ÿWPC‰ fW§“Lø©P3Ǩ²èUì#W‚ h¸õ°xJó{÷V¦fhá†ã'¤1ã‚AC‡cm#šà«Š_ ÃIN8=JY¤­zø¦èÓ)¡$ã#-«Ði…9-¡K7e–Þhÿ%gD•©ÎlfOQÌN`ÏÝ 0ïØó|¹©×#h Á– V(íA‹q¯ ¤xšÇçÐåS¿Îš§ú…ƒ'«‘IæíaxüɼڽÍ)+„ߺ›EP0Õ¾q¢k˶¼a!§7Cñ‘vc•üQa{c`í”M\`eÓ犂ÙS‡P”J?°¨ƒfÍ#Ì[ÝR¸_³­ÿ *µÒµÆl MªÚæBâ›ä)$€˜;vþÎh:Òj^m0-öÜ%®°)C ·~e\ÉM´&}Äh´óbÊ 1BHíÓm¨LùØô>kýÿhû“&ÔM6|„#Z/`Ð…ØxÏ÷M~¥i#‹»Vf¬Mºrírô¾Ž£ßFKü_áž‹ô"þl‹Ïí1œ®Ã*¸HR?Ô¦flÛ÷¼ÿ¿NÝ£eZv.®ü^‚¿èÜK¯3æ£Mî#y‘79zÏéÿÎÖ(/¤ØÍ8..ÍmòN ´ñÏE¼v?Ósa3Y‹ºàêZ² £Ù툉Šib#Á\ % U@# 0ˆc U Në ^ 9 wE zI Òà 4• © ¸ mº ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñEó 0D8E||||||||||||||||||||||||b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0놆†† Bqq 0¤Ž D32 D-e 0K’’ ASÝÆ0 0¤ö 0Dš A«Þ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular,˜L+s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptj5+bk1d¤©3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  ;Ý ƒR]Â$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€is€no€issue€on€appeal€about€the€amount€of€Ms.€Barrettððs€child€support,€and€we€would€point€out€that€herÐ ° Ðobligation€to€pay€child€support€is€an€entirely€separate€question€from€her€right€to€rehabilitative€support.€€When€her€rightÐ tÄ Ðto€rehabilitative€support€ends€at€the€end€of€one€year,€she€will€be€obligated€to€pick€up€the€payments€to€Mr.€Barrett€untilÐ 8ˆ Ðfurther€orders€of€the€court.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2]Â$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòò»»Ô d(|3 N$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 N$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼L »»»ÔÑ8€‘XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼L »»¼L Ôà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î L ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼L »îî +#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€6,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X‘X»¼L ÔÌò òÔ#†¼L »XX‘#ÔJOANNE€THOMPSON€BARRETTòòóó€v.€CHRISTOPHER€LEE€BARRETTòòóóÔ‡X‘X»¼L Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98DR„888€€€€€€Royce€Taylor,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00380„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€divorce€appeal€the€wife€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€awarding€custody€of€the€childrenÐ xÈ  Ðto€the€father,€in€refusing€to€award€her€rehabilitative€alimony,€and€in€the€division€of€the€marital€estate.€Ð d´ ÐWe€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð P  ÐÓØÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ (x ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼L »àX‘–#ÔÔ‡X‘X.¼L ÔBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÐ ì< ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌDavid€Goad,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joanne€Thompson€Barrett.Ð ° ÐÌJohn€H.€Baker€III,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Christopher€Lee€Barrett.Ð ˆØ ÐÓ­ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼L »XX‘Ü#ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼L ÔÐ `° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼L »XX‘Æ#ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼L ÔÓ  ÓÓÓà@¬¬)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓÓà  àThe€parties€married€on€March€9,€1991.€€They€had€two€boys,€who€were€five€and€six€at€the€timeÐ #`" Ðof€the€separation.€€Husband€worked€at€Nissan€in€Smyrna€and€wife€worked€at€several€different€jobsÐ ü#L# Ðduring€the€marriage.€€They€separated€in€the€summer€of€1998.€€In€a€pendente€lite€order€Ms.€BarrettÐ è$8 $ Ðreceived€possession€of€the€marital€home,€custody€of€the€children,€alimony,€and€child€support.€€SheÐ Ô%$!% Ðwas€ordered€to€pay€the€mortgage€on€the€marital€home€and€the€utility€bills.Ð À&"& ÐÌà  àThe€period€between€the€separation€and€the€divorce€proved€to€be€especially€tumultuous€(and,Ð ˜(è#( Ðno€doubt,€perplexing€to€the€trial€judge).€€Ms.€Barrett€accused€Mr.€Barrett€of€striking€and€threateningÐ „)Ô$) Ðher,€of€cursing€her€in€the€presence€of€the€children,€and€of€violating€several€orders€of€protection.€€Mr.Ð p*À%* ÐBarrett€accused€Ms.€Barrett€of€keeping€company€with€a€violent€drug€abuser,€of€wasting€andÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âconcealing€martial€assets,€and€of€making€untrue€charges€against€him.€€The€charges€andÐ H,˜',ý Ðcountercharges€required€many€hearings,€and€some€of€the€issues€may€have€been€unresolved€at€the€timeÐ ° Ðof€the€final€hearing.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€court€declared€the€parties€divorced€without€fault€on€May€17,€1999€and€then€conductedÐ tÄ Ða€series€of€hearings€on€the€merits€of€the€remaining€issues.€€On€January€24,€2000€the€court€entered€itsÐ `° Ðfinal€decree€awarding€primary€custody€of€the€children€to€Mr.€Barrett.€€The€court€also€divided€theÐ L œ Ðmarital€property€and€ordered€Ms.€Barrett€to€pay€child€support€but€suspended€the€payment€for€a€yearÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€lieu€of€requiring€Mr.€Barrett€to€pay€rehabilitative€support.Ð $ t ÐÌà@……)ìàò òII.ˆÐ ü L  Ðà@//$ìàòòChild€Custodyó óˆÐ è 8  ÐóóÌà  àThe€final€decree€does€not€contain€any€findings€of€fact€on€the€factors€the€trial€judge€consideredÐ À  Ðin€awarding€custody€to€Mr.€Barrett.€€In€an€oral€ruling€from€the€bench€the€judge€made€these€limitedÐ ¬ü  Ðfindings:Ô#†¼L »XX‘$ #ÔÔ€X‘X»¼L ÔÐ ˜è  ÐÌà8  àQuite€clearly€theyððre€[sic]€not€any€perfect€parents.€€We€have€two€parents€here,€andÐ pÀ Ðthere€have€been€some€problems€with€both.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à.€.€.Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àI€think€that€the€more€stable€environment,€continuity€ð!ð€that€Mr.€Barrett€needs€to€be€theÐ  \ Ðone€thatððs€involved€primarily€with€these€kids€as€far€as€the€residential€care€of€theseÐ øH Ðchildren.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€think€he€has€been€involved€in€the€past€ð!ð€both€parents€have€been€involved;€but€I€thinkÐ ¼  Ðheððs€ð!ð€that€heððs€in€the€better€position€to€continue€with€the€continuity€and€stabilityÐ ¨ø Ðneeded€of€the€family€unit€with€these€children.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àMs.€Barrett€argues,€therefore,€that€the€decision€comes€to€this€court€without€a€presumption€ofÐ l¼ Ðcorrectness€and€requires€us€to€apply€de€novo€the€relevant€factors€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð X ¨ Ð106€regarding€child€custody.€€But,€we€think€that€argument€overlooks€the€fact€that€the€factors€listedÐ D!” Ðin€the€statute€are€only€aids€in€arriving€at€the€ultimate€fact€of€what€is€in€the€best€interests€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðchildren.€€òòSee€Bah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€An€award€of€custody€withoutÐ #l! Ðmore€contains€an€implicit€finding€that€the€best€interests€of€the€child€will€be€served€by€being€in€theÐ $X" Ðprimary€custody€of€the€parent€to€whom€custody€is€awarded.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔHassÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKnightonÔ_Ôóó,€676€S.W.2d€554Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€1984);€òòÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôóó,€792€S.W.2d€713€(Tenn.€1990).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWe€do,€however,€examine€the€evidence€carefully€to€see€if€it€preponderates€against€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðjudgeððs€award.€€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€many€cases€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€is€not€heavily€weighted€either€way€and€the€cold€record€contains€only€charges€andÐ )à$( Ðâ âcountercharges,€generating€more€heat€than€light.€€In€such€cases,€we€mainly€rely€on€the€trial€judgeððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðassessment€of€the€partiesðð€credibility.€€òòMassengale€v.€Massengaleóó,€915€S.W.2d€818€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ° Ð1995);€òòMimms€v.€Mimmsóó,€780€S.W.2d€739€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àMs.€Barrettððs€testimony€centered€largely€on€Mr.€Barrettððs€temper,€his€abusive€behavior€towardÐ tÄ Ðher,€and€his€overbearing€personality.€€To€some€extent,€a€social€worker€who€worked€with€the€childrenÐ `° Ðand€both€parents€corroborated€the€testimony.€€She€testified€that€the€children€were€anxious€about€theirÐ L œ Ðfatherððs€temper€and€were€concerned€about€their€motherððs€safety.€€But€the€social€worker€did€not€knowÐ 8 ˆ Ðanything€about€any€actual€abuse,€and€there€is€reason€to€doubt€many€of€the€incidents€about€which€Ms.Ð $ t ÐBarrett€raised€€loud€and€frequent€complaints.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Barrett€provided€testimony€about€Ms.€Barrettððs€association€with€an€admitted€drug€abuserÐ è 8  Ðand€her€unsuccessful€attempts€to€deny€the€association.€€Her€insistence€on€continuing€the€relationshipÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€presence€of€the€children€despite€an€injunction€against€it€was€the€subject€of€some€of€theÐ À  Ðpetitions€for€contempt€the€trial€judge€had€to€endure.€€Mr.€Barrett€also€produced€evidence€from€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðan€inference€could€be€drawn€that€Ms.€Barrett€failed€to€ensure€that€the€children€finished€theirÐ ˜è  Ðhomework€and€that€she€was€otherwise€not€actively€involved€in€their€school€work;€that€she€kept€aÐ „Ô  Ðdirty€house;€that€she€didnððt€spare€the€children€when€she€provoked€unnecessary€confrontations€withÐ pÀ ÐMr.€Barrett;€and€that€she€had€little€regard€for€the€orders€of€the€court.€€Dishonesty€reflects€on€theÐ \¬ Ðparentððs€fitness€to€be€a€good€custodian€for€the€children.€€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€634€(Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCt.€App.€1996).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€record€we€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððsÐ  \ Ðcustody€award€to€Mr.€Barrett.Ð øH ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ˆÐ Ð  Ðòòà@ŠŠìàRehabilitative€Supportó óˆÐ ¼  ÐóóÌà  àWhen€parties€divorce,€the€legislature€has€stated€the€public€policy€of€this€state€to€favor€theÐ ”ä Ðpayment€of€ð ðrehabilitative€temporary€support€and€maintenanceðð€to€the€spouse€that€is€ð ðeconomicallyÐ €Ð Ðdisadvantaged,€relative€to€the€other€spouse.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€The€courts€haveÐ l¼ Ðfound€that€the€purpose€of€the€statute€ð ðis€to€provide€a€temporary€income€during€a€period€of€adjustmentÐ X ¨ Ðand€effort€of€the€dependent€spouse€to€become€partially€or€totally€self„sufficient.ðð€€òòLoria€v.€Loriaóó,€952Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€836,€838€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€The€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€awarding€temporaryÐ 0"€  Ðsupport€because€the€decision€is€factually€driven€and€requires€the€balancing€of€the€many€factorsÐ #l! Ðcontained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d).€€òòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,€944€S.W.2d€379€at€387€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCt.€App.€1996).€€Those€factors€include€(among€others)€the€earning€capacity€of€each€party,€the€relativeÐ ô$D # Ðeducation€and€training€of€each€party,€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€age,€mental€and€physicalÐ à%0!$ Ðcondition€of€each€party,€the€separate€assets€and€the€marital€property€awarded€to€each€party.€€Tenn.Ð Ì&"% ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(D)(1)(A)€„€(H).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€judge€found€that€Ms.€Barrett€did€have€a€financial€need€at€the€time€of€theÐ )à$( Ðdivorce;€but€instead€of€ordering€Mr.€Barrett€to€make€payments€to€her,€the€trial€judge€suspended€Ms.Ð |*Ì%) ÐBarrettððs€child€support€payments€($405€per€month)€for€a€period€of€one€year.Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€record€shows€that€Ms.€Barrett€had€embarked€on€a€career€selling€real€estate,€and€she€askedÐ ° Ðthe€court€for€an€unspecified€amount€of€support€for€a€period€of€one€year.€€Obviously,€the€court€foundÐ œì Ðthat€she€had€the€capacity€to€earn€approximately€$18,000€per€year€($405/month€in€child€support€forÐ ˆØ Ðtwo€children)€and€the€trial€judge€specifically€found€that€Ms.€Barrett€had€been€awarded€$19,000€inÐ tÄ Ðmarital€assets.€€In€addition,€Ms.€Barrett€owns€a€home€that€was€her€separate€property€at€the€time€ofÐ `° Ðthe€marriage.€€Though€the€record€does€not€specify€the€amount€of€equity€in€the€home€when€the€partiesÐ L œ Ðmarried,€it€increased€in€value€during€the€marriage,€resulting€in€$15,000€of€marital€equity.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€effect,€the€trial€judge€awarded€Ms.€Barrett€$405€per€month€for€a€period€of€one€year.€€WeÐ  ` Ðcannot€say€that€the€evidence€demonstrates€an€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ü L  Ðò òÌà@dd)ìàIV.ˆÐ Ô$  Ðà@"ìàòòMarital€Propertyó óóóˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àMs.€Barrett€also€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€dividing€the€marital€property.€€HerÐ ˜è  Ðcomplaints€center€on€the€division€of€a€set€of€collectible€figurines,€the€award€of€the€marital€home,€andÐ „Ô  Ðthe€award€of€Mr.€Barrettððs€401k€account.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€parties€had€through€the€years€collected€Department€56€Christmas€Village€figurines.€Ð H˜ ÐDuring€the€separation,€a€dispute€arose€over€whether€Ms.€Barrett€had€taken€some€of€the€pieces.€€It€doesÐ 4„ Ðappear€that€without€making€specific€findings,€the€court€ordered€her€to€return€the€pieces€she€had€takenÐ  p Ðalong€with€the€other€property€taken€from€the€marital€residence.€€Mr.€Barrett€testified€that€he€was€ableÐ  \ Ðto€recover€only€about€one„third€of€the€collection.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€awarded€Mr.€Barrett€the€pieces€he€had€in€his€possession€and€awarded€Ms.Ð Ð  ÐBarrett€the€balance.€€The€court€found€the€value€of€the€collection€to€be€$28,900€and€that€the€part€Ms.Ð ¼  ÐBarrett€retained€was€worth€$20,000.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAlthough€Ms.€Barrett€testified€that€she€had€only€one€piece€of€the€collection,€the€courtÐ €Ð Ðobviously€did€not€believe€her.€€Since€the€resolution€of€this€issue€turns€on€the€credibility€of€theÐ l¼ Ðwitnesses,€the€courtððs€findings€will€not€be€reversed€unless€there€is€clear,€concrete,€and€convincingÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòRice€v.€Riceóó,€983€S.W.2d€680€at€682€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Therefore,Ð D!” Ðwe€affirm€the€courtððs€findings€on€this€issue.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€court€awarded€the€marital€home€to€Mr.€Barrett,€including€its€$34,000€of€marital€equity.€Ð $X" ÐMs.€Barrett€insists€that€the€equity€in€the€marital€home€and€the€marital€equity€in€her€separate€propertyÐ ô$D # Ðshould€have€been€added€together€and€then€divided€equally.€€This€argument€overlooks€the€fact€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðwe€do€not€consider€individual€assets€in€isolation.€€We€are€concerned€with€the€equitable€division€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€entire€marital€estate.€€ð ðAs€a€general€matter,€courts€will€evaluate€the€fairness€of€a€property€divisionÐ ° Ðby€its€final€results.ðð€€òòBookout€v.€Bookoutóó,€954€S.W.2d€730€at€732€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€same€could€be€said€for€the€courtððs€award€of€Mr.€Barrettððs€401k€account.€€The€court€foundÐ tÄ Ðthat€$34,000€of€the€account€was€marital€property€and€awarded€the€whole€amount€to€Mr.€Barrett.€€ButÐ `° ÐMr.€Barrett€was€assigned€a€$63,000€debt€that€the€parties€had€incurred€during€the€marriage.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWhen€all€the€assets€were€added€up€and€the€debts€subtracted€from€the€assets€of€each€party,€Mr.Ð $ t ÐBarrett€received€a€net€of€$25,700€in€marital€property€and€Ms.€Barrett€$19,100.€€The€court€specificallyÐ  ` Ðfound€that€the€division€was€equitable€because€Ms.€Barrett€had€failed€to€pay€certain€debts€she€hadÐ ü L  Ðbeen€ordered€to€pay€pendente€lite€and€Mr.€Barrett€had€been€forced€to€pay€them.€€Upon€our€review€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€record,€we€do€not€think€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððs€division€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðmarital€estate.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€ChanceryÐ ˜è  ÐCourt€for€Rutherford€County€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðappellant,€Joanne€Thompson€Barrett.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.