WPC @p/4_H>! cB='4g=Ojlq#Iۜݟ3SF⳶cr¯dPw]"xNE֗rcXܱ7JAvw=C22X/Xu~fyEO@%pWt kH~I!DihT[G&@.OdR#Ѷ@c@82=l(VBSw4Z%.Ny{]LU:*P{փ$X4Oħ-H$      1    _Husbandhasachildfromapreviousmarriage,and,pursuanttoacourtorder,hadbeenpayinghisfirstwife  childsupportof$200permonth.Thatchildreachedtheageofmajorityaroundthetimethepartiesintheinstantcase t separated.Thereafter,Husbandbeganpayingthe$200permonthtoWife.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R>$      3    _ThetrialcourtorderedthatWifewastoberesponsiblefortheencumbrancesonherautomobile.  R>$      4    _ThefundsinWifescheckingandsavingsaccounts,aswellasinher401(k),netofalldebts,totaled  approximately$22,831.Husbandscheckingandsavingsaccounts,alongwithhisinvestmentaccounts,wereworth t approximately$88,542.  R>$      5    _Apparently,Wifesoldsomerealpropertyintheinterimbetweenthetrialandthehearingonthemotiontoalter  oramend,andusedtheproceedstomakepaymentsonherdebts.Thesupplementalmemorandumopinionofthetrial t courtreflectsthatWifesliabilitiestotaled$9,000,theamountthatHusbandwasorderedtopay. + R>$      6    _ThetrialcourtssupplementalmemorandumopinionindicatesthatWifes401(k)retirementaccount,assuming  paymentofthedebtagainstit,wasworth$32,244,whileHusbands401(k)andinvestmentaccountswereworth$82,220. t Thesefiguresshowtheeffectofstockmarketfluctuationsbetweenthefinalhearingandthehearingonthemotiontoalter 8 oramend.  R>$      2    _TheproofattrialrevealedthatWifehadobtainedasecondmortgageonthepartiesGeorgiahome,without  theknowledgeorconsentofHusband.Inaddition,WifehadobtainedcreditcardsinHusbandsname,hadincurred t substantialcreditcarddebt,andhaddefaultedontheseobligations.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2>$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3p$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3p$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8QXXdd8  @  lINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# l #Ԉ &   June27,2002Session L XQX #XXQ#STANLEYDAVID_ALFORD_v.PAMELAWARD_ALFORD_XQX  J @@ AppealfromtheDomesticRelationsCourtfor_Hamblen_ԀCounty  J @@No.4940JoyceM.Ward,Judge  6 FILEDOCTOBER22,_2002_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102361_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Inthisdivorcecase,thetrialcourtdissolvedamarriageof21yearsanddividedthepartiesmarital x  property.StanleyDavid_Alford_Ԁ( Husband)appeals,arguingthatthedivisionofpropertywasnot d equitableandthatthetrialcourterredinrequiringhimtopaythepostseparationdebtsofhiswife, P PamelaWard_Alford_Ԁ( Wife).Bywayofaseparateissue,Wifecontendsthatthetrialcourterred < inrefusingtoawardretroactivechildsupport.Weaffirm. (x & Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheDomesticRelationsCourt P Affirmed;CaseRemanded  <   #XQ#XQX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,  _P.J._,andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined.  JaniceH.Snider,Morristown,Tennessee,fortheappellant,StanleyDavid_Alford_.  DouglasR._Beier_,_Morristown_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,PamelaWard_Alford_. ` b OPINION #XXQ#XQX 8!  I.Background #`" #XXQ9 #XQX    HusbandandWifeweremarriedonNovember2,1979.Theyhaveonechild.Whenthe $8 $ mostrecentdivorcecomplaintwasfiled,thechildalreadyhadreachedtheageofmajority. %$!%   Thepartiesseparatedin1989.Atthetimeoftheirseparation,theylivedinGeorgia.Wife '"' subsequentlymovedtoTennesseewiththepartiesnineyearolddaughter.Husbandremainedin (#( Georgiauntilhesoldthepartieshomein1992,atwhichtimehealsomovedtoTennessee.Since )$) theseparation,Wifehasbeenemployedinthesalesdepartmentof_Tuff_Ԁ_Torq_ԀCorporation,and p*%* Husbandhasworkedasaconstructioncompanysupervisor. \+&+   H,',   Oneyearaftertheirseparation,Wifefiledfordivorce.However,shesubsequentlydismissed   hercomplaint,ostensiblyduetothepartiesagreementthattheydidnotwanttheirdaughtertobe  theproductofadivorce.Thereafter,thepartiescontinuedtoliveapart,remainingmarriedinname  only.Shortlyaftertheseparation,HusbandbeganpayingWife$200permonthtowardthesupport t oftheirchild.  #  1       `   Thepartiescontinuedthislivingarrangementforthenexttenyears.InJuly,1999,Husband 8  filedfordivorce,citingirreconcilabledifferences,orinthealternative,inappropriatemaritalconduct. $ t #XXQ #XQXThisdivorcecasewasheardinJanuary,2001,andafinaljudgmentwasenteredApril20,2001,  ` grantingHusbandadivorceonthegroundofinappropriatemaritalconduct, duetoWifesdeception  L  injointfinancialmatters. #  2      ׀Thetrialcourtawardedeachpartythehouseholdgoodsandfurnishings  8  inthepartyspossession.Eachpartyalsoreceivedanautomobile. #  3      ׀ThemaritaldebtsofWife,which $  totaled$12,640atthetimeofthedivorcehearing,weretobepaidfrommaritalassets.Thetrial   courtorderedthatthenetmaritalestateoftheparties,totalingapproximately$111,373,| #  4      ׀wastobe    dividedinsuchamannerastoresultinequaldivision.ThecourtdeniedWifesmotionfor   alimonyandretroactivechildsupport.     UponHusbandsmotiontoalteroramend,thetrialcourtmodifieditsjudgmentinwhichit \ hadrequiredthatWifesmaritaldebtsbepaidfromthemaritalassets.Itdecreed,instead,that H HusbandwouldberequiredtopayWifesmaritaldebtsof$9,000.  #  5      ׀Asforthemaritalassetsofthe 4 parties,thetrialcourtorderedthat,oncethemaritaldebtswerepaid,thepartiesweretoaddthe  p  valuesoftheirseparate401(k)sandinvestmentaccounts asoftheactualdateoftransfer,and  \ transfersufficientsharesfromHusbandtoWifetoreflectequalvaluetobothparties. #  6      ׀Fromthis  order,Husbandappeals.     II.StandardofReview t ^  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectness L  astothetrialcourtsfactualfindings, unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. 8  Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarealsorevieweddenovo,buttheyare $ t notaccordedthesamedeference. _Brumit_Ԁv._Brumit_ ,948S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  `   III.PropertyDivision  8    Husbandfirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredinitsdivisionofthepartiesmaritalproperty.   Wedisagree.     Propertymaybeequitablydividedanddistributedbetweenthepartiesonceitisproperly   classifiedasmarital.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(a)(1)(2001). Trialcourtshavewidelatitude p infashioninganequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty. Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,168 \ (Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Suchadivisionistobeeffecteduponconsiderationofthestatutoryfactors H foundinTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(2001). 4   [_A]n_Ԁequitablepropertydivisionisnotnecessarilyanequalone.Itisnotachievedbya  \ mechanicalapplicationofthestatutoryfactors,butratherbyconsideringandweighingthemost H relevantfactorsinlightoftheuniquefactsofthecase. _Batson_Ԁv._Batson_ ,769S.W.2d849,859 4 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988)(emphasisadded).Appellatecourtsaretodefertoatrialcourtsdivisionof   maritalpropertyunlessthetrialcourtsdecisionisinconsistentwiththestatutoryfactorsoris   unsupportedbythepreponderanceoftheevidence. Brown ,913S.W.2dat168.    Tenn.CodeAnn.364121provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8  8`   (c)Inmakingequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty,thecourtshall X  considerallrelevantfactorsincluding:D!` x` x 8  8`   (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;#l!` x` x 8  8`   (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills, $D # employability,earningcapacity,estate,financialliabilitiesand %0!$ financialneedsofeachoftheparties;&"%` x` x Ї8  H8`   (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyone(1)partytothe  education,trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;` x` x 8  8`   (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionsofcapital t assetsandincome;`` x` x 8  8`   (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation, 8  appreciation,depreciationordissipationofthemaritalorseparate $ t property,includingthecontributionofapartytothemarriageas  ` homemaker,wageearnerorparent,withthecontributionofaparty  L  ashomemakerorwageearnertobegiventhesameweightifeach  8  partyhasfulfilleditsrole;$ ` x` x   8 @ 8@`   ***   *8  8`   (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivision   ofpropertyistobecomeeffective;p` x` x   8 @ 8@`   *** H +8  8`   (11)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequities  p betweentheparties. \` x` x   Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtequallydividedthemaritalestate.Thefirstoftherelevant 4 factorsaddressesthe durationofthemarriage.Thiswasamarriageofover21years.We   recognizethatthepartieswereseparatedforoverhalfofthemarriage;butasthetrialcourt   succinctlystated,    8 ` [theparties]cannotbebothmarriedanddivorced.Courtsshouldnot  concernthemselveswiththetypeoflivingarrangementschosenby l adultpartiestotheunion.X ` x` x SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(1).Thiswasa21yearmarriage. 0"    Husbandclearlyhas,andwillcontinuetohave,fargreaterearningcapacitythanWife.At $X" thetimeoftrial,HusbandwasemployedbyHorizonConstruction,wherehewasearningover $D # $70,000peryear.Bycontrast,Wifespositionwith_Tuff_Ԁ_Torq_ԀCorporationearnsherapproximately %0!$ $31,000peryear.Further,WifeobviouslyhasgreaterfinancialneedsandliabilitiesthanHusband. &"% WhilethereisnoquestionfromtheproofintherecordthatWifehasdoneapoorjobofmanaging '#& herfinances,shenonethelesshasbornetheburdenofraisingthepartiesdaughteralmostentirely (#' onherownincome.Initssupplementalmemorandumopinion,thetrialcourtstated: )$(   |*%) 8  8`   Priortotheseparation,Wifecommittedmisconductinrelationtothe   partiesfinances.Shealsowrongfullyobtainedcredit,inHusbands  name,duringtheseparation.Shehaslivedbeyondherincome.Her  creditcarddebtswereincurredtomaintainlivingexpensesand t paymentobligations.Sheonceinvestedinrealpropertyandwas ` requiredtosellittopaydebts.Inherfavor,however,sherearedthe L  minorchildonlessthanonehalfofHusbandsincomeandaccepted 8  tokenchildsupport,whichgreatly_benefited_ԀHusband.$ t` x` x SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(2),(4),(8)&(11).  L    ThetrialcourtfoundthatHusbandhadearnedover$555,580duringthepartiesseparation. $  Ifthepartieshaddivorced,thecourtreasoned,Husbandschildsupportobligationfortheperiodof   theseparationwouldhaveamountedto$59,640.Instead,Wiferaisedthechildonherincome,   assistedbyHusbands$200permonthpayments.WhileHusbandpresentedevidenceofother   contributionstothesupportofthepartiesdaughterduringtheperiodofseparationandWife   admittedHusbandhadalwaysacquiescedtoanyofherrequestsforfinancialassistance,thefactthat p Wifewasprimarilyresponsibleforthefinancialobligationsincumbentuponraisingachildgreatly \ contributedtoHusbandsabilitytoearnandinvestfundsduringtheseparation.SeeTenn.Code H Ann.364121(c)(3)&(5). 4   Baseduponthisanalysis,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtsequaldivisionofmarital  \ propertyinthiscaseisunsupportedbythepreponderanceoftheevidence,andweaccordinglyfind H noerrorinsaiddivision.Certainly,therecorddoesnotreflectthatthetrialcourtabusedits 4 discretion.     IV.DivisionofDebts  Y<  HusbandnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrequiringhimtopaythedebtsWifeincurred  afterthepartiesseparated.Again,wedisagree. l   Maritaldebtsaresubjecttoequitabledivisioninthesamemannerasmaritalproperty.See D!  _Cutsinger_Ԁv._Cutsinger_ ,917S.W.2d238,243(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); _Mondelli_Ԁv.Howard ,780 0"  S.W.2d769,773(Tenn.Ct.App.1989). Maritaldebtsarethosedebtsincurredduringthemarriage #l! forthejointbenefitoftheparties,...orthosedirectlytraceabletotheacquisitionofmarital $X" property. _Mondelli_ ,780S.W.2dat773(citationsomitted).Individingmaritaldebts,courtsshould $D # considerthefollowingfactors:(1)thedebtspurpose;(2)whichpartyincurredthedebt;(3)which %0!$ partybenefittedfromincurringthedebt;and(4)whichpartyisbestabletorepaythedebt. Id.  &"%   Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtorderedHusbandtopay$9,000indebtsincurredbyWife. (#' Thereisnoquestionthatthesedebtswereproperlyclassifiedbythetrialcourtasmaritaldebt.The )$( factthatthesedebtswereacquiredafterthepartiesseparateddoesnotremovethemfromthe |*%) categoryofmaritaldebt.WhileWifestestimonyastothepurposeofthedebtswassomewhat h+&* vague,thetrialcourtfoundthat [_h]er_Ԁcreditcarddebtswereincurredtomaintainlivingexpenses  andpaymentobligations.Intermsofwhichpartybenefittedfromincurringthesedebts,thecourt  statedthatWife rearedtheminorchildonlessthanonehalfofHusbandsincomeandaccepted  tokenchildsupport,whichgreatly_benefited_ԀHusband.Finally,baseduponthegreatdisparityin t thepartiesincome,Husbandisclearlyinabetterpositiontorepaythesedebts.Wedonotfindthat ` theevidencepreponderatesagainstafindingthatHusbandshouldbeburdenedwiththedebts L  incurredbyWifeduringthemarriage. 8    V.ChildSupport  ` F  Bywayofaseparateissue,Wifearguesthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoawardher  8  retroactivechildsupport.Wecannotagreewiththiscontention. $    Thetrialcourtfoundthat,duringtheperiodofthepartiesseparation,HusbandpaidWife   approximately$20,000insupportfortheirchild.Ifthepartieshaddivorcedatthetimeoftheir   initialseparation,Husbandwouldhavebeenrequiredtopayalmost$60,000undertheChildSupport   Guidelinesduringthis11yearperiod.Onappeal,Wifearguesthatsheisentitledtothis$40,000 p differenceandcitesthecaseof _Berryhill_Ԁv.Rhodes ,21S.W.3d188(Tenn.2000),insupportofher \ position.However,Wifesrelianceonthe _Berryhill_Ԁ caseismisplaced. _Berryhill_ standsforthe H propositionthat,inpaternitycases,privateagreementsforthesupportofchildrencannotbeusedto 4 circumventstatutorilymandatedchildsupportobligations. Id. at192.Thecourtin _Berryhill_ went  p ontodiscussretroactivechildsupportinsuchpaternitycases. Id. at19293.WhileWifecontends  \ thatthelanguageinthecaseindicatesthatthecourt intendeditsapplicationmorebroadlythanjust H paternitycases,ourcarefulreviewofthecaserevealsnosuchindication,and,accordingly,wefind 4 thatthe _Berryhill_ casehasnoapplicationtotheinstantcase.Thereissimplynothinginthatcase   toindicatethattheSupremeCourtintendedfortheprinciplesannouncedtheretoapplytoamarried   !butseparated!couple.    IfWifehadbelievedshewasnotreceivingamplechildsupportfromHusband,therewasa  remedyavailabletoher.Tenn.CodeAnn.371104(d)(1)(A)(2001)providesthat [_t]he_Ԁjuvenile l courthasconcurrentjurisdictionandstatewidejurisdictionwithothercourtshavingthejurisdiction X  toordersupportforminorchildrenandshallhavestatewidejurisdictionoverthepartiesinvolved D! inthecase.Inaddition, [_i]n_Ԁanycaseinwhichthecourthasexclusiveorconcurrentjurisdiction 0"  toorderthepaymentofchildsupport,thecourtmayissueachildsupportorderwhenrequestedby #l! aparty.Tenn.CodeAnn.371104(d)(2)(2001).Therefore,Wifecouldhave,atanytimeduring $X" thepartiesseparation,petitionedthejuvenilecourtinherjurisdictiontoorderHusbandtopay $D # additionalsupportifshehadfeltthatshewasnotreceivingenoughsupportforherdaughter. %0!$   However,evenifthedenialofWifesmotionforretroactivechildsupportwaserror!and '#& wedonotbelieveitwas!Wifecannotbeheardtocomplainaboutanerrortowhichshecontributed. (#' Attrial,counselforWife,inpresentingtheargumentforretroactivechildsupport,statedthe )$( following: |*%)  h+&* 8  8`   Itsafunnything,YourHonor,thefactsofthiscase,theamountof  underpaymentofchildsupportthat[Wifehas]calculatedisabout  fortythousanddollars.Now,wheretheassetsareconcerned,with  [Husbands]accumulationoftheassets,iftheCourtweretolook t rightdownthemiddleanddividethem,thedifferencewouldbeabout ` fortythousanddollars.So,itcomesout,eventhoughtheCourtis L  lookingatitthiswayasopposedtothatway,itcomesoutaboutthe 8  sameway....[Husband]sgotahundred!hesgotabouteighty $ t thousanddollarsmoreinassetsthataremaritalassetsthan[Wife]has  ` currently.Ifyoumarshalthemaltogetherandthensplitthe  L  difference,[Husbandwould]owe[Wife]fortythousanddollars,  8  whichisexactlywhat[Wifehas]calculated[Husband]underpaidin $  childsupportduringthosesameyears.IdontknowhowtheCourt   wantstolookatit,andIknowthatalotofCourtssay,Imnotgoing   togetintotheaccountingofthemarriage.Ofcourse,now,[the   partiesare]notmarriedandlivingtogether,but[theparties]are   married,butseparate.AndsometimesCourtsdontevenwanttoget p intotheaccountingofthat,butafter[thepartieshave]beenseparated \ fornowalmost12years,youhavetoconsidertheequitiesofwhat H wentoninthose12years.Imean,[Husbandhas]gotalotofassets, 4 and[Wifedoesnt]havealotofassets,andmywholeargumentthere  p is,[Wifedoesnt]havealotofassetsbecause[shewas]underpaidin  \ childsupportandbearingtheresponsibilitiesforthatchild.H` x` x WeconstruethesestatementstomeanthatWifewanted$40,000,regardlessofwhetherthetrial   courtawardedthatamounttoherasretroactivechildsupportorinthedivisionofmaritalproperty.   Essentially,Wifeaskedthecourttouseitsdiscretionindetermininghowtoawardherthesefunds.   XQXXXQWhiletherecorddoesnotreflectthepreciseamountthatwillberequired,underthecourtsmodified  finaljudgmentofdivorce,toequalizethedivisionofmaritalassets,itisclearthatsomeamountin  excessof$20,000wastobepaidtoWifetosupplementherindividuallyheldassets.Whenthis l equalizationiscoupledwiththetrialcourtsdecreerequiringHusbandtopayWifesdebtsofsome X  $9,000,itappearsthatthetrialcourtdecidedtoaddressthedisparityofchildsupportissuethrough D! itsdivisionofthenetmaritalassets.ThiswillprobablynotamounttoWifeshopedfor$40,000, 0"  butitshouldbeasignificantsum.Ineffect,#XQXX XQ_#thetrialcourtchoseoneofthetwooptionssuggested #l! byWife.NowitappearsthatWifewantstohaveherproverbialcakeandeatit,too.However,no $X" reliefwillbegrantedtoonewhois responsibleforanerrororwhofailedtotakewhateveraction $D # wasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror.Tenn.R.App.P. %0!$ 36(a). &"%   Furthermore, apartyintheAppellateCourtwillnotbepermittedorheardtoassumea (#' positioncontrarytoandinconsistentwiththepositionhe[orshe]tookintheTrialCourt. Clement )$( v._Nichols_ ,186Tenn.235,237,209S.W.2d23,24(1948).Attrial,Wifeessentiallypresentedan |*%)  either/orargumenttothecourt,andnowWifeisassertingthatsheisentitledtobothremedies. h+&* Thesepositionsareinconsistent,and [_i]t_Ԁistheruleinthisjurisdictionthataplaintiffcannottake  apositiononappealinconsistentwiththattakeninthetrialofthecase. Danielsv.Combustion  _Engg_,Inc. ,583S.W.2d768,770(Tenn.Ct.App.1978).Accordingly,wefindWifesasserted   errortobewithoutmerit.  t     VI.Conclusion L  oh  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforenforcementofthe $ t trialcourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.  ` Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,StanleyDavid_Alford_.  L       `     h     _______________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE