ÿWPCœ Š¿*0€û¢œÐbU¬l—ƒ”XÒ ŸÖmW¶O3Ò<çÆxÕ?ćá6Ð ³Bï—ÇöõáÉnú(Çô-Ü$„ÏîÕL¤ S:´ pYóˆcñ†Cí¹S Xò¢S°Ivš?TÊ—¤X•Ë–(@P“¬lb&‰öᬀydGS¼ŸO›jöŒ&üpCºÈûJ[â<Í ("’jN‰ø‡‘$H㸹ô$±¶ßøÆ:@Gí‹l4? zh›¸F%€1´ÔÁ( 'æÍYÖ§¥#×® µ4" ~}j§¹ë"5ï¶/+§¨HEŠbÔ[ÃÞïB©8êð^=¨‚…^¿"eKaDIK-å•«bÎ=ÖÙ5ëïœÙCÞ™]#¹7Âh;f‰‘”T.Æjz0¢¼;iúv4ÒãAÌXE¼Feô¼ [®M\k0ˆk½>GÆ&¯Ú›º“ÄÌRª¦l9‘ðNT¹ñz‡{Bñþ3$ëåYm£ÍasÝD¨\`Èîp ñÐänqž L, ,Ô¹FͶ/OʳmY¬cGãhø™ËGFä ªæZž¦ã™–G¿û…ã¸ì¨#mc½ˆTÈ·T9”FhŽ‘)•5pÓ14Ô )SüÞê¼åqNeåg–ìY`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T Ž 0PŽ U:Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ AQ Æi 0D/ / 0Ds s D/· Bæ B D3 0DS S S S S S S S S A— D? BGU˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡   D   D D D D Ó€' F&tttttt3|x' waiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ öÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X¹ XXXÔÔ€æXX¹ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¹ XæÔÐ  ÐÌMay€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœñ' ññ' ññ' ññ ñœñ ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ' ññ ññ ññ' ñßt€ )>.*jxUðÿ` `€€@EI°` 8ttxP°ð tß›ñ' ñGEORGE€WEATHERBY€SICKLER,€III,à  à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð ˆØ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9710„CV„00571Ð tÄ Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð `° Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àWilliamson€CircuitÐ L œ ÐCLETUS€JOY€SICKLER,€à  à)à  àNo.€96014Ð 8 ˆ Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à  à)à  àÐ  ` Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡»Ìc»XXÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ˜è  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€ÌWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€D.€BELL,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓPATRICIA€A.€McDADEÌ227€Bridge€StreetÌFranklin,€Tennessee€€37064Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT€ÌÔ#†Xf4X»»ÌcŸ#ÔÔ‡¼L`¼XXf4ÔÌÌÌœÔ#†Xf4X¼¼L`L#ÔÔ‡»Ìc»XXf4ÔREBECCA›€E.€BYRDÐ *X%% Ð306€Public€SquareÌFranklin,€Tennessee€€37064ÌÔ#†Xf4X»»Ìc’#ÔÔ‡¼L`¼XXf4Ôà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÐ 8-ˆ(( ÐÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED,ÌAND€REMANDEDÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌñ ñÑ foÑÑ7€f4XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  Ññ ñà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ ;X65ï ÐÑ foÑÑ7€f4XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ ñÑ foÑÑ7€¦TXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ ñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†Xf4X¼¼L`‰#ÔÔ‡°Qn°XXf4ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†Xf4X°°QnX #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼L`¼XXf4Ôà  àThis€appeal€involves€the€division€of€property€and€the€award€of€alimonyÐ T¤ Ðas€between€parties€who€were€married€for€many€years.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€isÏchallenging€the€trial€court's€characterization€of€certain€property€as€maritalÏproperty,€the€trial€court's€division€of€the€marital€estate,€and€the€trial€court's€failureÏto€award€both€periodic€alimony€as€well€as€attorney€fees€and€costs€to€the€wife.€€TheÏdecision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€with€regard€to€certain€matters€and€reversedÏwith€regard€to€others.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.€€FACTSà @¼ àÌÓ  Óà  àGeorge€and€Cletus€Sickler€were€married€for€27€years€when€theirÏmarriage€ended€by€final€decree€entered€October€8,€1996.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,ÏMr.€Sickler€("the€Husband")€was€50€years€old€and€Ms.€Sickler€("the€Wife")€wasÏ49€years€old.€€The€parties€are€the€parents€of€one€adult€child€who€was€born€in€theÏfirst€year€of€their€marriage.€€ÌÌà  àThe€Husband€testified€that€he€has€a€degree€in€journalism.€€HisÏprofessional€experience€has€been€primarily€in€the€field€of€employee€and€marketingÏcommunications€with€some€newspaper€reporting€experience.€€His€most€recentÏemployment€was€with€Northern€Telecom€where€he€worked€for€13€years€beforeÏbeing€laid€off€in€October€1995.€€Though€the€Husband€began€at€Northern€TelecomÏat€an€annual€salary€of€$42,000,€he€made€over€$70,000€for€each€of€the€last€threeÏyears€in€this€job.€€ÌÌà  àThe€Husband€testified€that€he€sought€another€job€within€NorthernÏTelecom€prior€to€his€termination.€€Finding€no€opportunity€at€Northern€Telecom,Ïthe€Husband€and€some€partners€began€a€business,€Stealth€Laboratories,€whichÏmanufactured€and€marketed€security€products.€€The€Husband€was€working€almostÏfull„time€on€this€business€out€of€an€office€in€the€home€that€he€shared€with€theÏWife.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€Stealth€as€the€best€career€opportunity€for€someoneÏthat€was€his€age.Ì̜Р¼9 5@ Лà  àThe€Husband€claimed€that€he€invested€approximately€$32,000€of€hisÏseparate€funds€into€Stealth.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Stealth€had€not€become€successfulÏenough€for€the€Husband€to€draw€any€income€from€it.€€By€April€of€1996,€theÏHusband€had€begun€to€actively€search€for€other€employment€again.€€He€testifiedÏthat,€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€he€was€living€with€his€father€in€Dallas€and€supportingÏhimself€through€loans€from€his€father.ÌÌà  àAt€trial,€the€Wife€testified€that€she€was€within€one€year€of€obtaining€aÏbachelor's€degree.€€She€had€stopped€college€shortly€after€marriage€in€order€to€stayÏhome€with€the€parties'€child.€€She€had€been€employed€in€journalism€on€a€part„timeÏbasis€for€many€years.€€She€claims€that€this€field€has€changed€such€that€employersÏnow€prefer€to€hire€part„time€and€temporary€workers€and€pay€at€rates€that€areÏinadequate€for€her€to€support€herself.€€The€Husband€testified€that€throughout€theÏmarriage,€the€Wife€expressed€a€desire€to€have€a€professional€career€"whether€itÏwas€working€in€the€home,€book€writing,€or€doing€news€gathering€or€PR€work."€ÏHowever,€though€he€felt€she€was€very€capable,€he€said€she€always€had€a€difficultÏtime€implementing€her€plans.ÌÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€Husband€received€some€$75,000€during€theÏcourse€of€the€marriage€from€gifts€and€inheritances.€€The€Husband€concedes€thatÏ$50,000€of€this€money€was€used€for€marital€purposes;€however,€he€claims€that€theÏrest€of€the€money€remained€his€separate€property.€€Beginning€in€1977,€theÏHusband€opened€various€separate€bank€accounts€in€his€name€alone.€€He€claims€thatÏhe€deposited€all€such€funds€into€these€separate€accounts€and€that€no€marital€fundsÏwere€put€into€them.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€Wife€maintains€that€she€was€active€inÏhelping€to€choose€the€items€upon€which€the€funds€were€expended€and€that€theÏitems€were€subsequently€used€for€family€entertainment€purposes.Ì€Ìà  àBy€court€memo€entered€March€11,€1997€and€court€order€entered€June€3,Ï1997,€the€court€divided€the€parties'€property€and€its€debts.€€The€court€found€thatÏall€assets€claimed€by€either€party€to€be€marital€property€were€marital€assets€subjectÏto€equitable€division.€€The€court's€memo€acknowledged€the€Husband's€contentionÏthat€he€began€treating€$25,000€of€his€$75,000€inheritance€as€separate€property€byÏpurchasing€musical€instruments€for€his€exclusive€hobby.€€However,€the€courtÐ H9˜4B Ðfound€that€"the€evidence€preponderates€against€[the€H]usband's€contention€that€theÏfunds€in€question€had€become,€by€agreement€of€the€parties,€his€separate€propertyÏand€his€contention€that€collecting€musical€instruments€had€become€his€personalÏand€separate€hobby."€€With€regard€to€Stealth€Laboratories,€the€court€provided€thatÏthe€loss€of€marital€funds€invested€to€date€would€be€divided€half€to€each€party.€€ÌÌà  àIn€addition,€the€court€found€that€this€was€an€appropriate€case€for€periodicÏalimony€to€be€awarded€to€the€Wife.€€However,€since€the€Husband€was€unemployedÏwith€no€substantial€investment€income,€the€court€reserved€ruling€on€this€issue€ofÏalimony€pending€a€substantial€change€in€the€Husband's€financial€circumstances.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€dismissed€the€appeal€for€lack€of€a€final€judgment€becauseÏthe€order€reserved€judgment€on€the€issue€of€alimony.€€The€trial€court€respondedÏby€issuing€an€Order€Nunc€Pro€Tunc€on€April€3,€1998€which€asserted€that€the€courtÏhad€adjudicated€all€matters€necessary€for€the€divorce€of€the€parties€and€the€divisionÏof€the€marital€estate,€that€this€case€was€an€appropriate€case€for€periodic€alimonyÏto€the€Wife€and€that€the€Husband€was€unable€to€make€periodic€alimony€becauseÏhe€was€unemployed€through€no€fault€of€his€own.€€The€court€reserved€jurisdictionÏto€make€an€appropriate€award€of€alimony€to€the€Wife€if€and€when€there€is€aÏmaterial€and€substantial€change€of€circumstances.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€CLASSIFICATION€OF€PROPERTYÌÓ  Óà  àThe€majority€of€this€appeal€is€devoted€to€the€trial€court's€allegedÏwrongful€classification€of€all€of€the€parties'€property€as€marital€property.€€TrialÏcourt€decisions€regarding€classification€and€division€of€property€in€divorce€actionsÏare€reviewed€de€novo,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€same.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€€òòFarrar€v.€Farraróó,€553Ð ˆ,Ø'2 ÐS.W.2d€741,€743€(Tenn.1977).€€"Since€[Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section]Ï36-4-121(a)€(1991)€vests€trial€courts€with€wide€discretion€with€regard€toÏclassifying€and€dividing€property,€òòFisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244,€246Ð P1 ,8 Ð(Tenn.1983),€these€decisions€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal."€€òòWilson€v.Ð è28.: ÐMooreóó,€929€S.W.2d€367,€372€œ(Tenn.€App.€1996).›€€We€therefore€review€the€lower€Ð €4Ð/< Ðcourt's€decision€with€a€proper€degree€of€deference.Ì̜РH9˜4B Лà  àAs€Tennessee€statutes€provide€only€for€the€division€of€marital€property,Ïthe€court€must€first€correctly€classify€the€property€of€the€parties€as€either€maritalÏor€separate€before€proceeding€to€its€equitable€division.€€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€769Ð à0 ÐS.W.2d€849,€856€œ(Tenn.€App.€1988).›€€With€regard€to€this€distinction,€the€codeÏprovides€as€follows:ÌÓ€ÓÓ?€ü(€ ¼è“X°,X°4ì“X?Óà8  à(1)à  à(A)€"Marital€property"€means€all€real€and€personalÐ ¨ ø  Ðproperty,€both€tangible€and€intangible,€acquired€by€either€orÏboth€spouses€during€the€course€of€the€marriage€up€to€the€dateÏof€the€final€divorce€hearing€and€owned€by€either€or€bothÏspouses€as€of€the€date€of€filing€of€a€complaint€for€divorce€.€.€.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓB€ü(€ Ò@’X€ü(€ ¼è“XBÓà8  àà  à(B)à Ò à"Marital€property"€includes€income€from,€andÐ øH  Ðany€increase€in€value€during€the€marriage€of,€propertyÏdetermined€to€be€separate€property€in€accordance€withÏsubdivision€(b)(2)€if€each€party€substantially€contributed€to€itsÏpreservation€and€appreciation€and€the€value€of€vested€pension,Ïretirement€or€other€fringe€benefit€rights€accrued€during€theÏperiod€of€the€marriage.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(C)€As€used€in€this€subsection,€"substantialÏcontribution"€may€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€direct€orÏindirect€contribution€of€a€spouse€as€homemaker,€wage€earner,Ïparent€or€family€financial€manager,€together€with€such€otherÏfactors€as€the€court€having€jurisdiction€thereof€may€determine.Ï.€.€.€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà  à(2)€"Separate€property"€means:Ìà8  àà  à(A)à Ò àAll€real€and€personal€property€owned€by€aÐ Ø ( Ðspouse€before€marriage;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(B)€Property€acquired€in€exchange€for€propertyÏacquired€before€the€marriage;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà  à(C)à Ò àIncome€from€and€appreciation€of€property€ownedÐ %h ! Ðby€a€spouse€before€marriage€except€when€characterized€asÏmarital€property€under€subdivision€(b)(1);€€andà8˜ Ð  Ð àÐ8'ˆ"#˜x˜x Ðà8  àà  à(D)à Ò àProperty€acquired€by€a€spouse€at€any€time€byÐ H(˜#$ Ðgift,€bequest,€devise€or€descent.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€w%ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-4-121€(1996).ÌÌà  àAfter€determining€that€property€is€separate€property€pursuant€to€theÏstatute,€the€court€must€decide€whether€that€property€became€part€of€the€maritalÏestate€because€the€parties€treated€it€in€such€a€manner.€€This€court€has€recognizedÏsuch€a€possibility€by€adopting€the€doctrines€of€transmutation€and€commingling.€ÏTransmutation€is€described€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  à[Transmutation]€occurs€when€separate€property€is€treated€inÏsuch€a€way€as€to€give€evidence€of€an€intention€that€it€becomeÏmarital€property.€€One€method€of€causing€transmutation€is€toÏpurchase€property€with€separate€funds€but€to€take€title€in€jointÐ Ð9 58 Ðtenancy.€€This€may€also€be€done€by€placing€separate€propertyÏin€the€names€of€both€spouses.€€The€rationale€underlying€bothÏthese€doctrines€is€that€dealing€with€property€in€these€waysÏcreates€a€rebuttable€presumption€of€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate.€ÏThis€presumption€is€based€also€upon€the€provision€in€manyÏmarital€property€statutes€that€property€acquired€during€theÏmarriage€is€presumed€marital.€The€presumption€can€beÏrebutted€by€evidence€of€circumstances€or€communicationsÏclearly€indicating€an€intent€that€the€property€remain€separate.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€/ÓòòBatsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€858€(citing€2€H.€Clark,€òòThe€Law€of€Domestic€Relations€inÐ P   Ðthe€United€Statesóó€ðð€16.2,€at€185€(1987));€òòsee€also€Barnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2dÐ è8  Ð443,€452€œ(Tenn.€App.€1991).›€€The€second€doctrine€"is€commingling,€according€toÏwhich€separate€property€becomes€marital€property€if€inextricably€mingled€withÏmarital€property€or€with€the€separate€property€of€the€other€spouse.€€If€the€separateÏproperty€continues€to€be€segregated€or€can€be€traced€into€its€product,€comminglingÏdoes€not€occur."€€òòPope€v.€Popeóó,€1988€WL€74615€at€*3€œ(Tenn.€App.€1988)›€(quotingÐ à0 ÐH.€Clark,€òòThe€Law€of€Domestic€Relationsóó€16.2€(2d€ed.1987)).Ð xÈ ÐÌà  àIn€contending€that€the€trial€court€misclassified€separate€property€asÏmarital€property,€the€Husband€presented€nineteen€disputed€items,€seventeen€ofÏwhich€are€antiques.€€The€majority€of€these€antiques€are€musical€instrumentsÏthough€a€clock,€a€slot€machine,€a€coin€operated€picture€viewer€and€a€1927ÏChevrolet€Touring€Car€are€included€among€them.€€The€Husband€has€fastidiouslyÏpresented€evidence€that€he€maintained€certain€inherited€and€donated€funds€separateÏfrom€the€marital€funds€and€that€these€traceable€separate€funds€were€used€toÏpurchase€all€of€these€antique€items.€€He€asserts€that€he€"enjoyed€rebuilding€antiqueÏmechanical€objects.€€There€is€no€evidence€[the]€Wife€shared€this€interest,€and€noÏevidence€of€any€other€use€of€the€property."€ÌÌà  àAs€stated,€the€trial€court€held€that€"the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏ[the€H]usband's€contention€that€the€funds€in€question€had€become,€by€agreementÏof€the€parties,€his€separate€property€and€his€contention€that€collecting€musicalÏinstruments€had€become€his€personal€and€separate€hobby."€€We€interpret€the€trialÏcourt's€decision€to€mean€that,€regardless€of€the€separate€source€of€the€funds,€theyÏwere€transmuted€by€the€parties'€treatment€of€them.€€To€reiterate,€"[transmutation]Ïoccurs€when€separate€property€is€treated€in€such€a€way€as€to€give€evidence€of€anÐ À84> Ðintention€that€it€become€marital€property."€€òòBatsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€858.€€Indeed,Ð ° Ðin€òòBatsonóó,€the€court€found€that€though€the€husband€used€separate€funds€toÐ H˜ Ðpurchase€a€house,€evidence€supported€that€this€house€was€marital€property€partlyÏbecause€the€record€failed€to€indicate€that€the€house€was€ever€treated€as€separateÏproperty.€€òòId.óó€at€858.€€In€the€instant€case,€we€find€that€the€evidence€supports€theÐ  ` Ðtrial€court's€conclusion€that€the€antique€items€were€treated€as€if€they€were€maritalÏproperty.ÌÌà  àThe€Wife€testified€that€from€the€beginning€and€throughout€the€course€ofÏtheir€marriage,€she€and€the€Husband€had€both€enjoyed€antiques.€€Together,€theyÏtraveled€to€flea€markets,€antique€stores€and€auctions.€€They€even€organized€aÏcompany€for€the€purpose€of€buying€antiques€and€selling€them€wholesale€to€antiqueÏdealers.€€She€testified€that€both€she€and€the€Husband€saw€these€antique€items€asÏinvestments€which€could€be€sold€later€should€they€need€the€money.€€They€boughtÏa€few€items€with€the€specific€intent€to€sell€them.€€They€would€discuss€"ball€parkÏfigures"€before€going€to€purchase€items.€€The€Wife€testified€that€the€HusbandÏnever€told€her€that€these€items€were€coming€from€his€funds€or€that€they€were€hisÏpurchases.€€ÌÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€music€devices€in€particular,€the€Wife€stated€that€sheÏand€the€Husband€had€both€always€been€interested€in€music€and€together€becameÏinterested€in€acquiring€"musical€things."€€While€her€husband€alone€restored€theÏinstruments,€she€participated€in€searching€publications€and€mailers€for€deals€andÏin€traveling€to€auctions€and€flea€markets€to€find€and€purchase€these€items.€€WhenÏasked€what€she€did€while€her€husband€worked€on€the€musical€equipment,€the€WifeÏtestified€that€she€"was€running€the€household€.€.€.€cleaning€house,€doing€laundry,Ïcooking€meals,€taking€care€of€our€son,€doing€whatever€else€needed€to€be€done€atÏthe€house."€€The€Wife€especially€was€interested€in€the€musical€instruments€forÏenjoyment€purposes:€€the€parties€displayed€the€items€throughout€their€house€andÏthey€played€certain€instruments€for€musical€entertainment.€ÌÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€musical€instruments€and€other€antiques,€the€HusbandÏclaims€that€the€First€American€Stock€and€the€Delaware€Fund€were€incorrectlyÏclassified€by€the€lower€court€as€marital€property.€€With€regard€to€the€former,€theÐ H9˜4B ÐHusband€claims€that€he€used€separate€funds€from€an€Employee€Credit€AssociationÏaccount€to€purchase€Heritage€Federal€Bank€Stock€in€the€amount€of€$1506.50.€€ThisÏbank€merged€with€First€American€Bank€resulting€in€the€Husband€receiving€211Ïshares€of€First€American€Bank€Stock.€€As€the€Wife€points€out,€the€HusbandÏtestified€that€the€funds€in€the€Employee€Credit€Association€account€were€primarilyÏtravel€reimbursement€checks€from€his€business€at€Northern€Telecom.€€It€is€clearÏthat€whatever€the€Husband€earns€during€the€marriage€is€marital€property.€€òòWadeÐ @  Ðv.€Wadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€702,€716€œ(Tenn.€App.€1994).›€€Thus,€the€travelÐ Ø(  Ðreimbursement€monies€which€were€the€primary€substance€of€the€Employee€CreditÏAssociation€account€were€marital€property.€€Any€other€funds€that€were€put€intoÏthis€account€were€commingled€with€this€marital€property€and€thus€became€maritalÏproperty.€€We€therefore€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€court's€finding€that€the€First€American€Stock€was€marital€property.ÌÌà  àTurning€to€the€Delaware€Fund,€the€Husband€testified€that€he€received€theÏinitial€shares€of€this€fund€from€his€family.€€Its€initial€value€was€$2,256.00.€€TheÏparties€made€no€contributions€of€any€kind€to€the€fund€throughout€the€marriage.€ÏThe€number€of€the€shares€had€reached€2,078.46€by€December€1996€at€which€timeÏthe€parties€agreed€that€each€would€be€assigned€260€shares.€€The€Husband€main„¼tains€that€the€remaining€shares€which€total€1,558.46€are€his€separate€property.€€TheÏWife€claims€that€the€Delaware€Fund€was€transmuted€because€it€was€listed€as€aÏfamily€asset€on€an€application€for€a€residential€loan€to€refinance€the€parties'€houseÏand€because€it€was€listed€as€dividend€income€on€the€parties'€joint€income€taxÏreturns.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€funds€initially€used€to€open€the€Delaware€FundÏwere€from€the€Husband's€family€and€that€neither€party€did€much,€if€anything,€toÏincrease€this€account€during€the€marriage.€€We€do€not€find€that€the€corpus€of€theÏDelaware€Fund€was€transmuted€simply€because€the€fund€was€listed€as€an€asset€onÏan€application€to€refinance€the€marital€home€or€because€the€capital€gains€from€theÏfund€were€treated€as€joint€income€for€tax€purposes.€€Accordingly,€the€DelawareÏFund€remained€the€separate€property€of€the€Husband.ÌÌà  àAlso,€the€Husband€challenges€the€court's€finding€with€respect€to€StealthÏLaboratories,€a€limited€liability€company€started€by€the€Husband€and€threeÏpartners.€€Without€making€any€disposition€of€the€interest€in€Stealth,€the€courtÐ H9˜4B Ðdivided€the€loss€of€the€funds€invested€in€Stealth€half€to€each€party.€€The€HusbandÏclaims€that€the€court€erred.€€He€€testified€that€he€joined€the€Stealth€group€on€a€part„¼time€basis€in€September€of€1994€which€was€ten€months€prior€to€leaving€his€full„¼time€job€at€Northern€Telecom€in€October€of€1995.€€He€stated€that€he€discussedÏStealth€with€the€Wife€who€was€initially€very€supportive.€€At€the€time€of€trial,ÏStealth€had€failed€to€provide€any€income€but€the€Husband€still€saw€potential€in€thisÏbusiness€venture€and€continued€to€work€to€make€it€successful.€€The€HusbandÏtestified€that€he€made€an€initial€investment€of€$5000€into€Stealth€out€of€personalÏfunds€and€that€he€had€put€at€least€$32,000€more€into€Stealth€since€that€time.€€HeÏadmitted€that€$5000€of€the€money€put€into€Stealth€came€from€marital€funds€butÏclaims€that€the€use€of€this€money,€without€more,€did€not€transform€the€propertyÏinto€marital€property.€€ÌÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€Stealth€was€the€Husband's€sole€employment€afterÏhe€left€Northern€Telecom€and€for€a€period€of€time€while€he€was€still€married€to€theÏWife.€€Along€with€the€aforementioned€funds,€he€put€all€of€his€energy€and€time€forÏwork€into€this€endeavor.€€As€stated€above,€whatever€the€Husband€earns€during€theÏmarriage€is€marital€property.€€òòWadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€716.€€Therefore,€any€gain€orÐ È" Ðloss€from€this€business€venture€up€until€the€time€of€trial€was€marital€property.€€ToÏthe€extent€that€the€Husband€put€separate€funds€into€Stealth,€these€funds€wereÏcommingled.€€Therefore,€the€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€investment€inÏStealth€was€marital€property€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€However,€we€do€not€findÏany€basis€for€the€trial€court's€allocation€of€one„half€the€"loss€of€marital€fundsÏinvested€to€date"€to€each€party.€€It€is€undisputed€that,€at€the€time€of€trial,€StealthÏhad€provided€no€income.€€Thus,€the€money€invested€is€gone.€€It€is€not,€in€the€wordsÏof€the€code,€"owned€by€either€or€both€spouses€as€of€the€date€of€the€filing€of€theÏcomplaint€for€divorce."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(A)(1996).ÌÌà  àAs€stated,€the€trial€court€did€not€award€Stealth€to€either€party.€€We€findÏthat€to€force€these€parties€to€maintain€a€business€relationship€through€StealthÏseems€less€than€ideal.€€Therefore,€it€is€our€conclusion€that€an€equitable€distributionÏof€this€estate€requires€that€Stealth€be€awarded€to€the€Husband.€€The€Husband€isÏclearly€the€party€with€the€experience€and€expertise€to€conduct€this€business.€€òòSeeÐ °73@ ÐLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€œ(Tenn.€App.€1993).›€€We€remand€this€case€forÐ H9˜4B Ðthe€trial€court€to€value€and€divide€the€interest€in€Stealth€at€the€time€of€divorce.€€ÌÌà  àThere€are€nearly€two€hundred€separate€documentary€exhibits€in€this€case,Ïalmost€all€being€directed€to€a€meticulous€tracing€of€funds€through€various€bankÏaccounts€in€an€effort€by€the€appellant€to€establish€that€numerous€items€of€personalÏproperty€are€his€separate€property,€rather€than€marital€property.€€In€the€finalÏanalysis,€transmutation€is€a€matter€of€intention€"€.€.€.€when€separate€property€isÏtreated€in€such€a€way€as€to€give€evidence€of€an€intention€that€it€become€maritalÏproperty."€€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€858€œ(Tenn.€App.€1988).›€€ThisÐ pÀ  Ðpresents€a€credibility€determination€to€be€made€by€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà  àOn€the€one€hand€the€Husband€testified:ÌÓ€ÓÓB€ü(€ ä ñ@’X€ü(€ Ò@’XBÓà  àà ä àà ñ àTHE€COURT:Ìœñ ñÌñ ñ›à8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àI€have€one€question€for€this€witness€and€that€is:€€AsÐ à0 ÐI€understand€it,€since€1982,€you€transferred€funds€from€ThirdÏNational€Bank€checking€account€with€your€and€her€name€bothÏon€it?€€You€were€the€only€one€that€wrote€the€checks€on€it.€€DidÏyou€transfer€that€to€a€Credit€Association€account,€right?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àI€established€my€employee€Credit€AssociationÐ 0€ Ðaccount,€Your€Honor,€in€1989.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àWas€that€the€year€of€the€transfer?ÐP    Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àYes,€sir.Ð `!°! Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àIs€that€the€year€she€moved€down€here?Ðp"À" Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àI€think€„„Ð €#Ð# Ðà  àà ä àà ñ àMS.€MCDADE:€€Let€me€try€to€explain€it.à ð àÐ $à$ Ðà  àà ä àà ñ àBY€THE€COURT:Ìà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àYou€set€up€a€separate€savings€account.€€What€didÐ °&"& Ðyou€do?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àAll€right,€sir.€When€I€moved€down€fromÐ Ð( $( ÐPennsylvania,€I€established€a€Third€national€Bank€account,Ïwhich€I€used€for€everything€at€Northern€Telecom.€€When€myÏwife€came€down€two€months€later€or€thereabouts,€I€establishedÏanother€„„Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àQ.à ñ àThird€National?Ð  .p)- Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ à„„€checking€account€with€Third€National€Bank€ofÐ 0/€*. ÐNashville.€€And€that€became€the€marital€account€into€which€allÏmy€paychecks€went.€€I€retained€the€original€Third€NationalÏBank€account€as€my€business€account€to€process€all€my€travelÏreimbursements€and€motels,€as€well€as€for€any€independentÏfunds.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àAnd€in€that€was€also€your€separate€funds?Ð5à04 Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àYes,€sir.Ð  6ð15 Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àAll€right.€€At€some€time,€you€did€make€a€transferÐ °736 Ðfrom€that€account€„„Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àIn€1989.Ð Ð9 58 Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àI€guess€what€I€really€want€to€ask€you€is:€€Did€youÐ ° Ðdiscuss€with€your€wife€the€fact€that€you€had€set€up€a€separateÏaccount€and€that€your€ancestral€funds€were€staying€there€andÏnot€going€to€the€family?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àYes,€sir.Ð ð@ Ðà  àà ä àQ.à ñ àWhat€was€the€discussion€you€had?Ð  P Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àThe€discussion€was,€I€wanted€to€maintain€theÐ  ` Ðindividual€integrity€of€my€own€money,€for€one€thing.€ÏSecondly,€I€established€the€Employee€Credit€AssociationÏchecking€account,€I€believe€at€the€time€when€I€transferredÏfrom€the€Northern€Telecom€facilities€at€Highland€Ridge€by€theÏairport€to€the€Metro€Center€location.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àYou€told€your€wife€what€you've€told€us?ÐpÀ  Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àYes,€sir.Ð €Ð  Ðà  àà ä àQ.à ñ àAnd€was€she€agreeable?Ð à Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àIt€happened,€Your€Honor.Ð  ð ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àIn€direct€contravention€of€the€foregoing€testimony€by€the€Husband€theÏtrial€court€had€before€it€the€testimony€of€the€Wife,€stating€in€part:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àOkay.€€And€the€last€page,€October€the€10th€of€'79?ÐP Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àI€believe€that's€on€this€other€page.€€Yes.€€And€itÐ ` Ðsays€Wallin€Trust€and€it's€in€my€handwriting.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àAnd,€again,€during€any€of€these€deposits,€did€heÐ 0€ Ðmake€any€effort€to€segregate€these€funds?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àNo.€€The€only€thing€he€would€do€is,€if€I€didn't€getÐ P   Ðthem€deposited€the€day€they€came€in€or€as€soon€after,€heÏwould€be,€well,€why€didn't€you€get€that€taken€care€of.€€I€toldÏyou€to€do€that.€€But€other€than€that,€there€was€nothing€elseÏsaid.€€He€works€near€the€bank.€€He€said€I€have€more€time€sinceÏI€stayed€at€home.€€So€I€was€the€one€who€took€care€of€theÏbanking€when€I€could€and€did€all€of€that.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àDid€he€ever€tell€you,€please,€make€sure€you€put€thisÐ À'#" Ðin€my€separate€account;€this€is€my€money?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àNever.Ð à)0%$ Ðà  àà ä àQ.à ñ àOr€words€to€that€effect?Ð ð*@&% Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àNever.€€It€was€never€to€the€fact€that€it€was€separateÐ ,P'& Ðmoney.€€It€was€never€discussed.€€He€would€say€things€like€thisÏis€really€helping€us€out,€you€know;€we€couldn't€do€some€of€theÏthings€we're€doing€without€this€money€from€my€family.€€ButÏit€was€always€we€and€ours.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€*€*Ìà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àNow,€you've€heard€Mr.€Sickler's€testimony€aboutÐ `2°-, Ðhis€separate€savings€account€and€transfers€he€would€makeÏfrom€his€separate€savings€account€into€the€marital€account€toÏcover€checks€he€wrote€for€paying€for€musical€equipment.€€DidÏhe€ever€make€transfers€from€that€account€for€other€reasons€toÏcover€the€marital€account€expenses€or€whatever?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àIf€there€was€something€that€we€wanted€to€buy,€andÐ À842 Ðwe€needed€the€money,€yes.€€Some€of€that€money€„„€I€believeÐ Ð9 53 Ðsome€of€the€money€he€had€put€in€that€account€that€we€wouldÏwound€up€using€to€put€the€addition€„„€I€believe€he€testified€toÏthat,€to€put€the€addition€on€our€house.€€So€it€was€used€forÏwhatever.€€And€the€musical€instruments€were€used€for€theÏfamily.€€I€mean,€they€weren't€just€used€for€him.€€We€allÏenjoyed€them.€€We€all€played€them.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àWhen€did€you€first€learn€that€he€considered€thoseÐ  ` Ðfunds€to€be€his€separate€funds?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àA.à ñ àWhen€he€told€me€that€he€wanted€a€divorce.Ð0 € Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àQ.à ñ àSo€before€that€time,€he€hadn't€told€you,€these€areÐ @  Ðmy€funds;€they're€earmarked€especially€for€me?Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà  àà ä àA.à ñ àNo.Ð `°  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àFaced€with€this€massive€record€and€this€directly€conflicting€testimony,Ïthe€trial€judge€held:€€ÌÓ€Óà8  àDuring€the€first€fourteen€years€of€the€marriage,€all€of€theÏproperty€acquired€by€either€party€from€any€source€wasÏcommingled€and€used€for€family€purposes.€€Part€of€thisÏproperty€was€gifts€of€money€to€and€by€inheritances€byÏhusband€in€the€combined€amount€of€$75,000.€€HusbandÏconcedes€that€$50,000€thereof€was€devoted€to€familyÏpurposes,€including€the€acquisition€of€a€residence€titled€to€theÏparties€jointly.€€Husband€contends€that€after€the€parties€movedÏto€Tennessee,€he€began€to€treat€the€remaining€$25,000€as€hisÏseparate€property€and€that€musical€instruments€bought€withÏpart€of€these€funds€were€his€exclusive€hobby.€€Husband€citesÏno€authority€for€the€proposition€that€assets€which€haveÏbecome€marital€property€by€the€conduct€of€the€parties€can€be,Ïin€effect,€converted€into€separate€assets€by€the€unilateralÏintention€and/or€action€of€a€spouse.€€The€court€finds€andÏconcludes€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€Husband'sÏcontention€that€the€funds€in€question€had€become,€byÏagreement€of€the€parties,€his€separate€property€and€hisÏcontention€that€collecting€musical€instruments€had€become€hisÏpersonal€and€separate€hobby.€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€burden€rests€upon€the€appellant€under€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure€to€establish€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€these€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€œjudge.€€With›€the€exception€of€theÏDelaware€Fund,€the€Husband€fails€to€carry€his€burden€despite€massive€œefforts€onÏhis€part.›€€ÌÓ€Óà8  àWhere,€as€in€this€case,€the€determination€of€the€issues€of€factÏdepends€largely€upon€the€credibility€of€the€two€adversaryÏparties€and€the€case€is€tried€upon€oral€testimony,€the€findingsÐ H9˜46 Ðof€the€trial€judge€are€entitled€to€great€weight€since€he€saw€theÏwitnesses€face€to€face€and€heard€them€testify.€€This€is€trueÏbecause€he€was€in€a€much€better€position€than€we€are€to€judgeÏthe€value€of€their€evidence.€€òòÐà0 Ð  Ð  ÐÌCrouch€v.€Crouchóó,€385€S.W.2d€288,€291€œ(Tenn.€App.€1964).›Ð  P ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àEven€apart€from€the€court's€classification€of€the€property,€the€HusbandÏsubmits€that€the€court's€division€of€the€marital€property€was€inequitable.€€PursuantÏto€statute,€the€trial€court€had€the€duty€to€reach€an€equitable€division€of€the€maritalÏproperty,€taking€into€consideration€the€factors€established€in€section€€36-4-121(c)Ïof€the€Tennessee€Code.€€The€Husband's€complaint€is€based€upon€the€court'sÏalleged€failure€to€consider€several€particular€circumstances€in€dividing€theÏproperty.€€One€of€these€was€that€the€Wife€withdrew€$29,000€from€the€parties'€jointÏaccount€at€the€inception€of€the€proceedings.€€Another€was€that€€the€court€failed€toÏtake€into€account€the€Husband's€obligation€pursuant€to€a€pendente€lite€order€toÏreimburse€the€Wife€the€sum€of€$3,748.77€which€represented€one€half€of€theÏmortgage€payments€made€by€the€Wife€during€the€pendency€of€the€divorceÏproceeding.ÌÌà  àAs€for€the€Wife's€withdrawal€of€$29,000€from€the€parties'€joint€account,Ïher€testimony€was€that€she€expended€this€money€on€marital€debt€including€theÏparties'€mortgage€and€credit€card€debt.€€As€for€any€other€inequality€of€the€propertyÏdivision,€this€court€has€held€that€"[a]€trial€court's€division€of€property€need€not€beÏequal€to€be€equitable.€€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€œ(Tenn.€App.€1988).›€Ð H(˜#* Ð"As€a€general€matter,€courts€will€evaluate€the€fairness€of€a€property€division€by€itsÏfinal€results."€€òòBookout€v.€Bookoutóó,€954€S.W.2d€730,€732€œ(Tenn.€App.€1997)›Ð x+È&. Ð(citing€òòThompson€v.€Thompsonóó,€797€S.W.2d€599,€604€œ(Tenn.€App.€1990)).›€€In€itsÐ -`(0 Ðmemorandum€opinion,€the€court€noted€that€it€"awarded€the€wife€the€larger€shareÏof€marital€assets€because€of€her€lesser€earning€capacity€and€her€need€forÏrehabilitation€by€obtaining€a€college€degree."€€We€do€not€find€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€this€finding.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€ALIMONYÌÓ  Óà  àBefore€we€address€the€issue€of€alimony,€we€turn€to€the€Wife's€assertionÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€establishing€both€her€and€the€Husband's€earningÐ Ð9 5@ Ðcapacities.€€As€stated€the€court€found€the€Husband's€earning€capacity€was€$60,000Ïper€year.€€The€Wife€asserts€that€the€Husband's€earning€history€is€$70,000€per€year.€ÏThe€Husband€did€testify€that€his€salary€was€around€$70,000€for€the€three€yearsÏprior€to€losing€his€job€at€Northern€Telecom€where€he€had€begun€work€someÏthirteen€years€earlier€at€a€salary€of€$42,000.€€Though€he€said€that€he€expected€toÏfind€a€job€with€a€salary€comparable€to€the€one€€he€was€making€before€termination,Ïthere€was€no€direct€proof€that€a€job€with€such€a€salary€would€be€available€to€him.€ÏIndeed€the€proof€was€that,€at€the€time€of€trial,€the€Husband€had€been€out€of€workÏfor€over€a€year.€€He€was€over€fifty€years€old.€€He€testified€that€for€someone€whoÏhad€been€displaced€at€his€age€and€with€his€skills,€it€typically€takes€at€least€twoÏyears€to€find€a€corporate€job€and€that€would€be€at€two€thirds€to€half€of€his€formerÏsalary.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,€the€Husband€was€pouring€his€time€and€energy€intoÏa€start„up€company€for€which€there€was€no€established€earning€capacity.€€In€lightÏof€these€circumstances,€we€do€not€think€that€the€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏstating€that€the€Husband's€earning€capacity€was€$60,000.ÌÌà  àThe€court€found€the€Wife's€earning€capacity€was€about€$25,000€per€yearÏwith€a€college€degree.€€She€testified€that€she€had€three€years€toward€a€Bachelor€ofÏArts€degree.€€She€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€trial€she€was€earning€$240€perÏmonth€taking€care€of€her€grandchildren.€€Her€work€history€included€sewing€andÏfree€lance€writing€for€several€newspapers.€€From€1984€to€1994,€the€Wife€workedÏbetween€20„35€hours€per€week€doing€contract€work€for€the€Tennessean€at€$8.50Ïper€hour€plus€mileage.€€The€Wife€asserts€in€her€brief€that€her€income€history€isÏapproximately€$12,000€to€$13,000€per€year€and€that€her€earning€capacity€shouldÏbe€modified€to€$12,000.€€Again,€we€find€no€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court.€€TheÏWife€presents€a€figure€that€is€approximately€half€of€what€the€trial€court€found.€ÏHowever,€the€Wife's€figure€is€based€upon€an€income€history€during€which€sheÏworked€approximately€half€of€a€full„time€load€without€a€college€degree.€€WeÏtherefore€find€that€the€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€Wife€isÏcapable€of€earning€$25,000€per€year.ÌÌà  àRegarding€the€issue€of€alimony,€the€Wife€argued€on€appeal€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€not€establishing€an€immediate€award€of€alimony.€€The€court€foundÏthat€based€upon€the€statutory€considerations,€the€27„year€duration€of€the€marriage,Ð H9˜4B Ðand€the€Wife's€lesser€earning€capacity,€this€was€an€appropriate€case€for€periodicÏalimony.€€However,€the€court's€opinion€was€that€with€the€Husband€"presentlyÏunemployed€and€with€no€substantial€investment€income,€.€.€.€it€is€not€appropriateÏto€make€an€alimony€decree€under€the€present€circumstances€of€the€parties."€€TheÏcourt€thus€reserved€the€alimony€issue€pending€a€substantial€change€in€theÏHusband's€financial€circumstances.ÌÌà  àAs€with€the€division€of€marital€property,€the€trial€court€is€vested€withÏgreat€latitude€in€making€a€determination€involving€alimony.€€òòBull€v.€Bullóó,€729Ð pÀ  ÐS.W.2d€673,€675€œ(Tenn.€App.€1987).›€€"The€decision€is€factually€driven€andÏrequires€a€balancing€of€the€factors€listed€in€[Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section]Ï36-5-101(d)."€€òòLloyd€v.€Lloydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€œ(Tenn.€App.€1993).›€€Of€theseÐ 8ˆ Ðfactors,€"[t]he€need€of€the€spouse€to€whom€alimony€is€awarded€and€the€ability€ofÏthe€other€to€pay€are€two€dominant€factors€to€consider€when€deciding€a€properÏaward€of€alimony."€€òòYoung€v.€Youngóó,€971€S.W.2d€386,€œ391(Tenn.€App.€1997).›€Ð P ÐAmong€the€statutory€factors€are€"(A)€[t]he€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,Ïneeds,€and€financial€resources€of€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,Ïprofit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources€[and]€(B)€[t]he€relativeÏeducation€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€and€opportunity€of€each€party€toÏsecure€such€education€and€training,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€furtherÏeducation€and€training€to€improve€such€party's€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonableÏlevel€[and]€(C)€the€duration€of€the€marriage;€.€.€.€[and]€(G)€[t]he€separate€assets€ofÏeach€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangible€and€intangible."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36-5-101(d)(1)€(€œA),›€œ(B),€(C)€&€(G)›€(Supp.€1998).€€ÌÌà  àBy€its€award€of€periodic€alimony,€the€trial€court€made€the€determinationÏthat€as€between€these€parties€"there€is€such€relative€economic€disadvantage€andÏrehabilitation€is€not€feasible."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101€(Supp.€1998).€€TheÏproof€was€that€the€Wife€was€approximately€50€years€old,€that€she€did€not€have€aÏcollege€degree€and€that€she€did€not€have€significant€work€experience.€€TheÏHusband€had€a€college€decree€and€had€enjoyed€a€successful€career€in€his€field€untilÏthe€time€that€he€was€laid€off€from€his€job.€€The€court€found€that€the€Husband'sÏearning€capacity€was€$60,000€per€year€whereas€the€Wife's€was€$25,000€per€year.€ÏThese€circumstances€indicate€that€an€award€of€periodic€alimony€was€appropriateÐ H9˜4B Ðand€accordingly€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€decision€that€the€Wife€needs€periodicÏalimony.€€œÌÌà  àHowever,›€despite€its€determination€that€this€was€an€appropriate€case€forÏperiodic€alimony,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€such€an€award.€€Rather€it€reservedÏruling€on€the€issue€pending€a€change€in€the€Husband's€financial€circumstances.€€InÏso€doing,€the€court€stated€that€"with€[the]€Husband€presently€unemployed€and€withÏno€substantial€investment€income,€it€is€not€appropriate€to€make€an€alimony€decreeÏunder€the€present€circumstances€of€the€parties."€€While€it€is€true€that€the€HusbandÏwas€presently€unemployed€and€living€with€his€father€at€the€time€of€trial,€his€ownÏRule€15€statement€indicated€that€he€received€$150,533€in€marital€property.€€In€lightÏof€the€finding€that€periodic€alimony€is€appropriate,€we€find€that€the€œWife€shouldÏhave€been€given€an€in€solido€award€out€of€the€Husband's€marital€estate€during€theÏperiod€that€the€Husband€was€unemployed.€€Thus,€for€the€time€period€between€JuneÏ3,€1997€when€the€trial€court's€order€came€down€and€the€present€time,€we€award€anÏin€solido€amount€to€the€Wife€in€the€amount€at€$ñ ñ_____ñ ññ ñ10,000€which€represents€$100€perÏweek€for€this€time€periodñ ñ.€€In€addition,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€to€setÏan€amount€of€periodic€alimony€based€upon€the€Husband's€earnings€under€hisÏpresent€circumstances.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€€ATTORNEY€FEES€AND€COSTSÌÓ  Óà  àIn€the€Wife's€next€issue,€she€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏgranting€her€an€award€for€attorney€fees€and€discretionary€costs.€€The€court€orderedÏthat€the€Husband€and€Wife€should€each€be€responsible€for€the€payment€of€theirÏown€attorney€fees€and€discretionary€costs.€€An€award€of€such€fees€is€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€it.€€òòUmstot€v.€Umstotóó,€968€S.W.2d€819,€824€(Tenn.€App.€›Ð  .p)4 Ð1997).€€We€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court'sÏdecision.€€ÌÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Wife€claims€that€she€has€no€liquid€assets€with€which€toÏpay€these€fees€and€costs.€€However,€the€evidence€shows€that€neither€party€hasÏsufficient€liquid€assets€and€that€both€parties€will€have€to€deplete€their€assets€to€payÏtheir€own€attorney€fees.€€As€stated€above,€the€Husband€is€unemployed,€€living€withÐ H9˜4B Ðhis€father,€and€borrowing€money€to€pay€his€own€expenses.€€He€is€no€better€positionÏto€pay€the€attorney€fees€than€the€Wife.€€Certainly€"where€the€wife€demonstratesÏthat€she€is€financially€unable€to€afford€counsel,€and€where€the€husband€has€theÏability€to€pay,€the€court€may€properly€order€the€husband€to€pay€the€wife's€attorneyÏfees."€€òòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€œ(Tenn.€App.€1995);›€òòsee€alsoóóÐ  ` ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(I)€(1991).€€However,€this€is€not€the€case€here.€€WeÏaffirm€the€court's€decision€to€require€each€party€to€pay€his€own€attorney€fees.ÌÌÓ  ÓV.€€CONCLUSIONÌÓ  Óà  àIn€conclusion,€we€find€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€finding€thatÏall€assets€other€than€the€Delaware€Fund€and€œStealth›€Laboratories€were€maritalÏassets€subject€to€equitable€division€by€the€court.€€Furthermore,€the€court's€divisionÏof€the€marital€property€was€equitable.€€We€find€that€Stealth€Laboratories€as€wellÏas€the€Delaware€Fund€should€be€awarded€solely€to€the€Husband.€€With€regard€toÏStealth,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€such€that€the€Husband's€interest€inÏStealth€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€can€be€valued€and€divided.€€With€respect€toÏperiodic€alimony,€we€uphold€the€court's€decision€that€the€evidence€supports€theÏneed€for€a€periodic€alimony€œaward›€at€this€time.€€We€remand€for€the€trial€court€toÏset€an€amount€œwhich€is€appropriate›€under€the€Husband's€present€circumstances.€ÏWe€also€award€œ$ñ ñ10,000ñ ññ ñ_____ñ ñ›€as€an€in€solido€œamountñ ñ€to€cover€the€ñ ññ ñpñ ññ ñerñ ññ ñiod€of€time€fromÏthe€trial€to€the€presentñ ñ.›€€We€affirm€the€trial€court's€decision€disallowing€attorneyÏfees€and€costs€to€the€Wife.€€In€light€of€this€holding,€we€deny€the€Wife's€request€forÏattorney€fees€and€costs€on€appeal.€€Tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€both€partiesÏequally.€€€ÌÌœñ ñÌ›Ìñ ñ›Ó€ÓÓE€ ü(€ ä ñ옑X€ü(€ ä ñ@’XEÓà  àà ä àà ñ àà ì à____________________________________Ìà  àà ä àà ñ àà ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌœñ ñÌñ ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEà ˜ à