WPC) W# UN %+ 0 41 0eb^ w@,jl4  m 0D G BV 0Js 0T 0^ 0ho 0r AQI  0D` 0@ 0D 0|( D/ 0Y D3a 0 1u$ 0dU>B);DCd AMU*FdAP"rL0R|pv~>"v# B)HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  (c(2y$ U!   XXX `   0  - -s$ KLEMNDO/P/QDRSӀ]anderton v. anderton - opinion 2 '  0 .   _# $ U(#$  0  3|x]P Pd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  !"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  ' dxd2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  VVVV'dxd2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  %'* ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd!#5C << G<  9p`(Arial < !  #d#33   ""  77   YYY FILED7XJune5,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#33   $   X 3X       _ThetrialcourtfoundthatMr._Anderton_s_spousal_ԀsupportarrearageasofAugust21,1996was$22,859.03andthatthearrearageonhischildsupportwas$173.00.  !#d#33   $   X 3X       _Thedeterminationofan_obligor_Ԁparentsnetincomeundertheguidelinesmaybeinfluencedbyincomeproducingpropertyreceivedasseparatepropertyoraspartofthedivisionofmaritalproperty. F !#d#33   $   X 3X       _Anawardof$1,731permonthtosupportthreechildrenwouldbeappropriatefor_obligor_spouseswithgrossmonthlyearningsof$6,000.Atthetimeofthetrialcourtsinitialchildsupportaward,Mr._Anderton_seffectivegrossmonthlyearningswereapproximately$17,000.  !#d#33   $   X 3X       _Thecalculationofnetincomeisrelativelysimple.Netincomeequalsgrossincomeminusthreepermissibledeductions.Thesedeductionsinclude:(a)FICA,(b)incometaxwithholdingsforsinglewageearnersclaimingonewithholdingallowance,and(c)theamountofchildsupportbeingpaidforotherchildrenpursuanttocourtorder.See_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(4). B !#d#33   $   X 3X       TheDepartmentofHumanServicesincreasedthe$6,250ceilingto$10,000effectiveOctober5,1997. H !#d#33   $   X 3X       _InaccordancewithTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.04(3)asitexistedatthetime,thetrialcourtcouldhavedirectedMr._Anderton_Ԁtomake$2,562inmonthlysupportpaymentsandtoplacetheremaining$2,711inaneducationalfundorotherfundforthechildrensbenefit. f !#d#33   $   X 3X       _Inaccordancewith_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.04(3)asitexistedatthetime,thetrialcourtcouldhavedirectedMr._Anderton_Ԁtomake$2,562inmonthlysupportpaymentsandtoplacetheremaining$122inaneducationalfundorotherfundforthechildrensbenefit.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva  d ! . 33     X   \RA'\76dd7    3 !ٜR685A1-j| `  `@Rߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE 3 ` X X WILLIAMMICHAELANDERTON,  )        ) Plaintiff/Appellant,    ) WilliamsonChancery        ) No.22482VS.        )        ) AppealNo.EVELYNADELEMORGANANDERTON, ) 01A019701CH00013        ) Defendant/Appellee.    )@ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURT@ FORWILLIAMSONCOUNTY@ ATFRANKLIN,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEHENRYDENMARKBELL,JUDGEForPlaintiff/Appellant:     ForDefendant/Appellee:JackNorman,Jr.      EvelynA.AndertonNashville,Tennessee     ProSeThomasF.BloomNashville,Tennessee3 @ VACATEDANDREMANDED 3       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE3 @ OPINION 3 Thisisthesecondappealconcerningahusbandssupportobligationsfollowingthedissolutionofa23yearmarriage.TheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCountyoriginallydirectedthehusbandtopay$1,731permonthinchildsupportand$5,500permonthin_spousal_Ԁsupportforfiveyearsandthen$5,000permonththereafter.Onthefirstappeal,thiscourtremandedthecasetothetrialcourttorevisitthechildsupportand_spousal_Ԁsupportawards.Eventhoughthetrialcourtconcludedthatthehusbandsincomehaddecreasedsignificantly,itincreasedthehusbandschildsupportto$2,000permonthandleftitsoriginal_spousal_Ԁsupportorderunchanged.Italsoawardedthewifejudgmentsforasizeable_spousal_Ԁsupportarrearageandanominalchildsupportarrearage.Onthisappeal,thehusbandagaintakesissuewiththeamountofhis_spousal_Ԁsupportandchildsupportobligationsandalsoinsiststhatheisentitledtoretroactivereliefonhis_spousal_Ԁsupportarrearageandtotheliftingoftheinjunctionwithregardtohis401kplan.Wevacatethechildsupportand_spousal_supportawardsandremandthemtothetrialcourtforfurtherconsiderationconsistentwiththisopinion.@ I.  WilliamMichael_Anderton_ԀandEvelynAdeleMorgan_Anderton_ԀweremarriedinOctober1973.Theirthreechildrenwerebornbetween1977and1981.Mr._Anderton_Ԁworkedatvariousjobsduringtheearlyyearsofthemarriageandin1986becameemployedbyNationalHealthLaboratories,Inc.,acompanyprovidinglaboratoryservicesforphysicians.Mr.andMs._Anderton_alsostartedan_Amway_Ԁdistributorshipin1975thateventuallybecameasubstantialsourceofhouseholdincome.Ms._Anderton_Ԁdidnothaveoutsideemploymentbutratherremainedathometocareforthechildrenandthehouseholdandtomanagetheir_Amway_Ԁdistributorship. NationalHealthLaboratoriestransferredMr._Anderton_ԀtoNashvillein1991andgavehimathreeyearemploymentcontractwitha$150,000fixedannualsalaryandthepossibilityofanannualbonus.Mr._Anderton_searnings,includinghisbonuses,were$160,000in1991,$162,000in1992,and$170,000in1993.WhenthepartiesseparatedinOctober1993,Mr._Anderton_ԀagreedtopayMs._Anderton_Ԁ$6,000permonthtosupportherandtheirchildren.InAugust1994,thepartiesagreedtoreducethisobligationto$5,500permonth.InDecember1994,NationalHealthLaboratoriesmergedwithanothercompanyandbecameLaboratoryCorporationofAmerica.Mr.Andertonscompensationplanwasaltered,andbeginninginJanuary1995,hisbasesalarywasreducedfrom$150,000to$135,000,whilehismaximumbonuspotentialwasreducedto$67,500. Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtfiledamemorandumopiniononJune22,1995.BasedonitsconclusionthatMr._Anderton_searningpotentialwasinexcessof$200,000peryear,thetrialcourtdirectedhimtopayMs._Anderton_$5,500permonthforfiveyearsandthen$5,000permonththereafter.Then,basedonitsconclusionthatMr._Anderton_sgrossearningsfortheprioryearhadbeen$170,000,thetrialcourtsethischildsupportat$1,731permonth. Mr._Anderton_Ԁappealedtothiscourt,andwhiletheappealwaspending,wepermittedMr._Anderton_Ԁtointroducepostjudgmentfactsshowingthathisbasesalaryfor1996hadbeenreducedto$95,000andthathisannualbonuscouldnotexceed$47,500.WedeterminedthattheevidencepreponderatedagainstthefindingthatMr._Anderton_Ԁwouldearninexcessof$200,000in1996andthatthecalculationofMr._Anderton_schildsupportobligationwasinconsistentwiththechildsupportguidelines.Accordingly,weremandedthecasetothetrialcourtforreconsiderationofthechildsupportandalimonyawards.WedirectedthetrialcourttodetermineMr._Anderton_schildsupportobligationfirstandthentodeterminehis_spousal_ԀsupportobligationinlightofhischildsupportobligationandtheGeneralAssemblysexpressedpreferenceforawardingrehabilitativealimonywheneverpossible.See_Anderton_Ԁv._Anderton_,No.01A019510CH00489,1996WL274399(Tenn.Ct.App.May24,1996)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). ThetrialcourtconductedanotherhearinginAugust1996toaddresstheremandedissuesaswellasMs._Anderton_spetitiontoholdMr._Anderton_ԀincontemptforfailingtomakealimonyandsupportpaymentsandMr._Anderton_spetitionforareductioninhissupportobligations.Inasupplementaldecreefiledon_October_Ԁ18,1996,thetrialcourtconcludedthatMr._Anderton_s earningcapacityfor1996andtheforeseeablefuturewas$142,500peryear.ThetrialcourtalsoincreasedMr._Anderton_schildsupportobligationto theguidelinespresumptiveamountof$2,000.00permonth.Then,turningtoMr._Anderton_s_spousal_Ԁsupportobligation,thetrialcourtfoundthatMs._Anderton_Ԁ willprobablybecomecapableoffinancialselfsupport,butthereisasubstantialpossibilitythatshewillnot.Basedonthisratherambivalentfinding,andafterrecitingthatithadconsideredallthefactorsinTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(Supp.1997),thetrialcourtdeclinedtoalterMr._Anderton_s_spousal_Ԁsupportobligation.Thus,eventhoughthetrialcourtconcludedthatMr._Anderton_sannualearningswerealmost30%lessthanitsoriginalfinding,theneteffectofitsdecisionwastoincreaseMr._Anderton_scombinedannualchildsupportand_spousal_Ԁsupportobligationsbyover15%.ThetrialcourtalsoorderedMr._Anderton_ԀtopayMs._Anderton_Ԁanadditional$23,032.03forchildsupportand_spousal_Ԁsupport_arrearages_._ 9   _@ II. @  OrderofIssuesinDivorceCases  Thedissolutionofamarriagerequiresthecourtstoengageintheorderlydisentanglementofthepartiespersonalandfinancialaffairs.Manyoftheissuesthatmustbeaddressedduringthisprocessareinterrelated,andthedispositionofearlierissuesdirectlyinfluencethedecisiononlaterissues.Accordingly,thepartiesandthecourtsshouldpaycarefulattentiontotheorderinwhichthevariousissuesinadivorcecaseareaddressedanddecided. Asageneralrule,thefirstissueconsideredinadivorcecaseconcernswhethereitherorbothpartieshavedemonstratedthattheyareentitledtoadivorce.Thus,attheoutset,trialcourtsshouldfirstdeterminetowhomthedivorceshouldbeawardedorwhetherthepartiesshouldbedeclareddivorcedinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.364129(1996).Followingthisdecision,trialcourtsshouldturntheirattentiontothecustodyandvisitationarrangementsforthechildrenifthepartieshaveminorchildrenentitledtosupport.Onlyafterthesestatusissueshavebeendecidedshouldtrialcourtsturntheirattentiontothefinancialaspectsofthedivorcedecree. Thetrialcourtsfirsttaskfollowingtheresolutionofthestatusissuesistoidentifyanddistributethepartiesseparatepropertyandthentodividetheirmaritalpropertyinanequitablemanner.See_Batson_Ԁv._Batson_,769S.W.2d849,856(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Aspartofthisprocess,thetrialcourtshouldalsoidentifyandallocatethepartiesseparateandmaritaldebts.See_Herrera_Ԁv._Herrera_,944S.W.2d379,389(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Hanoverv.Hanover,775S.W.2d612,614(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Sortingoutthepartiespropertyinterestsmustprecedesupportdecisionsbecausethemannerinwhichtheseparateandmaritalpropertyisdividedcanaffectlatersupportdecisions.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(G),101(d)(1)(H)(Supp.1997);_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(2)(1994);_Ԝ :   כ_ԀRidleyv.Ridley,No.01A019012CV00462,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.May10,1991)(Koch,J.,concurring)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). Afterthepartiespropertyinterestshavebeenaddressed,trialcourtsshouldthenturntheirattentiontochildsupport.Thisispreciselywhatthiscourtdirectedthetrialcourttodoinitsfirstopinioninthiscase.See_Anderton_Ԁv._Anderton_,1996WL274399,at*3.Childsupportdecisionsshouldprecededecisionsabout_spousal_Ԁsupportbecauseaspousesabilitytopay_spousal_Ԁsupportmaybedirectlyandsignificantlyinfluencedbytheamountofchildsupportheorshehasbeenorderedtopay. Considerationof_spousal_Ԁsupportquestionsshouldfollowthedispositionofalltheprecedingquestions.Onceacourthasdeterminedwhether_spousal_Ԁsupportshouldbeawarded,andifsoitsnature,amount,andduration,itshould,asafinalϜmatter,addressanyrequestforattorneysfeesifsuchrequesthasbeenmade.Consideringrequestsforattorneysfeesinthecontextofthe_spousal_ԀsupportawardisappropriatebecauseadditionalawardsforattorneysfeesareconsideredϜaformofsupport.SeeFordv.Ford,952S.W.2d824,830(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Smithv.Smith,912S.W.2d155,161(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).However,aspointedoutbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt,requestsforattorneysfeesshouldbeconsideredonlyafterthecourthasresolvedtheissuesconcerningthepartiespropertyandsupport.See_Inman_Ԁv._Inman_,811S.W.2d870,874(Tenn.1991).@ III. @  TheChildSupportAwards  WeturnfirsttothemannerinwhichthetrialcourtdeterminedtheamountofMr._Anderton_schildsupportobligation.WhileMr._Anderton_Ԁdoesnotdirectlychallengethetrialcourtsdecisiontorequirehimtopay$2,000permonthinchildsupport,hedoessoindirectlybycomplainingthatthetrialcourterredbyrequiringhimtopay90%ofhisexpectedgrossearningsinchildsupportand_spousal_Ԁsupport.BecauseMr._Anderton_schallengetothecombinedamountofbothawardsnecessarilyincludesachallengetoeachawardseparately,wewillagainscrutinizethetrialcourtschildsupportaward. InitsinitialJune1995order,thetrialcourtsetMr._Anderton_schildsupportat$1,731permonth,eventhoughhehadthreechildrenandhisgrossannualincomewasover$200,000.Bothpartiesconcededonthefirstappealthatthisawardwasinconsistentwiththechildsupportguidelinesandthatthetrialcourthadmadenofindingswarrantingadeviationfromtheguidelines._ ;   _ԀAccordingly,thiscourtdirectedthetrialcourttoreconsidertheamountofMr._Anderton_schildsupportobligationinaccordancewiththechildsupportguidelines. Followingtheremand,thetrialcourtannouncedinitssupplementaldecreeofOctober18,1996,thatitwassettingMr._Anderton_schildsupport attheguidelinespresumptiveamountof$2,000.00permonth.Weareatalosstounderstandthetrialcourtsreferencetothe guidelinespresumptiveamount.Whenthetrialcourtentereditsseconddecree,twoofthe_Andertons_childrenhadnotyetreachedtheageofmajority,andMr._Anderton_sgrossannualincomewas$142,500.Accordingtotheguidelines,achildsupportawardof$2,000permonthfortwominorchildrenwouldbeappropriatefor_obligor_Ԁparentswithgrossearningsof$108,000peryear.Again,thetrialcourtprovidednoexplanationforitsdecisiontodepartfromtheguidelines. Inavastmajorityofcaseswherechildsupportisanissue,thetwomostimportantvariablesarethenumberofminorchildrenandtheincomeoftheparentwhowillberequiredtopaysupport.Becausethenumberofminorchildrenisgenerallyundisputed,determiningtheamountofaparentsincomebecomesthemostimportantelementofproofinachildsupportproceeding.SeeTurnerv.Turner,919S.W.2d340,344(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).TheamountofaparentsincomecanbedeterminedeitherbyascertainingtheparentsgrossincomeasdefinedinTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(3)(1994)orbyascertainingtheparentsnetincomeasdefinedinTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(4)._Ԝ <   כ_ Theguidelinesrequirethatincomecalculationsmustincludebonuses,see_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(3)(a),andthatvariableincomesuchasbonusesandcommissionsshouldbeaveragedandaddedtothe_obligor_Ԁparentsfixedsalary.See_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(3)(b);Smithv.Smith,No.01A019705CH00216,1997WL672646,at*2(Oct.19,1997)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);_Mayfield_Ԁv._Mayfield_,No.01A019611CV00501,1997WL210826,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.30,1997)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).An_obligor_Ԁparentseffortstodecreasetheamountofhisorherexpectedincomebyclaimingthatheorshewillnotreceiveabonusareaddressedtothetrialcourtsassessmentoftheparentscredibility.See_Yates_v._Yates_,No.02A019706CH00122,1997WL746377,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.4,1997)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). Oncetheparentsincomehasbeendetermined,theguidelinesrequirethecourtstocalculatetherequiredamountofsupportusingthepercentagesprovidedintheguidelines.See_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.03(5).Inmostcircumstances,theresultofthesecalculationsbecomesthe_obligor_Ԁparentschildsupportobligation.However,acourtmaydeviatefromtheguidelinesifitmakesdetailed,writtenfindingsexplainingwhytheapplicationoftheguidelineswouldbeinappropriateandhowdeviatingfromtheguidelineswouldbeinthechildsbestinterests.See_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.02(7),.04(2)(1994). OnegroundfordeviationspecificallyrecognizedintheguidelinesinvolvesϜwealthyparentswhosenetmonthlyincomeexceeds$6,250.OnbothoccasionswhenthetrialcourtcalculatedMr.Andertonschildsupportobligation,Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.04(3)providedthatinthecaseofwealthyparents,thecourtmustorderthechildsupportbasedontheappropriatepercentageofallthe_obligor_Ԁparentsnetincomebutthatitmayfashionalternativepaymentarrangementsforthechildsupportderivedfromtheportionofthenetincomethatexceeds$6,250permonth. =   כTheguidelines,likeNashv._Mulle_,846S.W.2d803,806(Tenn.1993),alsoprovidethatpermissiblealternativepaymentarrangementsmayincludeeducationalorothertrustfundsforthebenefitofthechildren. Whenweapplythesestraightforwardprinciplestothiscase,wecanonlyreachtheconclusionthatMr._Anderton_schildsupportobligationhasbeenseriouslymiscalculatedfromthebeginning.WhenthetrialcourtfirstsetchildsupportinJune1995,Mr._Anderton_seffectivenetincomewasapproximately$12,025permonth.Basedonthisamount,thetrialcourtshouldhavesetMr._Anderton_schildsupportforhisthreeminorchildrenat$5,273permonth_Ԝ >   כ_unlesstherewassomereasontodeviatefromthechildsupportguidelines.Thus,thetrialcourtschildsupportawardinJune1995wasapproximatelyonethirdoftheguidelineamount.̛̜ WhenthetrialcourtentereditssupplementaldecreeinOctober1996,thepartiesoldestchildhadpassedtheageofmajority,leavingtwominorchildrenathome.Bythattime,Mr._Anderton_seffectivenetincomehadslippedto$8,390permonth.Evenwiththisreduction,thetrialcourtshouldhavesetMr._Anderton_schildsupportforhistwominorchildrenat$2,684permonth_Ԝ ?   כ_Ԁunlesstherewassomereasontodeviatefromthechildsupportguidelines.Thetrialcourtschildsupportawardwas22%lowerthantheguidelineamount. ThepartiessecondchildbecameeighteeninDecember1997.PresumingthatMr._Anderton_seffectivenetincomehasremainedconstant,hischildsupportobligationshouldhavebeenreducedto$1,762permonth.BarringanyunforeseenreasontoextendMr._Anderton_sresponsibilitytosupporthisyoungestchild,hisobligationtopaychildsupportwillterminateinAugust1999whenthepartiesyoungestchildreachestheageofeighteen. Theamountofchildsupportrequiredbytheguidelinesispresumptivelycorrect.See_Tenn.Comp_.R.&_Regs_.r.124024.02(7)(1994).Intheabsenceofanydefinitivewrittenfindingsbythetrialcourtsettingforthcogentreasonstodeviatefromtheguidelines,Mr._Anderton_schildsupportobligationsinceJune1995shouldhavebeenconsistentwiththeprecedingdiscussion.Sinceitwasnot,ϜMr._Anderton_scurrentchildsupportobligationandthearrearagemustagainbedeterminedbythetrialcourt.Unlessthetrialcourtfindsreasonsfordeviatingfromtheguidelines,itshouldsetMr._Anderton_scurrentchildsupportobligationinaccordancewiththechildsupportguidelines.ItshouldthenrecalculatetheamountofthearrearageconsistentwithMr._Anderton_sactualnetincomeduringtherelevantperiodsusingtheformularequiredbytheguidelines.@ IV. @  The_Spousal_ԀSupportAward  Mr._Anderton_Ԁalsoraisesthreeissuesregardingtheawardfor_spousal_supportandthejudgmentofthe_spousal_Ԁsupportarrearage.Heassertsthatthetrialcourterredbysettingtheamountofhis_spousal_ԀsupportobligationbeyondhisabilitytopayandbyawardingMs._Anderton_Ԁlongtermratherthanrehabilitative_spousal_Ԁsupport.Healsoassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedhimrelieffromhisalimonyobligationfromthedateofhispetitiontoreducehisalimony.WehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveawardedMs._Anderton_ԀrehabilitativealimonyatanamountlessthantheamountsinthetrialcourtsJune22,1995andOctober18,1996orders.@ A.  Therearenohardandfastrulesfor_spousal_Ԁsupportdecisions.See_Crain_v._Crain_,925S.W.2d232,233(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Stonev.Stone,56Tenn.App.607,61516,409S.W.2d388,39293(1966).Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontodeterminewhether_spousal_Ԁsupportisneededand,ifso,itsnature,amount,andduration.See_Garfinkel_Ԁv._Garfinkel_,945S.W.2d744,748(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Jonesv.Jones,784S.W.2d349,352(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Appellatecourtsaregenerallydisinclinedtosecondguessatrialcourts_spousal_supportdecisionunlessitisnotsupportedbytheevidenceoriscontrarytothepublicpoliciesreflectedintheapplicablestatutes.SeeBrownv.Brown,913S.W.2d163,169(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);_Ingram_Ԁv._Ingram_,721S.W.2d262,264(Tenn.Ct.App.1986). Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)reflectsapreferencefortemporary,rehabilitative_spousal_Ԁsupport,asopposedtolongtermsupport.See_Herrera_Ԁv._Herrera_,944S.W.2dat387;Wilsonv.Moore,929S.W.2d367,375(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thepurposeofrehabilitativesupportistoenablethedisadvantagedspousetoacquireadditionaljobskills,education,ortrainingthatwillenablehimorhertobemoreselfsufficient.SeeSmithv.Smith,912S.W.2dat160;_Cranford_Ԁv._Cranford_,772S.W.2d48,51(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Thepurposeoflongterm_spousal_Ԁsupport,ontheotherhand,istoprovidesupporttoadisadvantagedspousewhoisunabletoachievesomedegreeofselfsufficiency.See_Loria_Ԁv._Loria_,952S.W.2d836,838(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). Thestatutorypreferenceforrehabilitativesupportdoesnotentirelydisplaceotherformsof_spousal_Ԁsupportwhenthefactswarrantlongtermormoreopenendedsupport.SeeAaronv.Aaron,909S.W.2d408,410(Tenn.1995);_Isbell_Ԁv._Isbell_,816S.W.2d735,739(Tenn.1991).Becausetrialcourtshavetheprerogativetodeterminethetypeof_spousal_Ԁsupportthatbestfitsthecircumstancesofthecaseandmayawardseveraldifferenttypesofsupportinthesamecasewhenthefactswarrantit.See_Cheatham_Ԁv._Cheatham_,No.01A019508CH00380,1997WL731784,at*7(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.25,1997)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). Eventhoughfaultisarelevantconsiderationwhensetting_spousal_Ԁsupport,seeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(K),_spousal_Ԁsupportdecisionsarenotintendedtobepunitive.SeeDuncanv.Duncan,686S.W.2d568,571(Tenn.Ct.App.1984);_McClung_Ԁv._McClung_,29Tenn.App.580,584,198S.W.2d820,822(1946).Thepurposeof_spousal_Ԁsupportistoaidthedisadvantagedspousetobecomeandremainselfsufficientand,wheneconomicrehabilitationisnotfeasible,tomitigatetheharsheconomicrealitiesofdivorce.See_Shackleford_Ԁv.Ϝ_Shackleford_,611S.W.2d598,601(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).Whiledivorcedcouplesoftenlacksufficientincomeorassetstoenablebothofthemtoretaintheirpredivorcestandardofliving,seeBrownv.Brown,913S.W.2dat16970,the_obligor_Ԁspousemaybeabletoprovidesome closinginmoneytoenablethedisadvantagedspousetoapproachhisorherformerfinancialcondition.SeeAaronv.Aaron,909S.W.2dat411. _Spousal_ԀsupportdecisionshingeontheuniquefactsofthecaseandrequireacarefulbalancingofthefactorsinTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(Supp.1997).SeeHawkinsv.Hawkins,883S.W.2d622,625(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);_Loyd_Ԁv._Loyd_,860S.W.2d409,412(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).InvirtuallyeveryϜcase,thetwomostimportantfactorsarethedemonstratedneedofthedisadvantagedspouseandthe_obligor_Ԁspousesabilitytopay.See_Varley_Ԁv._Varley_,934S.W.2d659,668(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);_Crain_Ԁv._Crain_,925S.W.2dat234.@ B.  Underthefactsofthiscase,wehavedeterminedthatMs._Anderton_Ԁshouldreceiverehabilitative_spousal_Ԁsupport.Sheiscurrentlyfortyfiveyearsold.SheearnedacollegedegreeinMay1996andformanyyearsparticipatedinrunningafinanciallysuccessful_Amway_Ԁdistributorship.Herhealthandemotionalcomplaintssimplydonotrisetothelevelofseriousnessthattheypreventherfrombecominggainfullyemployed.Afterhearingtheevidenceonremand,thetrialcourtfoundthatMs._Anderton_s physicallimitationsanddisabilitiesdonotprecludeeconomicrehabilitation.Accordingly,thetrialcourtconcludedthatshe willprobablybecomecapableoffinancialselfsupport,butthereisasubstantialpossibilitythatshewillnot.WefindthattheevidencepreponderatesinfavorofthetrialcourtsconclusionthatMs._Anderton_Ԁiscapableoffinancialselfsupport. WeturnnexttotheissuesofMs._Anderton_sneedsandtheabilityofMr._Anderton_Ԁtopay_spousal_Ԁsupport.Mr._Anderton_sabilitytopaysupportmustbeconsideredinlightoftherecentdeclineinhisincome,hischildsupportobligation,andhisvariableincomerepresentedbyhisbonus.Withoutconsideringhisbonus,Mr._Anderton_snet_monthly_Ԁsalaryisapproximately$5,650.Ifhismaximumbonusisfactoredin,hismonthlyincomeiseffectivelyincreasedbyapproximately$3,500.Hiscurrentchildsupportobligationforthepartiesremainingminorchildis$1,762,buthewillhavenofurtherobligationtopaychildsupportafterAugust1999whenhisyoungestchildbecomeseighteenyearsold.Inlightofthesefacts,Mr._Anderton_Ԁisabletopay_spousal_Ԁsupport. WehaveweighedtheevidenceinlightofthefactorsinTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1).Indoingso,weattachedparticularweighttothelengthofthepartiesmarriage,themannerinwhichthetrialcourtdividedthemaritalproperty,thepartiesearningcapacity,andtheirphysicalandpsychologicalcondition.Basedontheseconsiderations,wehavedeterminedthatwhenthetrialcourtreconsideredMr._Anderton_s_spousal_ԀsupportobligationinOctober1996,itshouldhavedirectedMr._Anderton_ԀtopayMs._Anderton_Ԁrehabilitative_spousal_supportintheamountof$3,000permonthfortenyears.Inadditiontobeingprospective,therevisedamountofMr._Anderton_s_spousal_Ԁsupportobligationshouldrelateback,forthepurposeofcalculatinganyarrearagethatmighthaveaccrued,toJanuary30,1996whenMr._Anderton_Ԁfiledhispetitiontoreducehis_spousal_Ԁsupportobligationbecauseofthedecreaseinhissalary.Ofcourse,eitherpartymaypetitionthetrialcourtforachangeintheamountofthe_spousal_supportawardanytimebeforeitexpiresofitsownterms.̛̜@ V. @ Mr._Anderton_s401kPlan  Priortomakingitsinitialdecisioninthiscase,thetrialcourtenteredatemporaryrestrainingorderprohibitingMr._Anderton_Ԁfromdisposingof,concealing,transferring,orinanywaydestroyinganyofhispersonalassets,includinghis401kplan.Afterthiscourtremandedthecaseforfurtherconsideration,thetrialcourtdeclinedtorescindtherestrainingordereventhoughithadawardedtheretirementplantoMr._Anderton_Ԁaspartofthedivisionofthemaritalproperty.Wefindthatthetrialcourtsrefusalofvacateitsrestrainingorderwasinerror.Accordingly,onremandthetrialcourtshouldliftitsrestrainingorderwithregardtothepropertyawardedtoMr._Anderton_Ԁaspartofthedivisionofthemaritalproperty.@ VI.  Insummary,wevacatethetrialcourtschildsupportand_spousal_ԀsupportawardsandremandthemtothetrialcourtforthepurposeofcalculatingMr._Anderton_sobligationsinaccordancewiththechildsupportguidelinesandwiththisopinion.Thetrialcourtshouldalsorecalculatethe_arrearages_ԀforMr._Anderton_schildsupportand_spousal_ԀsupportandshouldenterajudgmentinMs._Anderton_sfavorfortheserevised_arrearages_Ԁwhichprovidesforperiodicpaymentsofanybalancesthatmaybeowed.WetaxthecostsofthisappealinequalproportionstoWilliamMichael_Anderton_ԀandhissuretyandtoEvelynAdeleMorgan_Anderton_Ԁforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ______________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̜CONCUR:̜__________________________________̜HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION̜__________________________________̜BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE