ÿWPC” …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ýw@ 0§Y 0D 4D X 0Jg 0T±  0^ 0hk 0rÓ 0|E 0†Á 0G 1u× U,L 0dxU,ÜU>B)FDCo AM²U*ÿ$)ÁM D3v~AvÓ¿ 0@’ BÒ AOïÆ> 0D D/H Bw˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman OPDQRSHTUHVWÓ€a(W(2T$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X„XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóDÒ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ3|xa2 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`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌAugust€28,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€TheÏCourt,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€mayÏaffirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandumÏopinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€WhenÏa€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designatedÏ"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€orÏrelied€on€for€any€reason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.€ÌKKKK'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€5XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€œNASHVILLE›Ìà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òEUGENE€S.€WOLCOTT,ó óà àà àà àFROM€THE€WILLIAMSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCOUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà àà àNo.€93„256Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTHE€HONORABLE€HENRYÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àDENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòVACATED€IN€PART,€ANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àREMANDEDóóó óÌò òBOBBIE€JO€MCCARGO€WOLCOTT,ó óà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9603„CV„00096ÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà àà àDavid€W.€Garrett€of€Nashville,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€J.€Hollins€and€Patrick€T.̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h|,Ü` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àMcNally€ofÏNashville,€ForÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppellantÌ___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ) ××  ×Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òòòCRAWFORD,€J.ó óóóÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€concerning€division€of€maritalÏproperty€in€a€divorce€case.€€Bobbie€Jo€McCargo€Wolcott€(Wife)€andÏEugene€S.€Wolcott€(Husband)€were€married€on€June€5,€1982,€and€wereÏdivorced€by€final€decree€of€the€circuit€court€entered€September€22,Ï1995.€€The€final€decree€awarded€Wife€a€divorce€on€the€stipulated€groundÏof€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€awarded€custody€of€the€minor€child€toÏWife,€and€granted€Husband€visitation€rights.€€Husband€was€ordered€toÏpay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$735.00€per€month€and€to€maintainÏlife€insurance€to€secure€the€child€support€payments.€€The€order€requiredÏWife€to€maintain€medical€insurance€for€the€child.€€As€to€the€propertyÏdivision,€each€party€was€awarded€all€personal€property€then€in€theÏpartiesðð€possession.€€Each€party€was€held€responsible€for€outstandingÏindebtedness€incurred€by€that€party.€€Wife€was€awarded€the€1983ÏCadillac€automobile,€and€Husband€was€awarded€the€1990€ChevroletÏtruck€and€Ford€tractor.€€The€court€awarded€Wife€her€Bristol€MyersÏretirement€account€and€her€Templeton€IRA,€and€awarded€Husband€œthe›ÏUSAA€account€and€the€Franklin€National€Bank€account.€€Husband€wasÏalso€awarded€the€net€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€partiesðð€home€place,Íthe€Holly€Hill€house,€as€well€as€the€partiesðð€1992€tax€refund.€€Wife€wasÏawarded€the€appreciation€in€the€Nunnelly€farm,€a€property€owned€by€aÏtrust.€€Wife€has€appealed€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€enforcingÏthe€written€agreement€between€the€parties€forÏdivision€of€the€proceeds€of€the€Holly€HillÏresidence.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€classifyingÏthe€appreciation€of€trust€property,€known€as€theÏNunnelly€farm,€as€marital€property€and€chargingÏit€to€Mrs.€Wolcott.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Dr.ÏWolcott€the€entire€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€theÏHolly€Hill€residence€and€the€1992€joint€federalÏincome€tax€refund.ÌÌÓÓà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€weÏreview€the€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absentÏerror€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àThe€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€given€to€any€witnessesððÏtestimony€lies€in€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact.€€TheÏcredibility€accorded€will€be€given€great€weight€by€the€appellate€court.€Íò òòòTown€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„James€Co.ó óóó,€205€Tenn.€478,€483,€327ÏS.W.2d€47,€49€(1959);€ò òòòMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€347,€351Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àAppellantððs€first€and€third€issues,€which€concern€the€proceedsÏœfrom€the€sale€of›€the€marital€home,€will€be€considered€together.Ìà àIn€1991,€the€parties€purchased€the€marital€home€on€Holly€HillÏDrive€in€Franklin,€Tennessee.€€Wife€testified€that€she€paid€the€œdown„payment,€›œ$46,000.00,›€from€her€separate€property.€€She€also€assertsÏthat€she€paid€approximately€$12,000.00€on€the€mortgage€indebtednessÏfor€the€property.€€Husband,€on€the€other€hand,€asserts€that€he€spentÏapproximately€$50,000.00€on€improvements€to€the€property.€€After€theÏparties€separated,€the€property,€by€mutual€agreement,€was€listed€forÏsale.€€Ann€Arnold,€the€partiesðð€realtor,€presented€a€contract€for€the€saleÏof€the€property€on€April€13,€1993.€€œAlso›€on€€April€13,€1993,€the€partiesÏentered€into€an€agreement€concerning€the€disposition€of€the€proceedsÏfrom€the€sale€of€the€house.€€The€agreement€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àTo€Whom€it€May€Concern:€Ìà8 àà8 àà àWe€hereby€agree€to€sell€our€home€at€1405ÏHolly€Hill€Drive,€Franklin,€Tennessee€on€thisÏdate.€€If€this€contract€is€successful,€then€GeneÏWolcott€will€give€Bobbie€Jo€Wolcott€her€downÍpayment€and€escrow€amounting€to€$51,000.00.€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àThe€remaining€equity€will€be€dividedÏequally€between€the€owners.€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àà àà àòò€€€/s/€Eugene€S.€Wolcott,€M.D.óóÌà8 àà8 àà àà àà àòò€€€/s/€Bobby€Berry€WolcottÌóóÌÓÓà àHusband€testified€that€at€the€time€the€agreement€was€signed€theyÏalso€discussed€that€he€would€be€reimbursed€for€money€that€he€put€intoÏthe€Nunnelly€farm€property,€which€was€held€in€a€trust.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€believed€that€the€handwritten€agreement€concerning€the€HollyÏHill€property€was€the€full€agreement€between€the€parties€with€regardÏto€œthe€division›€of€marital€assets,€and€that€immediately€after€signingÏthe€agreement,€he€repudiated€it€because€Wife€apparently€did€not€shareÏthat€understanding.€€Wife€testified€that€she€never€agreed€to€reimburseÏHusband€for€any€money€that€he€put€into€the€Nunnelly€farm€property.€€SheÏasserts€that€the€written€agreement€clearly€refers€only€to€the€Holly€HillÏproperty€and€does€not€refer€to€any€other€marital€property.€€Wife€alsoÏtestified€that€Husband€repudiated€the€contract€concerning€the€Holly€HillÏproperty€the€day€after€it€was€signed.€€The€testimony€establishes€thatÏthe€contract€itself€was€written€and€witnessed€by€Fuller€and€AnnÏArnold,€the€partiesðð€real€estate€agents,€and€that€on€the€same€day,€Ms.ÏArnold€made€notes€concerning€a€discussion€between€the€parties€aboutÍdivision€of€their€other€assets.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€the€Holly€Hill€agreement€unenforceable,€andÏstated€in€its€memorandum€opinion:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€most€that€the€cited€cases€hold€is€that€aÏcomprehensive€agreement€in€contemplation€ofÏdivorce,€made€by€the€parties€with€respect€toÏproperty€division€and€alimony€is€substantialÏevidence€for€the€divorce€court€to€consider€inÏdetermining€an€equitable€division.€€TheÏagreement€in€question€appears€to€have€been€aÏpartial€agreement€as€a€starting€point€for€aÏcomprehensive€agreement€settling€all€of€theirÏrespective€financial€rights€and€interests.€€AnnÏArnold,€the€real€estate€agent,€thought€when€sheÏleft€the€partiesðð€home€on€April€13€that€theÏparties€were€getting€along€well€and€makingÏsubstantial€progress€in€settling€the€mattersÏinvolved.€€Subsequently,€the€parties€fell€intoÏtotal€disagreement€and€have€both€now€requestedÏthis€court€to€exercise€its€jurisdiction€underÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121.€€ÌÌÓÓà àWe€must€respectfully€disagree€with€the€trial€court.€€TheÏagreement€concerning€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€Holly€HillÏresidence€is€clear€and€unambiguous.€€It€was€entered€into€by€two€adults,Ïand€there€is€no€allegation€of€any€fraud€or€misrepresentation.€€TheÏparties€simply€agreed€that€the€Holly€Hill€residence€would€be€sold€andÏthe€proceeds€from€the€sale€divided€as€stated.€€We€see€nothing€in€theÍagreement€which€would€allow€a€court€to€disregard€the€contract€madeÏbetween€these€parties.€€In€ò òòòBruce€v.€Bruceó óóó,€the€court€stated:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€property€settlement€agreement€between€aÏhusband€and€wife€is€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àwithin€the€category€of€contracts€andÏis€to€be€looked€upon€and€enforced€asÏan€agreement,€and€is€to€be€construedÏas€other€contracts€as€respects€itsÏinterpretation,€its€meaning€andÏeffect.€€Being€such€the€courts€areÏrestrained€from€disregarding€andÏannulling€it.€€And€when€such€contractÏis€submitted€to€a€court€of€equity€forÏinterpretation€and€enforcement,€itÏmust€be€construed€by€the€rules€ofÏinterpretation€and€remedies€to€beÏapplied€as€any€other€contract€Ï(citations€omitted).ÌÌà8 àà8 àCourts€are€not€ð ðat€liberty€to€annul€or€change€orÏamend€a€contract€entered€into€by€and€betweenÏparties€capable€of€contracting€simply€upon€theÏground€that€the€judges€may€be€of€opinion€that€aÏbetter€agreement€would€or€should€have€beenÏarrived€at.ðð€€œ(citations€omitted).›ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó,€801€S.W.2d€102,€105€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€parties€made€an€agreement€concerning€œtheÏHolly€Hill›€house€which,€in€effect,€separated€it€from€the€balance€of€theirÏmarital€estate,€and€the€agreement€should€have€been€enforced€by€theÍtrial€court.€€Husbandððs€contradictory€opinion€as€to€the€meaning€of€thisÏclear€and€unambiguous€contract€is€not€admissible€and€should€not€haveÏbeen€considered€by€the€court.€€ò òòòSee€Deaver€v.€J.€C.€Mahan€Motor€Co.ó óóó,Ï163€Tenn.429,€43€S.W.2d€199€(1931);€ò òòòWhelchel€Co.€v.€Ripley€TractorÏCo.ó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€691€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€None€of€the€proceeds€from€theÏsale€of€the€Holly€Hill€property€should€have€been€considered€maritalÏproperty€in€light€of€the€April€13,€1993€agreement.Ìà àWife€also€contends,€in€connection€with€the€third€issue,€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€awarding€Husband€the€partiesðð€entire€1992€incomeÏtax€refund.€€Although€Wife€alleges€that€the€tax€refund€was€generatedÏsolely€by€her€employment€during€1992,€the€partiesðð€1992€tax€recordsÏare€not€a€part€of€the€record.€€Moreover,€œincome›€Wife€generated€in€1992,Ïand€any€tax€refund€that€the€parties€received€as€a€result,€falls€withinÏthe€category€of€ð ðpersonal€€property€.€.€.€acquired€by€either€or€bothÏspouses€during€the€course€of€the€marriage€.€.€.ðð€and€thus€is€ð ðmaritalÏpropertyðð€subject€to€equitable€division.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(B)(1)(A).€€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€classifying€theÏappreciation€in€Wifeððs€trust€property,€the€Nunnelly€farm,€as€maritalÏproperty€and€charging€it€to€€Wife.€Ìà àPrior€to€Wifeððs€marriage€to€Husband,€she€was€married€to€Walter€H.ÏBerry€until€his€death.€€At€the€time€Wife€and€Mr.€Berry€were€married,€Mr.ÏBerry€owned€property€known€as€the€Nunnelly€farm,€and€while€married€toÏWife,€he€and€Wife€established€two€trusts€titled€the€Walter€BerryÏIrrevocable€Trust€and€the€Bobbie€Jo€Berry€Irrevocable€Trust.€€œA€one„half›Ïinterest€of€the€Nunnelly€farm€was€placed€in€each€of€the€trusts,€andÏWife,€along€with€Robert€Gilliam€and€Conita€Gilliam,€œwas€named›€asÏœtrustee›€for€both€trusts.€€The€ultimate€beneficiaries€of€the€trust€areÏWalter€Berryððs€great€nieces,€the€children€of€Robert€and€Conita€Gilliam.€ÏDuring€the€marriage€of€Husband€and€Wife,€the€one„half€interest€of€theÏNunnelly€farm€held€in€the€Walter€Berry€trust€was€transferred€to€theÏBobbie€Jo€Berry€Trust,€and€this€trust€existed€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€ÏAt€the€time€of€Mr.€Berryððs€death,€the€farm€was€appraised€atÏ$167,102.00.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial€of€this€case,€the€house€and€farmÏwere€valued€at€$275,000.00.€€Husband€testified€that€he€made€manyÏimprovements€to€the€Nunnelly€farm€property€with€his€labor€and€fundsÏduring€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€Wife€testified,€however,€that€Husband€didÏnot€spend€any€substantial€funds€to€improve€the€Nunnelly€farm.€€WifeÏtestified€that€she€borrowed€money€from€her€parents€in€the€amount€ofÍ$50,000.00€and€used€that€and€trust€funds€to€refurbish€the€property.€€SheÏasserts€that€Husband€did€not€contribute€in€any€way€to€the€appreciationÏof€the€farm,€and,€since€the€property€is€held€in€trust,€Wife€claims€that€itÏcannot€be€considered€as€marital€property€for€distribution€purposes.Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121€(b)(1)(1991)€defines€marital€property€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(B)€ð ðMarital€propertyðð€includes€income€from,€andÏany€increase€in€value€during€the€marriage,€ofÏproperty€determined€to€be€separate€property€inÏaccordance€with€subdivision€(b)(2)€if€each€partyÏsubstantially€contributed€to€its€preservation€andÏappreciation€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(C)€€As€used€in€this€subsection,€ð ðsubstantialÏcontributionðð€may€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,Ïthe€direct€or€indirect€contribution€of€a€spouse€asÏhomemaker,€wage€earner,€parent€or€familyÏfinancial€manager,€together€with€such€otherÏfactors€as€the€court€having€jurisdiction€thereofÏmay€determine.€ÌÌSeparate€property€is€defined€in€the€code€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(A)€All€real€and€personal€property€owned€by€aÏspouse€before€marriage;€Ìà8 àà8 à(B)€Property€acquired€in€exchange€for€propertyÏacquired€before€the€marriage;€Ìà8 àà8 à(C)€Income€from€and€appreciation€of€propertyÏowned€by€a€spouse€before€marriage€except€whenÏcharacterized€as€marital€property€underÍsubdivision€(b)(1);€andÌà8 àà8 à(D)€Property€acquired€by€a€spouse€at€any€time€byÏgift,€bequest€devise€or€descent.€ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(2).€€€€œThus,€an›€increase€in€the€value€of€one€spouseððsÏseparate€property€becomes€marital€property€only€if€the€other€spouseÏsubstantially€contributed€toward€its€ð ðpreservation€and€appreciationððÏduring€the€marriage.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1);€ò òòòHarrison€v.€Harrisonó óóó,Ï912€S.W.2d€124,€127€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ìà àIt€appears€from€the€proof€that€the€Nunnelly€farm€property€wasÏbeneficially€owned€by€Wife.€€Such€an€equitable€interest€can€appreciate.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€that€the€appreciation€of€theÏNunnelly€farm€property€ð ðoccurred€mostly€because€of€the€improvementsÏto€the€residence€on€the€farm€which€were€mostly€paid€for€by€the€trustÏcontrolled€by€the€wife€and€by€funds€borrowed€by€the€wife€from€herÏparents.ðð€€The€record€reveals€conflicting€testimony€concerning€paymentÏfor€the€improvements,€and€the€trial€court€resolved€that€conflict€byÏfinding€that€most€of€the€appreciation€occurred€as€a€result€of€Wifeððs€useÏof€œpersonal›€funds€and€trust€funds.€€Giving€due€deference€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€of€œthe€credibility›€of€the€witnesses,€we€cannotÏsay€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÍthat€the€appreciation€of€the€property€was€not€due€to€Husbandððs€efforts.€ÏAccordingly,€the€appreciation€in€the€trust€property€should€have€beenÏconsidered€the€separate€property€of€Wife€and€not€included€in€theÏmarital€estate€for€distribution.Ìà àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€Holly€Hill€property€must€beÏdistributed€to€the€parties€in€accordance€with€the€contract€freely€andÏvoluntarily€made€by€them,€and€the€proceeds€shall€not€be€included€in€theÏtrial€courtððs€division€of€the€marital€estate.€€We€further€hold€that€anyÏappreciation€in€value€of€the€Nunnelly€farm€property€shall€be€consideredÏthe€separate€property€of€Wife.€€Ìà àIn€view€of€our€decision,€the€content€of€the€marital€estate€asÏconsidered€by€the€chancellor€has€changed.€€Therefore,€that€part€of€theÏfinal€decree€pertaining€to€the€division€of€marital€property€is€vacated,Ïand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€ÏUpon€remand,€the€trial€court,€in€making€an€equitable€division,€€shallÏconsider€the€separate€assets€of€the€parties€œand€the›€additional€factorsÏlisted€in€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121€.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€divided€one„half€toÏappellant€and€one„half€to€appellee.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌ