ÿWPCu! …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0l 0Dü @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ D3µ Bè 0@U,EU>qU6¯B)åDC AMQU*ž#È®ë2™öË™Á%Zv~vÓý AOÐÆ 0Då D/)! BX!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ °D±D²D³´Dµ¶E·¸Ó€Ä©U!ÿÿÿÿÿÏÿ3|xÄ&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd€-3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òAugust€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔAt€the€time€of€the€marriage,€Wife€also€owned€an€interest€in€land€inÏDover,€Tennessee,€and€was€a€contingent€beneficiary€of€a€trust.€€The€trialÏcourt€correctly€awarded€these€interests€to€Wife€as€separate€property.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔHusband€went€to€work€with€his€present€employer,€Bristol€Myers€Squibb,Ïin€October,€1990.Ì ìÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔCents€have€been€eliminated.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔThe€law€of€Tennessee€has€long€shown€a€bias€in€favor€of€alimony€òòinÏsolidoóó€over€that€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€òòSee€ò òWilliams€v.€Williamsóóó ó,€146ÏTenn.€38,€236€S.W.€938€(1921).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔHusband€owned€the€condominium€and€Dean€Witter€account€before€theÏmarriage.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco 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€0ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€1ÔÑ7€õuXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€463;+'h|7X` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌJUDY€DEMOS€SIEVERS,à àà àà à€)€œC/A€NO.€03A01„9603„CV„00082›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant,€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€HONORABLE€L.€MARIE€WILLIAMS,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)ÌJAMES€FREDERICK€SIEVERS,à àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellee.à à€)€œHAMILTON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURT›ÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌœGLENNA›€M.€œRAMER›à àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€œHORTON›ÌÒ ° ÒÒ À ÒChattanooga,€Tennesseeà àà àà àœHorton›,€Maddox€&€Anderson,€œPLLC›ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€1 ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€1ÔÔ€1XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àœIn€this›€œdivorce›€œcase,›€œthe›€trial€court€awarded€theÏcounter„plaintiff€James€Frederick€Sievers€(Husband)€a€divorce€fromÏthe€original€plaintiff€Judy€Demos€Sievers€œ(Wife)€on€the€ground€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.›€€œWife›€appeals,€raising€issues€thatÏpresent€the€following€questions€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€awarding€Wife€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€of€$6,000,Ïpayable€in€six€equal€monthly€installments,Ïrather€than€periodic€alimony€òòin€futuroóó?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏwhen€it€divided€the€partiesðð€œmarital€property?›ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€disregardingÏthe€testimony€of€Dr.€œAron›€œHalfin›?ÌÌÌÌWe€affirm.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àI.€€òòFactsÌÌà àà àœóóThis€is€a€relatively€late„in„life€marriage.€€When›€theÏparties€married,€Wife€was€almost€œ41€years€old,›€and€Husband€wasÏapproaching€46.€€Each€of€the€parties€had€been€previously€œmarried.ÏAt›€the€time€of€their€marriage€on€June€27,€1987,€Wife€had€beenÏdivorced€for€approximately€19€œyears€and€Husband€had€been€singleÏfor€almost€three€years.›ÌÌà àà àFrom€1968€to€December,€1987,€Wife€worked€as€a€travelÏagent.€€œSome€six€months€after€this€marriage,€she›€sold€her€travelÏagency€œbusiness›€for€$40,000.€€œThese›€funds€were€not€put€in€theÏmarriage;€œthey›€were€used€primarily€for€the€œeducation€and€otherÏneeds›€of€œher›€œson.›€€Wife€was€not€employed€after€December,€1987.ÌÌà àà àœHusband›€had€assets€of€œ$363,000›€when€œhe€married€theÏplaintiff.›€€Excluding€the€œvalue€of€the€travel€agency,›€Wife€broughtÏœinto€the€marriage€a€car€with€an€unspecified€value€and€other€assetsÏworth€approximately›€œ$13,000€„€$16,000.× ƒ7 ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àWife€has€a€history€of€emotional€problems.€€TheseÏproblems€pre„existed€the€marriage.€€She€claims€a€œflare„up›€afterÏthe€parties€married.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Husband€was€earning€œ$72,342›Ïper€œyear.€€In€addition,€he€has€received€a€yearly€bonus€from€hisÍemployer€since€1991.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€His€bonus€has€increased€each€year,€and€forÏ1994€he€received€a€gross€bonus€of€$11,000.›ÌÌà àà àNo€children€were€born€to€this€union.ÌÌà@ àII.€€òòTrial€Courtððs€DecreesóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€and€distributed€the€marital€assetsÏand€debts€of€the€parties€as€follows:ÌÌà@ àTo€HusbandÌÓÓà àà àAppreciation€in€œvalue€of€condominium›€Ìà àà à€€during€œmarriageà àà àà à›à àà à$€31,899× ƒ9 ××  ×Ìà àà àTwo„thirds€of€appreciation€duringÌà àà à€€marriage€of€Dean€œWitter›€accountà àà à€€79,325Ìà àà àOne„half€of€Bristol€Myers€SquibbÌà àà à€€accountà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€11,579Ìà àà àBoat€and€trailerà àà àà àà àà àòò€€14,000óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$136,803Ìà àà àLess:€Debtsà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€3,128óóÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$133,675Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à========ÌÌÌà@ àTo€WifeÌÌà àà àOne„third€of€appreciation€duringÌà àà à€€marriage€of€Dean€œWitter›€accountà àà à$39,675Ìà àà àAppreciation€in€œJ.C.›€Bradford€IRAÌà àà à€€during€marriageà àà àà àà àà à€€9,159Ìà àà àOne„half€of€Bristol€Myers€SquibbÌà àà à€€accountà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€11,579Ìà àà à1990€Lincoln€œTownCar›à àà àà àà à€€9,500Ìà àà àCD€at€œNationsBank›à àà àà àà àà àòò€€3,200óóÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à$73,113Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à=======ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€parties€agree€that€the€œmarital€assets›€found€by€the€court€œare›Ïin€fact€properly€classified€as€marital€property€under€T.C.A.€ðð€œ36„4„121(b)(1)(A);€but€there›€is€a€sharp€dispute€between€them€as€toÏwhether€the€trial€judgeððs€division€is€equitable.ÌÌà àà àThe€œlower€court›€denied€Wifeððs€request€for€periodicÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó,€opting€instead€to€award€her€$6,000€alimony€òòinÏsolidoóó,€payable€at€the€rate€of€$1,000€per€month€for€sixÏconsecutive€months.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€òòTrial€Courtððs€Memorandum€OpinionóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€filed€an€excellent,€well„writtenÏmemorandum€opinion€in€which€she€held€that€Wife€was€guilty€ofÍinappropriate€marital€œconduct€based€primarily€on€Wifeððs€admittedÏadulterous€relationship.›ÌÌà àà àœThe€trial€court›€determined€that€each€of€the€partiesÏowned€separate€property€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€WifeððsÏseparate€property€œwas€found€to€be€worth€$53,500;€HusbandððsÏseparate€property€was€valued€by€the€trial€court€at€$307,000.›ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€division€of€maritalÏproperty€set€forth€above€was€ð ðequitable€under€all€of€the€factorsÏlisted€at€T.C.A.€[ðð]€36„4„121(c).ððÌÌà àà àIn€her€memorandum€opinion,€the€trial€judge€madeÏextensive€findings€on€the€issue€of€alimony.€€Because€she€hasÏelucidated€her€reasons€for€œthe›€judgment€on€alimony€far€better€thanÏœwe€could,›€we€elect€to€copy€her€comments€verbatim:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€Court€has€reviewed€the€factors€to€beÏconsidered€in€determining€whether€or€notÏalimony€is€to€be€awarded€to€the€wife.ÌÌà àà8 àIt€is€noted€Jim€Sievers€has€a€significantlyÏgreater€earning€capacity€than€does€Mrs.ÏSievers.€€The€Court€does€not€find€she€isÏprecluded€from€engaging€in€gainful€employment.€ÏThe€proof€is€clear€Mrs.€Sievers€earned€betweenÏ$12,000.00€and€$20,000.00€per€year€as€a€travelÍagent€prior€to€the€marriage€and€presentlyÏmaintains€some€contact€with€that€business.€ÏThe€emotional€status€Mrs.€Sievers€asserts€as€aÏdisability€was€present€at€times€while€she€wasÏworking€prior€to€the€marriage.€€The€Court€isÏnot€persuaded€she€is€disabled€from€work.€€AllÏtestimony,€with€the€exception€of€that€of€Dr.ÏœHalfin›,€concerning€Mrs.€Sieversðð€talents€andÏabilities€while€gainfully€employed€and€whileÏcontributing€to€the€marriage€through€herÏcommunity€activities€established€she€was€wellÏqualified€for€work€as€a€travel€agent€orÏotherwise.€€The€Court€finds€significantÏinconsistencies€between€the€testimony€of€allÏwitnesses€who€have€observed€Mrs.€Sievers€inÏher€day„to„day€activities€and€the€testimony€ofÏDr.€œHalfin›.€€Dr.€œHalfin›ððs€testimony€was€notÏpersuasive€to€the€Court€on€any€point.ÌÌà àà8 àThe€relative€education€of€each€of€the€partiesÏis€considered€in€the€Courtððs€review€of€theÏearning€capacity€and€the€obligations€and€needsÏof€the€parties.ÌÌà àà8 àThis€is€not€a€marriage€of€extremely€lengthyÏduration€and€is€a€marriage€between€individualsÏwith€enough€age€and€experience€to€haveÏappreciated€the€situations€into€which€each€ofÏthem€entered.€€Each€œparty›€could€haveÏanticipated€the€risks€attendant€to€the€failureÏof€this€marriage€at€its€inception.€€However,Ïit€is€noted€by€the€Court€that€the€turningÏpoint€in€the€marriage€occurred€when€there€wasÏa€change€in€the€employment€status€of€Mr.ÏSievers.€€This€was€an€occurrence€outside€ofÏthe€control€of€either€husband€or€wife.€ÏApparently,€the€marriage€did€not€weather€thisÏchange€well.€€Neither€party€nurtured€theÏmarital€relationship€during€this€time.€ÏHowever,€although€both€parties€contributed€toÏthe€breakdown€of€the€marriage,€the€Court€findsÏthe€affair€of€Mrs.€Sievers€was€the€conductÏwhich€resulted€in€the€demise€of€the€maritalÏrelationship.ÌÌà àà8 àMr.€Sievers€brought€into€the€marriageÏsignificantly€greater€assets€than€did€Mrs.ÏSievers€and€under€the€previously€discussedÏdistribution€of€marital€assets,€Mrs.€SieversÏleaves€the€marriage€with€more€assets€than€sheÏbrought€into€it.€€The€standards€of€living€ofÏboth€of€the€parties€will€have€changed€as€aÏresult€of€dissipation€of€assets€during€theÏmarriage.€€This€dissipation€of€assets€wasÏcaused€primarily€by€the€change€in€employmentÏstatus€of€both€of€the€parties€and€no€fault€forÏthe€dissipation€of€the€assets€should€beÏattributed€to€either€party.€€Both€parties€madeÏsignificant€contributions€to€the€marriage€andÏit€is€the€finding€of€the€Court€Mrs.€SieversððÏparticipation€in€the€social,€philanthropic,Ïand€business€communities€of€Chattanooga,€asÏthe€wife€of€Mr.€Sievers,€was€an€importantÏcontribution€to€the€marriage.€€Having€reviewedÏall€the€above€factors,€it€is€the€finding€ofÏthe€Court€that€the€distribution€of€maritalÏassets€places€Mrs.€Sievers€in€a€position€inÏwhich€she€needs€alimony€for€only€a€shortÏperiod€of€time.€€œTherefore,›€alimony€is€ORDEREDÏfor€six€(6)€months€at€$1,000.00€per€month.€ÏThis€award€is€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€payable€inÏinstallments€of€$1,000.00€per€month€for€sixÏmonths€beginning€August€1,€œ1995.›Ì̛̜ÌÓÓà@ àIV.€€òòAlimonyóóÌÌà àà àWe€review€the€trial€court€award€of€alimony€òòin€œsolidoóó›Ïever€mindful€of€the€fact€that€a€trial€judge€has€broad€discretionÏon€the€question€of€alimony.€€òòò òœMarmino›€v.€œMarmino›ó óóó,€238€S.W.2d€105,Ï107€(Tenn.€App.€1950).€€The€needs€of€the€party€requesting€alimony,Íthe€ability€to€pay€of€œhis€or€her€spouse,›€and€the€relative€fault€ofÏthe€parties€are€the€three€most€important€factors€in€the€alimonyÏdetermination,€òòò òBull€v.€Bulló óóó,€729€S.W.2d€673,€675€(Tenn.€App.Ï1987);€but€there€are€other€factors€to€be€œconsidered€as€well.›€€œòòSeeÏóóT.C.A.›€ðð€36„5„101(d).ÌÌà àà àIt€is€obvious€from€the€memorandum€opinion€that€the€trialÏjudge€carefully€considered€all€of€the€evidence€in€deciding€whetherÏto€award€Wife€long„term€or€short„term€alimony.€€She€chose€toÏaccredit€the€testimony€of€some€witnesses€over€that€of€others.€€InÏgeneral€terms,€the€credibility€of€the€various€witnesses€was€herÏð ðcall.ðð€€ð ðA€[trial€judge],€on€an€issue€which€hinges€on€witnessÏcredibility,€will€not€be€reversed€unless,€other€than€the€oralÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,Ïconcrete€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòò òTennesseeÏValley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryó óóó,€526€S.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€App.Ï1974).ÌÌà àà àThe€critical€question€œregarding€alimony€was›€whether€WifeÏhad€the€œeducation€and/or€work€experience›€to€support€herself€andÏwhether€she€was€emotionally€stable€enough€to€put€œthese›€talents€toÏwork.€€There€is€testimony€in€the€œrecord,›€both€pro€and€œcon,›€bearingÍon€this€œquestion.€€The›€trial€judge€gave€more€weight€to€theÏevidence€tending€to€show€that,€given€a€short€period€of€œtime,€Wife›Ïwould€again€be€able€to€support€herself€in€her€chosen€line€of€œwork„„the›€travel€agency€business.€€The€trial€judge€was€œapparently€also›Ïinfluenced€by€the€fact€œHusband›€had€supported€Wife€from€the€time€ofÏtheir€separation€in€December,€1994,€up€until€the€divorce€hearingÏon€June€20,€1995,€a€period€of€some€œsix›€months.€€œAfter›€awardingÏWife€$6,000€œalimony›€òòin€solidoóó,€the€trial€judge€œobserved€asÏfollows:›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€Court€notes€and€commends€Mr.€SieversððÏvoluntary€paying€off€of€the€credit€cards,Ïmedical€expenses,€rent€and€utilities€and€otherÏincidentals€for€the€benefit€of€Judy€SieversÏsince€the€separation€in€December€of€1994.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOur€review€of€the€record,€tempered€as€it€must€be€by€theÏlaw€on€the€issue€of€credibility,€does€not€persuade€us€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððs€determinationÏthat€the€lawœ× ƒ: ××  ×›€and€the€facts€œdictate›€that€$6,000€of€alimony€òòinÏsolidoóó€œis›€the€appropriate€award€in€this€case.€€œThis€award€is€inÏkeeping€with€the€short€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€amount€ofÍmarital€property€received€by€Wife,€and€the€trial€courtððsÏdeterminations€regarding€Wifeððs€ability€to€support€herself€and€theÏð ðrelative€fault€of€the€parties.ðð€€We›€find€no€abuse€of€discretionÏin€the€trial€courtððs€alimony€decree.ÌÌà@ àV.€€òòDivision€of€PropertyóóÌÌà àà àIn€a€divorce€case,€a€court€is€required€to€divide€theÏpartiesðð€marital€property€in€an€equitable€manner.€€T.C.A.€ðð€œ36„4„121(a)(1).›€€A€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€determining€whatÏis€equitable€in€a€given€case.€€òòò òœBatson›€v.€œBatson›ó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,Ï859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€In€many€cases,€particularly€thoseÏinvolving€marriages€of€long€duration€and€significant€contributionsÏby€both€parties,€œan€equitable›€division€œis€one€that€is›Ïsubstantially€equal;€but€equality€is€not€mandated€in€all€œcases.€ÏòòIdóó.›ÌÌà àà àT.C.A.€ðð€œ36„4„121(c)(1)„(10)›€sets€forth€the€factors€toÏbe€considered€by€œa›€court€in€arriving€at€an€equitable€division.€ÏThese€factors€are€not€œto€be€applied›€in€œa›€mechanical€fashion.€œòòIdóó.€ÏA›€trial€judge,€exercising€œhis€or€her€sound›€discretion,€mustÍcarefully€weigh€these€factors€in€light€of€the€credible€evidenceÏpresented€by€the€parties.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€judge€awarded€Wife€œa€little€overÏ35%›€of€the€œnet€marital›€property.€€She€contends€such€an€award€isÏinequitable.€€We€œcannot€agree.›€€This€was€a€marriage€of€relativelyÏshort€duration.€€The€parties€lived€together€as€husband€and€wife€œaÏlittle€over€seven€years.›€€While€both€made€œimportant€contributions›Ïin€the€marriage,€œit€is€significant€that€$150,899,›€or€œsome€73%›€ofÏthe€total€marital€estate,€came€from€the€natural€growth€of€assetsÏowned€by€Husband€at€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€marriage.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€While€theÏsource€of€these€marital€assets€might€not€be€that€œimportant›€in€aÏlong€œmarriage€with€significant€contributions€on€both€sides,›€weÏbelieve€it€is€in€this€marriage€of€relatively€short€duration.€€òòSeeÏò òœBatson›ó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€œ859.›ÌÌà àà àWhen€all€of€the€relevant€factors€are€considered,€weÏcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏœcourtððs›€determination€that€œits›€division€of€marital€property€wasÏequitable.€€œWife€came€into€this€marriage€with€roughly€$13,000€toÍ$16,000€in€assets,€plus€a€car€of€unspecified€value.€€This€does€notÏcount€the€travel€agency€since€the€net€proceeds€from€the€sale€ofÏthat€asset€did€not€go€into€the€marriage.€€She€left€with€herÏseparate€property€and€marital€property€valued€at€$73,113.€€We€findÏno€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€judgeððs€division€of€maritalÏproperty.€€òòò òBatsonó óóó€approves€the€approach€taken€by€the€trial€courtÏin€this€case.€€òòIdóó.€at€859.›ÌÌà@ àœVI.€€òòDr.€Halfinððs€Testimonyóó›ÌÌà àà àWife€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€when€sheÏð ðdisregardedðð€the€testimony€of€Dr.€œAron›€œHalfin›,€a€board€certifiedÏpsychiatrist.€€Dr.€œHalfin›€testified€regarding€Wifeððs€depression,€aÏcondition€that€pre„existed€the€marriage.€€œHe€testified€that€WifeÏhad€a€genetic€predisposition€towards€depression.€€He›€opined€thatÏWife€could€not€presently€handle€the€stress€of€coping€withÏemployment.€€Wife€says€the€court€should€have€believed€thisÏtestimony€and€consequently€awarded€her€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.ÌÌà àà àWifeððs€contention€is€fully€answered€by€the€Supreme€CourtÏcase€of€òòò òGibson€v.€œFerguson›ó óóó,€562€S.W.2d€188€(Tenn.€1976):ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àExpert€opinions,€at€least€when€dealing€withÏhighly€complicated€and€scientific€matters,€areÏnot€ordinarily€conclusive€in€the€sense€thatÏthey€must€be€accepted€as€true€on€the€subjectÏof€their€testimony,€but€are€purely€advisory€inÏcharacter€and€the€trier€of€facts€may€placeÏwhatever€weight€it€chooses€upon€such€testimonyÏand€may€reject€it,€if€it€finds€that€it€isÏinconsistent€with€the€facts€in€the€case€orÏotherwise€unreasonable.€€Even€in€thoseÏinstances€in€which€no€opposing€expert€evidenceÏis€offered,€the€trier€of€facts€is€still€boundÏto€decide€the€issue€upon€its€own€fairÏjudgment,€assisted€by€the€expert€testimony.ÌÌÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€œ189„90.ÌÌà àà àThe›€œquestion›€œwith€respect€to€Dr.€Halfinððs€testimonyÏraises€an€issue€that€ð ðis›€largely€dependent€on€witnessÏcredibility.ðð€€òòò òAirline€Const.€Inc.€v.€œBarr›ó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€264Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€The€trial€judge€expressly€stated€that€ð ðDr.ÏœHalfin›ððs€testimony€was€not€persuasive€to€the€œCourt›€on€any€point.ðð€ÏœShe›€opted€œinstead€to›€believe€ð ðthe€testimony€of€[the]€witnesses€whoÏ[had]€observed€[the€Wifeððs]€day„to„day€activities.ðð€€The€essenceÏof€œan€advocateððs€job›€is€to€convince€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏœCredibility›€is€at€the€heart€of€this€contest.€€In€the€instant€case,ÏWife€lost€the€credibility€ð ðbattleðð€as€to€whether€œshe›€wasÏemotionally€able€to€pursue€gainful€employment€that€would€enableÏher€to€support€herself.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€ð ðdisregardðð€Dr.ÍœHalfin›ððs€testimony€œby€not€listening€to€it€or€by€ignoring€it;€she›Ïsimply€found€it€unpersuasive€when€compared€to€œother€testimony›€thatÏtended€to€support€an€opposite€view.€€She€properly€performed€œher›Ïœrole€as€trier›€of€fact„„picking€and€choosing€among€œconflictingÏevidence›€œsupporting€various€theories€advanced€by€the€parties.€€SheÏwas€not€required€to€accept€Dr.€Halfinððs€testimony€at€face€value.›ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€caseÏis€remanded€for€enforcement€of€the€judgment€and€collection€ofÏcosts€assessed€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant€and€her€surety.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€œGoddard›,€œP.J.›ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌœHerschel›€P.€Franks,€J.