WPC /U: % 0w@4! 0J) 0Ts 0^ 0h% 0r 0| 0{ 0 1u 0d U*j B) DC AM 0@M D3 B  v~ v+ AQO 0D 0DY D/ B,cAZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  PDPӀa"ppz8Hp3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd* C << G("$    """"'dxd d  !  #d#    ! \RA'\#d#   +"     YYY FILEDX September5,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva *+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd ! .      \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   4   @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON @ ̜*R#A1-j|0q` e `@Rߛ MARYANNUMSTOT ,         No.02A019701CV00008 Plaintiff/CounterDefendant/Appellee 4  e 4          ShelbyCircuitNo.150200R.D.Vs.      EDWARDSHIRERUMSTOT , DefendantCounterPlaintiff/Appellant.  @ DISSENTINGINPART;CONCURRINGINPART  Irespectfullydissentfromthatportionofthemajority'sopinionwhichconcludesthatthetrialcourt'sawardofalimonyinsolidowasexcessive.Asnotedbythemajority,thetrialcourt'sorderawarded58%ofthemaritalestatetothewifeand42%percentofthemaritalestatetothehusband.Thiscourt'sruling,initsattempttoachieve amoreequitabledivision,"awards51%ofthemaritalestatetothewifeand49%percenttothehusband. Onappeal,ourreviewisguidedbytheprinciplethatthetrialcourt'sdivisionofmaritalpropertyispresumedcorrect,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d).Moreover,adivisionisnotrenderedinequitablesimplybecauseitisnotpreciselyequal.Ellisv.Ellis,748S.W.2d424,427(Tenn.1988).Areviewoftherecordreflectsthatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredfactorsrelevantinarrivingatanequitabledivisionofthemaritalestate.Specifically,thecourtnotedtheeighteenyeardurationoftheparties'marriage,contributionstothemaritalestate,theageandphysicalhealthofeachparty,andtherelativeearningcapacityofeach,includingeducationandtraining.Withrespecttothelastfactor,thetrialcourtnotedthatthehusbandholdsamaster'sdegreeinbiochemistryandthatthewifeisamedicaltechnologist.ThehusbandisemployedattheUniversityofTennesseeτMemphisasaresearchassociate.Moreover,theproofestablishedthatthewife'sincomeisgreater,inpart,duetothefactthatsheholdstwojobsasamedicaltechnologist.Finally,thetrialcourtobservedthatthehusbandisingoodhealthwhilethewife,whohasbeendiagnosedwithmalignantmelanoma,hasa40%percentchanceoflivinganotherfiveyears. Upondenovoreviewoftherecord,Iamunabletoconcludethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sfindingsorthatanerroroflawhasbeencommitted.Accordingly,althoughIconcurwiththemajorityastotheremainingissuesraisedonappeal,Iwouldaffirmthetrialcourt'sawardofalimonyinsolido.               ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge