestoredtoastandardthatisreasonablewhencomparedtothepartiespredivorcestandard. @    Thereisabsolutelynothinginthestatutorylanguagetosuggestthatthecorrectrehabilitation   inquiryiswhetherapersoncanberestoredtoa prettygoodlifestyleortoasubsistencelevelof  existenceortoapovertylinelifestyle.Itseemstousthattheconceptofrehabilitationisnota one  sizefitsall.Wedonotbelievethisconceptcanbeviewedinavacuum.Itmustbeviewedinthe  contextofthepartiespredivorcestandardofliving.    WerecognizethattheSupremeCourtin _Crabtree_ suggestedthatnoteveryeconomically p disadvantagedspouseis entitledtobeplacedinthesamefinancialconditionoccupiedpriortothe ` divorce.16S.W.3dat35960.Wedonotmeantosuggestotherwise.Thefactthatonecannotbe P rehabilitatedtoaneconomicstationinlifeapproximatinghisorherpredivorcestandardofliving @ doesnotnecessarilymeanthatsaidindividualisentitledtospousalsupportinanamountthatwill 0 exactlyreachthatstandard.Theproofmayreflectthatarequestingspousecanberehabilitatedto  p astandardoflivingthatisreasonableinrelationtotheoneenjoyedbythatpartypriortothedivorce. ` Inanyevent,theappropriateanswertotherehabilitationquestiondependsuponacarefulweighing P ofallofthefactorssetforthat_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(d)(1)(A)(L).Whenthesefactorsareconsidered, @ acourtmaydeterminethattheotherpartydoesnothavetheresourcestopayallofthenecessary 0 support,orthattherequestingspousesrelativefaultissuchastomilitateagainstanawardofany   oralloftheneededsupport,or,foranyoneormoreofanumberofotherreasons,thattheotherparty ! shouldnotbeorderedtopaythefullamountofsupportthatisareasonableapproximationofthe "  requestingspousesformerstandardofliving;butwebelievetheonlyfairreadingofthestatuteis #! thattheinquiryastowhetherarequestingspousecanberehabilitatedmustbeviewedinthecontext $" of [_t]he_Ԁstandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage._T.C.A._Ԁ365 % # 101(d)(1)(I).Tofindadifferentmeasuringstickistograftontothestatuteaneconomicstatusthat p&!$ isnotexpresslystatedorotherwisesuggestedinthestatutoryscheme. `'"%  P(#&   Otherstatesseemtohaveadoptedtheapproachsuggestedinthisopinion.TheFloridastatute  issimilartoours:    8 ` (1)Inaproceedingfordissolutionofmarriage,thecourtmaygrant  alimonytoeitherparty,whichalimonymayberehabilitativeor p permanentinnature.` ` x` x @%*** @    8 ` (2)Indeterminingaproperawardofalimonyormaintenance,the  p  courtshallconsiderallrelevanteconomicfactors,includingbutnot `  limitedto:P ` x` x   8 ` (a)Thestandardoflivingestablishedduringthemarriage.0 ` x` x   8 ` (b)Thedurationofthemarriage.` x` x   8 ` _(c)_ԀTheageandthephysicalandemotionalconditionofeachparty.` x` x   8 ` (d)Thefinancialresourcesofeachparty,the_nonmarital_Ԁandthe  maritalassetsandliabilitiesdistributedtoeach.p` x` x   8 ` (e)Whenapplicable,thetimenecessaryforeitherpartytoacquire P sufficienteducationortrainingtoenablesuchpartytofind @ appropriateemployment.0` x` x   8 ` (f)Thecontributionofeachpartytothemarriage,including,butnot ` limitedto,servicesrenderedinhomemaking,childcare,education, P andcareerbuildingoftheotherparty.@` x` x   8 ` (g)Allsourcesofincomeavailabletoeitherparty. ` x` x   8 ` Thecourtmayconsideranyotherfactornecessarytodoequityand "  justicebetweentheparties.#!` x` x Fla.Stat.Ann.61.08(1997).In _Blumberg_Ԁv._Blumberg_ ,561So.2d1187(Fla.Dist.Ct.App. % # 1989),theFloridacourtconstruedtheFloridastatuteasfollows: p&!$   8 ` Thepurposeofrehabilitativealimonyistoassistaspousein P(#& becomingselfsufficient,andhopefullyplacedinapositionto @)$' maintainthelifestyletowhichheorshehadbecomeaccustomed 0*%( duringthemarriage. +p&)` x` x  ,`'*  Id .at1188(citationsomitted).Thecourtwentontofurtherexplaintheconceptunderdiscussion:    8 ` Furthermore,selfsufficiencyconnotesmorethansubsistenceor  partialselfsupport.Courtsrequiremorethanashowingofmere  employabilityoracapacityforsubsistencelevelselfsupportinorder p toclassifyapersonasrehabilitated.` ` x` x  Id .at1189(citationsomitted).Thissubjectisalsodiscussedinthecaseof _Bissell_Ԁv._Bissell_ ,622 @  So.2d532(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993): 0    8 ` Anawardofrehabilitativealimonymustbepredicateduponevidence `  ofaneedforthealimonyandtheotherpartysabilitytopay,aswell P  asevidencethatthepartyseekingtherehabilitativealimony hasthe @  abilitythroughretrainingoreducationtoprovideforastandardof 0  livingreasonablycommensuratewiththestandardestablishedduring   themarriage.` x` x    `     h Id .at533(citationomitted)(emphasisadded).    InadditiontoFlorida,otherstateshaverecognizedthesignificanceoftheformerstandard  oflivingintherehabilitationinquiry.TheSupremeCourtofNewJerseyaddressedthesubject p _thusly_: `   8 ` Inthismatter,Mrs.Crewswasawardedrehabilitativealimonybythe @ trialcourt.Itiswellrecognizedthatarehabilitativealimonyaward 0 isintendedto enable[the]formerspousetocompletethepreparation  p necessaryforeconomicselfsufficiency.Itis payablefora ` terminableperiodoftimewhenitisreasonablyanticipatedthata P spousewillnolongerneedsupport.But, selfsupportdoesnot @ meansomesubsistencelevel;itdescribesthepointatwhichthe 0 supportedspouseisdeemedtohavereachedalevelwhereheorshe   cansupporthimselforherselfinamannerreasonablycomparableto ! themaritalstandardofliving." ` x` x  Crewsv.Crews ,164N.J.11,34,751A.2d524,536(N.J.2000)(citationsomitted). #  4      ׀Seealso In $" reMarriageofWard ,641N.E.2d879,884(Ill.App.Ct.1994)( Thepolicyunderlying % # rehabilitativemaintenanceistoseverallfinancialtiesbetweentheformercoupleinanexpeditious, p&!$ butjust,manner.Eachformerspouseshouldbeindependentoftheotherassoonasispracticable. `'"% Asaresult,spousesmayhavetoacceptemploymentthat,whilenotbeingideal,providesfora P(#& reasonableapproximationofthemaritalstandardofliving.); Moriartyv.Stone ,668N.E.2d1338, @)$' 1344(Mass.App.Ct.1996)(holdingthatanawardofalimonyisimproperabsentafindingof  financialneedonthepartoftherecipientspouseandthat [_t]he_Ԁstandardofneedismeasuredbythe  stationofthepartiesbywhatisrequiredtomaintainastandardoflivingcomparabletotheone  enjoyedduringthemarriage.); _Wiege_Ԁv._Wiege_ ,518N.W.2d708,711(N.D.1994)( Aspouses  needforrehabilitationisnotlimitedtothepreventionofdestitution,butcanalsobebasedontheir p standardoflivingbeforethedivorce.). `    Turningtothefactsoftheinstantcase,andcomparingthosefactstothefactsof _Crabtree_ , @  webelievetheholdingandrationaleofthelattercasesupporttheconclusioninouroriginalopinion 0  thatMs.Robertsoncannotberehabilitatedwhenviewedinthecontextof [_t]he_Ԁstandardofliving  p  ofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage.See_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(d)(1)(I).WhileMs._Crabtree_ `  clearlycouldberehabilitatedtoareasonablestandardofliving,viewedinthecontextofherpre P  divorcestandardofliving,wedonotfindthatthesamecanbesaidofMs.Robertson.Webelieve @  acomparisonofthetwoclearlyreflectsthis. 0    Ms._Crabtree_Ԁcontinuedtoworkasacertifiedpublicaccountantduringtheentiretyofthe  parties23yearsofmarriage;Ms.Robertsonwasbasicallyahomemaker,wifeandparentduringher  23yearsofmarriage.Ms._Crabtree_Ԁisamemberofoneofthebestpaidprofessions;Ms.Robertson  isawouldbeteacherarguablythelowestpaidofallthetrueprofessions.Ms._Crabtree_spotential  grossincomeof$100,000placesherinapositiontoenjoyanaffluentlifestyle,ifnotthefacially  opulentoneofhermarriage;Ms.Robertsonssalaryof$22,500,withnoevidenceofanypotential p forlargeincreases,willpreventherfromachievingthemiddleclassstatusofherpriorstationwhich ` wasfundedbytwoincomesofapproximately$66,000$80,000peryear. P   BothMs._Crabtree_ԀandMs.Robertsonweremarriedforapproximatelyhalfoftheirprobable 0 worklives;butMs._Crabtree_ԀobviouslyaccruedSocialSecuritycreditonherownaccountbasedon  p asubstantialincomeduringtheentireperiodofthemarriage.TheproofindicatesthatMs. ` RobertsonhadlittleincomeduringhermarriagethatentitledhertoSocialSecuritycreditonherown P account. @   TheproofisclearthatMs._Crabtree_smarriagedidnothinderherdevelopmentasacertified   publicaccountant;ontheotherhand,Ms.Robertsondelayedherpursuitofacareerforsome23 ! years.Atage42,sheisjustnowgettingstarted.Shelikelywillfindherselfcompetingwithteachers "  heragewhohave20years,moreorless,ofteachingexperience. #!   Certainly,Ms.Robertsoncouldmaintainasubsistencestandardoflivingonhergrosssalary % # of$22,500;but,aspreviouslyindicated,thisisnotthetest.Whenherpriormiddleclassstandard p&!$ oflivingisusedasthemeasuringstick,thestandardoflivingthatshecanachieveonherowncannot `'"% beconsideredareasonableone. P(#&   Ouroriginaldecisiondoesnotrunafoulofthelegislativepolicyfavoringrehabilitative 0*%( alimony.Werecognizethatpolicyandcertainlydonotseektosetanewpolicycontrarytothis  +p&) obviouslegislativeenactment;butourdecisionsimplyrecognizesthatthepolicydoesnotcomeinto ,`'* playuntilafindingismadethatrehabilitation,ascontemplatedbythestatute,isfeasible.See_T.C.A._  365101(d)(1).Inthiscase,theevidencepreponderatesthatrehabilitationissimplynotfeasible.    HavingfoundthatMs.Robertsoncannotberehabilitated,weconcluded,andstillconclude,  thatMr.Robertsoncouldaffordtopay$600permonthwhenhereachedapointwherehewasno p longerobligatedtopaychildsupport.Consideringthefactorssetforthin_T.C.A._Ԁ365 `  101(d)(1)(A)(L),wefindthatMs.Robertsonhastheneedforthisamount,thatMr.Robertsoncan P  affordtopayatthisrate,andthatthepartiesrelativefaultparticularlyMr.Robertsonsadultery @  militateinfavorofourinfuturoaward.Whilethisamountwillnotplaceherbackfullytoher 0  previousstandardofliving,itcanserveas closinginmoneyascontemplatedbythe Aaron case.  p  909S.W.2dat411. `    WeadheretoourfindingandholdingthatMs.Robertsoncannotberehabilitatedasthat @  conceptissetforthin_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(d)(1).WealsoadheretoourdecisionthatMr.Robertson 0  shouldpayalimonyinfuturoattheratesetforthinouroriginalopinion.Werepublishouropinion   releasedNovember9,1998,inallrespects,withcoststaxedtotheappellee.     `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE