ÿWPCÞ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáð 0lø 0Dd w@¨ 0Jè 0T2 0^† 0hä 0rL 0|¾ 0†: 0À 1uP U,Å 0dñ U,UU 6B)·DCà AM# BpU* D3·"êœ  0@¨v~èvÓf AO9ƈ 0DN D/’ BÁ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|x\ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó J DK eL r‚M DN eO DP Q R Ó€\ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial(((('ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌJune€28,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔCourt€of€Appeals€Rule€10(b):ÌÔ€$Ôà8 àThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€mayÏaffirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinionÏwhen€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decidedÏby€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€beÏpublished,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€a€subsequentÏunrelated€case.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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€$ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ŽaXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœLAURA›€GAIL€STEPHENS,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„CV„00504Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€Circuit€€ÌDONALD€JACKSON€STEPHENS,à à)à àNo.€93D„881ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'+&;+'h|6l` ç `€€Lß›à àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€$¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€$XÔMARY€FRANCES€LYLEÌBruce,€Weathers,€Corley,€Ì€Dughman€&€LyleÌFirst€American€Center,€20th€FloorÌ315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37238„2075Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€F.€BLOOMÌ500€Church€Street,€5th€FloorÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€$¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓÓÓÔ€$XÔà àóóDefendant,€Donald€Jackson€Stephens€("Husband"),€appealsÏfrom€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€this€divorce€action€andÏraises€two€issues.€€He€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdividing€the€partiesðð€marital€property€and€in€its€award€of€alimonyÏin€futuro€to€plaintiff,€Laura€Gail€Stephens€("Wife").€€InÏaddition,€Wife€raises€the€issue€of€whether€she€should€be€awardedÏher€attorneyððs€fee€and€costs€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€parties€married€in€December€1957.€€Husband€was€19€yearsÏold€and€Wife€was€16€years€old.€€The€parties€had€their€first€childÏin€1959,€and€their€second€child€was€born€in€1968.€€For€the€firstÏ23€years€of€the€marriage,€the€parties€lived€in€Huntsville,ÏAlabama.€€During€the€marriage,€Wife€carefully€spent€the€family'sÍhousehold€monies€and€Husband€diverted€significant€funds€intoÏvarious€retirement€and€savings€accounts.€€As€a€result,€the€partiesÏaccumulated€a€substantial€marital€estate.ÌÌà àHusband€began€his€employment€with€IBM€in€1965€and€was€stillÏworking€there€as€of€the€hearing€date.€€While€with€IBM,€HusbandÏpursued€various€educational€opportunities.€€By€1994,€he€advancedÏto€the€position€of€project€manager€and€earned€a€base€salary€ofÏ$49,781.00€per€year€plus€a€team€performance€commission.€€In€1994,Ïhis€gross€earnings€were€$63,798.00€of€which€$11,339.00€representedÏcommissions€or€bonuses.€€Husband's€uncontradicted€€testimony€wasÏthat€this€income€level€was€extraordinary€and€that€his€receipt€ofÏcommissions€would€cease€in€the€future.€€As€to€1995,€Husband'sÏincome€statement€showed€biweekly€gross€earnings€of€$2,028.00Ïequaling€$52,728.00€a€year.€€Husband€received€no€increase€in€hisÏbase€salary€of€$49,781.00€between€1994€and€1995.€€Moreover,ÏHusband€participated€in€IBM's€pension€plan.€€As€a€result,€hisÏpension€entitlement€from€IBM€will€yield€approximately€$1,670.00Ïper€month€on€retirement.ÌÌà àWife's€employment€and€educational€history€is€practicallyÏnonexistent€when€compared€to€Husband's.€€When€the€parties€married,ÏWife€was€not€working€and€she€quit€high€school€while€in€the€tenthÏgrade.€€Wife's€only€employment€outside€the€home€consisted€of€a€jobÏshe€held€for€two€years€in€the€early€1960's€as€a€cloth€grader.€ÏWife's€work€at€home,€however,€was€substantial.€€She€cooked,Ícleaned,€and€took€care€of€Husband€and€the€children.€€The€evidenceÏestablished€that€she€kept€the€home€neat€and€clean,€she€prepared€Ïbreakfast,€lunch,€and€dinner€for€the€family,€and€she€€disciplinedÏthe€children€when€necessary.€€She€carefully€spent€the€householdÏmoney€always€looking€for€bargains€and€low€prices.€€She€also€workedÏin€the€yard€along€with€Husband.€€€In€addition€to€these€duties,ÏWife€took€care€of€Husbandððs€mother€who€was€basically€a€"vegetable"Ïduring€the€last€years€of€her€life.€€ÌÌà àThere€is€evidence€that€Wife€had€low€self„esteem€and€wasÏoverweight.€€She€went€to€TOPS,€a€weight€control€program,€and€cutÏdown€on€her€eating.€€She€insisted€that€her€stomach€shrunk€causingÏher€to€vomit€when€she€was€too€full.€€Husband€attributed€this€toÏbulimia.€€There€is€no€medical€evidence,€however,€from€either€partyÏregarding€this€matter.€€Wife's€eating€problem€€lasted€a€year,€1985Ïto€1986.€€The€trial€court€found€that€it€"wasnððt€a€problem€untilÏthis€divorce."€ÌÌà àIn€1990,€Husband€stopped€spending€weekends€at€home.€€HeÏwould€leave€home€after€breakfast€purportedly€to€go€to€work€andÏwould€not€return€until€eight€or€nine€p.m.€€At€trial,€HusbandÏadmitted€that€he€had€an€affair€with€another€woman€and€that€heÏspent€time€with€her€on€the€weekends.€€Husband€moved€out€of€theÏpartiesðð€home€in€October€of€1992.€He€then€transferred€anÏ$80,000.00€treasury€bill€from€the€partiesðð€joint€names€to€hisÏname.ÌÌà àWife€became€suspicious€of€Husband's€activities€while€heÏlived€in€the€marital€home.€€On€one€occasion,€she€found€two€movieÏtickets€in€his€pocket.€€When€she€asked€Husband€about€them,€he€saidÏhe€had€gone€to€the€movies€by€himself.€€When€she€asked€him€whyÏthere€were€two€tickets,€he€said€"I€wasnððt€aware€of€the€twoÏtickets."€€Subsequently,€he€revealed€that€he€had€been€untruthfulÏabout€the€movie€tickets€and€that€he€was€with€another€woman€at€theÏmovies.€€Husband€insisted€that€he€did€not€tell€Wife€the€truthÏabout€the€affair€because€he€did€not€want€to€upset€her.€€HeÏcharacterized€Wifeððs€accusations€about€his€affair€as€obsessive.€ÏAfter€Husband€left€the€marital€home,€Wife€hired€a€privateÏinvestigator.€€The€investigatorððs€findings€led€Wife€to€file€forÏdivorce€from€bed€and€board.€€€When€the€truth€finally€emerged,ÏHusband€admitted€to€affairs€with€five€women€during€the€course€ofÏthe€partiesðð€marriage.ÌÌà àIn€August€1992,€Waldenbooks€hired€Wife€to€box€books.€€TheÏjob€pays€hourly€and€there€is€little€chance€for€advancement.€€WifeÏreceived€a€25ðð€per€hour€raise€in€1993€and€expected€about€the€sameÏin€1994.€€Her€continued€employment€prospects€are€limited€as€some€Ïemployees€have€already€been€asked€to€take€month„long€leavesÏwithout€pay€to€avoid€formal€layoffs.€€Waldenbooks€does€not€provideÏa€pension€plan,€but€it€does€provide€health€insurance€for€whichÏWife€pays€$44.00€per€month.€€There€are€no€other€benefits.€€WifeÏearned€$12,464.00€in€1993€and€$16,550.00€in€1994.€€ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€length€and€duration€of€the€marriage,Ïthe€education€of€the€parties,€the€respective€abilities€to€earnÏincome,€the€needs€of€the€parties,€and€the€fault€of€the€obligorÏspouse,€the€trial€court€provided€that€the€pendente€lite€€alimonyÏof€$400.00€per€month€should€remain€in€effect€until€the€partiesÏsold€the€marital€home.€€Upon€its€sale€the€alimony€in€futuro€wouldÏincrease€to€$950.00€per€month.€€The€trial€court€also€provided€thatÏit€would€review€the€alimony€award€when€Husband€retires.€€TheÏrecord€established€that€the€trial€court's€distribution€of€theÏmarital€estate€was€nearly€equal€and€that€it€included€€HusbandððsÏIBM€pension€and€PRP€entitlement.ÌÌà àThe€first€issue€presented€by€Husband€is€"whether€the€trialÏcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€to€find€that€an€equitableÏdivision€of€marital€property€was€an€unequal€division€in€favor€ofÏHusband€based€upon€Husbandððs€disproportionate€contribution€to€theÏacquisition€and€preservation€of€the€marital€assets€and€WifeððsÏrefusal€to€participate€in€the€marital€partnership."€€HusbandððsÏproposed€division€of€the€marital€estate€appears€to€be€even,€but€itÏomits€Husbandððs€IBM€pension€which€he€accumulated€during€the€courseÏof€the€marriage.€€Husband€insisted€that€Wife€should€not€receiveÏany€of€his€IBM€pension€because€he€made€a€larger€financialÏcontribution€to€the€marriage.€€As€of€March€1995,€Husband€wasÏentitled€to€both€a€monthly€benefit€at€retirement€of€$1,670.67€perÏmonth€with€a€fifty€percent€survival€benefit€and€a€monthly€paymentÍ("PRP")€currently€worth€$6,066.71.€€Both€of€these€benefits€wereÏvested.ÌÌà àWe€review€this€case€de€novo€upon€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€attaching€to€the€trial€court's€findingsÏof€fact.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Unless€there€is€an€error€of€lawÏor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding,€this€court€will€affirm.€€ò òòòGray€v.€Toddó óóó,€819€S.W.2d€104,Ï108€(Tenn.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àHusband€contended€that€the€trial€court€was€either€biasedÏagainst€him€or€too€busy€to€consider€the€proof€he€wished€to€offerÏon€the€matter€of€fault€and€that€this€bias€was€a€factor€in€theÏcourtððs€division€of€the€marital€estate.€€At€oral€argument,€HusbandÏbacked€off€this€contention€because€the€record€established€that€theÏcourt€was€more€than€willing€to€hear€any€additional€proof€heÏdesired€to€present.€€Near€the€close€of€the€day€on€27€April€1995,Ïthe€court€stated:€€"I've€got€to€be€some€place€at€four€o'clock.€ÏYou€all€can€come€back€in€here€Monday€then."€€Husband's€attorneyÏreplied:€€"Well€if€you're€ready€„„€If€you've€pretty€muchÏcalculated€€based€on€what€you're€going€to€hear,€I'm€pretty€muchÏready€to€wrap€it€up€and€not€call€the€other€witnesses€except€forÏthis€lady."€€We€have€thoroughly€reviewed€this€record€and€find€noÏevidence€to€sustain€Husband's€insistence€of€bias.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€this€record€shows€that€the€trial€courtÍconsidered€the€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€36„4„121(c)€in€making€an€equitable€division€of€the€maritalÏproperty.€€The€statute€requires€equitable€distribution€of€theÏmarital€property,€not€an€equal€distribution.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„4„121(c)(1991).€€Under€the€facts€of€this€case,€an€equitableÏdivision€is€an€approximate€equal€division.€€The€ownership€ofÏmarital€property€is€presumed€equal€unless€one€of€the€parties€proveÏotherwise.€€ò òòòKelly€v.€Kellyó óóó,€679€S.W.2d€458,€462€(Tenn.€App.Ï1984).€€We€find€nothing€in€this€record€to€support€a€finding€ofÏanything€other€than€equal€ownership€of€the€marital€estateÏincluding€Husband's€IBM€pension.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€directs€the€trial€court€and€thisÏcourt€to€give€the€contribution€of€a€party€who€is€a€homemaker€theÏsame€weight€as€that€of€a€wage€earner€if€that€party€has€fulfilledÏtheir€role€as€a€homemaker.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c)(5)(1991).€€Here,€there€was€evidence€of€Wife's€contributionÏto€the€marriage€as€a€homemaker€for€some€35€years.€€SheÏparticipated€in€raising€the€parties'€children.€€She€cooked,Ïcleaned,€and€took€care€of€the€home€and€Husband.€€She€helpedÏHusband€accumulate€a€marital€estate€of€almost€a€half€a€millionÏdollars€not€including€Husband's€IBM€pension.€€Wife€did€manual€yardÏwork€while€Husband€rode€the€lawn€tractor.€€She€also€cared€forÏHusband's€ailing€mother€who€lived€with€them€for€some€time.€€We€areÏof€the€opinion€that€there€is€material€evidence€of€Wife'sÏcontribution€to€the€marriage€which€would€entitle€her€to€an€equalÍdistribution€of€the€marital€property.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àHusband's€second€issue€is€"whether€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€in€awarding€alimony€in€futuro,€rather€thanÏrehabilitative€alimony€to€Wife€in€the€absence€of€findings€(or€ofÏany€proof)€that€Wife's€financial€rehabilitation€is€not€feasibleÏand€in€awarding€alimony€in€an€excessive€amount€based€upon€Wife'sÏneeds€and€the€Husband's€ability€to€pay."€€Regarding€alimony€as€anÏissue,€Husband€testified€on€direct€examination€as€follows:ÌÓ#` Üä ñœÈ“X#ÓÓÓà àQ.à àNow,€you€donððt€feel€that€you€should€pay€your€wife€anyÏà àalimony€because€you€think€she€doesnððt€need€it.€Is€that€yourÏà àmain€contention?Ìà àA.à àI€donððt€think€„„€Had€my€wife€contributed€in€theÏà àmarriage€what€I€did€or€what€I€felt€like€she€ought€to€have,Ïà àI€might€have.€€But€as€far€as€alimony€goes,€Iððm€willing€toÏà àdo€whatever€the€Judge€tells€me€to€do.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€amount€of€monthly€income€reported€on€Husband's€incomeÏand€expense€statement€does€not€include€approximately€$850.00€whichÏHusband€diverts€into€his€401K€and€other€company€savingsðð€plans.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€omission€of€the€$850.00,€Husband€reported€aÏnet€take„home€pay€of€$2,984.00€per€month.€€On€his€expenseÏstatement,€Husband€listed€a€$300.00€per€month€car€payment€evenÏthough€he€paid€cash€for€a€new€car€the€previous€year.€€He€reportedÏfood€expenses€of€$600.00€per€month€while€Wife€listed€food€expensesÏof€only€$300.00€per€month.€€He€claimed€$200.00€for€recreationÏexpenses€while€Wife€claimed€only€$75.00.€€He€reported€his€legalÏfees€œas›€$300.00€per€month.€€Finally,€he€reported€additional€taxÍpayments€of€$200.00€per€month€over€and€above€the€withholding€ofÏ$604.00€per€month€which€comes€out€of€his€gross€paycheck.ÌÌà àWife€sought€alimony€of€$1,500.00€per€month.€€This€figure€Ïrepresented€the€difference€between€her€income€and€what€she€insistsÏare€her€needs.€€The€non„pension€type€investments€that€WifeÏreceived€consisted€of€IBM€stock.€€In€1993€and€1994,€the€stock€paidÏtotal€dividends€of€$800.60.€€Wife€also€received€$40,000.00€of€theÏ$80,000.00€treasury€bill.€€Her€interest€on€that€per€year€will€beÏapproximately€$1,025.00;€however,€Wife€plans€to€make€a€downÏpayment€on€a€home.€€This€will€reduce€her€investment€income.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(d)(1)€sets€forthÏthe€matters€that€must€be€taken€into€consideration€in€settingÏsupport€for€an€obligee€spouse.€€The€intent€of€this€section€is€toÏensure€that€"a€spouse€who€is€economically€disadvantaged,€relativeÏto€the€other€spouse,€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€theÏgranting€of€an€order€for€payment€of€rehabilitative,€temporaryÏsupport€and€maintenance."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(Supp.Ï1995).€€Only€when€there€is€relative€economic€disadvantage€andÏrehabilitation€is€not€feasible,€may€the€trial€court€grant€longÏterm€support.ÌÌà àThe€appellate€courts€of€this€state€have€held€that€the€trialÏcourts€have€great€discretion€in€deciding€alimony€issues€and€thatÏthe€trial€courts'€decisions€will€€not€be€disturbed€on€appealÍexcept€"where€its€use€is€clearly€erroneous."€€ò òòòHall€v.€Halló óóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€432,€439„440€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€"If€one€spouse€isÏeconomically€disadvantaged€compared€to€the€other,€the€courts€areÏgenerally€inclined€to€provide€some€type€of€support.€"€ò òòòBatson€v.ÏBatsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€861€(Tenn.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àWe€have€recognized€that€of€the€statutory€factors€set€forthÏin€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(d)€those€consideredÏmost€by€courts€are€the€need€of€the€innocent€spouse,€the€fault€ofÏthe€obligor€spouse,€and€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€to€pay.€Ïò òòòBull€v.€Bulló óóó,€729€S.W.2d€673,€675€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€"[I]t€isÏappropriate,€where€possible,€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€reliefÏintended€to€maintain€the€innocent€spouse's€pre„divorce€statusÏquo."€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€676.€€Here,€there€is€no€doubt€that€Wife€isÏdisadvantaged€economically€relative€to€the€Husband.€ÌÌà àHusband€insisted€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€Wife€needsÏthe€support€or€that€he€has€the€ability€to€provide€it.€€He€arguedÏthat€Wife€has€been€able€to€maintain€the€standard€of€living€sheÏdesires€from€her€present€income.€€Husband€also€contended€that€WifeÏshould€be€able€to€buy€a€suitable€home€with€her€share€of€theÏproceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€marital€home.€€Husband€estimatedÏWife's€share€of€the€proceeds€to€be€$87,500.00.€€Husband€alsoÏcontended€that€he€is€unable€to€pay€the€support€ordered€by€theÏcourt.€€Husband's€monthly€income€and€expense€statement€listed€aÏpermanent,€ongoing€legal€expense€of€$300.00€per€month€as€well€asÍan€unnecessary€$300.00€monthly€car€payment.€€Husband's€income€andÏexpense€statement€did€not€show€the€$850.00€per€month€he€depositsÏinto€a€tax€œsheltered›€savings€account.€€Husband's€income€statementÏdid€not€include€his€earnings€on€the€marital€assets€received€by€himÏnor€did€it€take€into€account€the€commission€and€bonuses€heÏreceived€over€the€past€several€years.€€Wife€contended€that€theÏ$950.00€per€month€alimony€did€not€close€the€gap€between€her€incomeÏand€expenses.€€She€also€argued€that€she€demonstrated€need€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€determined€Husband€had€income€available€to€meetÏthose€needs.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€rule€one€way€or€theÏother€regarding€rehabilitative€alimony.€€It€is€Wife's€contention€Ïthat,€because€the€trial€court€awarded€alimony€in€futuro,€it€wasÏimplicit€in€its€ruling€that€she€was€not€capable€of€rehabilitation.€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€in€this€record€that€Wife€could€beÏsuccessfully€rehabilitated€at€this€stage€in€her€life.€€As€ourÏsupreme€court€has€stated:€€"While€alimony€is€not€intended€toÏprovide€a€former€spouse€with€relative€financial€ease,€we€stressÏthat€alimony€should€be€awarded€in€such€a€way€that€the€spousesÏapproach€equity."€€òòò òAaron€v.€Aaronó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€411€(Tenn.Ï1995).ÌÌà àHusband€has€raised€the€issue€of€Wife's€entitlement€toÏsocial€security.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€Wife€was€54€years€ofÏage€and€Husband€was€57.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€showÍthat€either€of€them€are€receiving€social€security€benefits.€€ThisÏcourt€may€take€judicial€notice€of€the€fact€that€the€earliest€theyÏwould€be€entitled€to€social€security€benefits,€in€the€absence€ofÏtotal€disability,€is€age€62.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€and€that€Husband's€second€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€Further,€we€note€that€this€matter€remains€in€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€trial€court.€€Thus,€at€any€time,€either€partyÏmay€petition€the€court€to€modify€the€alimony€if€there€has€been€aÏmaterial€change€of€circumstances.€€Additionally,€the€trial€courtÏprovided€that€it€would€review€the€alimony€award€upon€Husband'sÏretirement.ÌÌà àWife€also€asked€for€an€award€of€legal€fees€and€costs€onÏappeal.€€We€are€of€the€opinion,€after€review€of€this€record,€thatÏWife€is€fully€able€to€pay€for€legal€expenses€incident€to€thisÏappeal.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€anyÏfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏthe€defendant/appellant,€Donald€Jackson€Stephens.ÌÌà à€€€ÓÓÌà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ