WPCd Xf$f/]D\8.]!t VEb-/$n|ư'[hӖ(1`ogϷ96yvBYftgvcXAqBgġ2K{{EjvK+*m`'@e31لDWF̣*fF7 h1߱aFwghnn[ORRhIFnɲL͓.$37lvUس+'QqTbs;l5I9&k A^S[cW&54oo,7قbMZcB 3ಙ*[z]Th 2ܬe|*:~ 9q2M|ףj˂hyRj{q%:lf/M%`m&z˒>6ҳD! $gZc"oe]YqQBœt_66h 5wU_p % ^ & 02U&Nw 4  z/  { m} # o] X 0 DN( 0U* 0 Eb! 0d! 0)" 0" 0# 0T$ 0% 0% 0I& 0' 0' 0( 0?) 0) 0* 0"+ 0+ 0D, 0- 0- 0. 0./ 0/ 0p0b1 01 01 0,2 02 03 0>Z4 04 05 0r6 0T7 068 09 09 0: 02; 0; 0:< 0Y< 0_G= 0 = 0> 02@ B*8B D/bB 0B D/D 0D 06E 0E 0:F 0^ G 0<jG 1eGU6 HU>AH 0 H 0NjIU*I[I B=K9ZK 0L D57M D-lM 0KMM ASPP 0Q 0DHR AR7SVVYYYY=\ &cc  d d 1u2d 72d}1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1b014c23|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0 e RC$      3  M  _Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(E)setsforththefollowingfactorsforatrialcourttoweighinawarding  alimony: t QM  8 ` Indeterminingwhetherthegrantingofanorderforpaymentofsupportand L maintenancetoapartyisappropriate,andindeterminingthenature,amount,length  ofterm,andmannerofpayment,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactors,  including:H ` x` x #MQ#  8 ` (_i_)Therelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancialresourcesofeach  \ partyincludingincomefrompension,profitsharingorretirementplansandallother   sources;  ` x` x   8 ` (ii)Therelativeeducationandtrainingofeachparty,theabilityandopportunityof X   eachpartytosecuresucheducationandtraining,andthenecessityofapartyto  l  securefurthereducationandtrainingtoimprovesuchparty'searningcapacitytoa  0  reasonablelevel; ` x` x   8 ` (iii)Thedurationofthemarriage;h ` x` x   8 ` (iv)Theageandmentalconditionofeachparty;,| ` x` x   8 ` (v)Thephysicalconditionofeachparty,including,butnotlimitedto,physical @  disabilityorincapacityduetoachronicdebilitatingdisease; ` x` x   8 ` (vi)Theextenttowhichitwouldbeundesirableforapartytoseekemployment x  outsidethehomebecausesuchpartywillbecustodianofaminorchildofthe < marriage;P` x` x QM  8 ` (vii)Theseparateassetsofeachparty,bothrealandpersonal,tangibleand  intangible;` x` x #MQ%#QM  8 ` (viii)Theprovisionsmadewithregardtothemaritalpropertyasdefinedin#MQ #QMԀ#MQ턲 #QM364 L 121#MQ #QM;`` x` x #MQT #QM  8 ` (ix)Thestandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage;$` x` x #MQ턶 #% j %jz QM  8 ` (x)Theextenttowhicheachpartyhasmadesuchtangibleandintangible  contributionstothemarriageasmonetaryandhomemakercontributions,and \ tangibleandintangiblecontributionsbyapartytotheeducation,trainingor  p increasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;4` x` x #MQ턘 #QM  8 ` (xi)Therelativefaultofthepartiesincaseswherethecourt,initsdiscretion,deems  itappropriatetodoso;and l % l #MQ[ #%l2QM(xii)Suchotherfactors,includingthetaxconsequencestoeachparty,asare 0  necessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties. D! #MQs#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h - -()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SQ\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dE)1dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SQ\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  E)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman(|G2C$ !.8H dd8         0  M(O$%2A`Arial Q RC$      4  M  _Husbandalsoclaimsthatthereasonablenessofthefeeswasnotestablishedatthedivorcehearing.Sincewe  donothavethattranscript,wearenotinapositiontoevaluatethisargument. d / RC$      5  M  _Forexample,thecourtreferencedthefactthatWifesattorneyfiled400interrogatoriesthatwerelimitedby  thecourtto25withreasonablesubparts.(|3m$ !.8H dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1    RC$      6  M  _Again,wecannotsaywithspecificitywhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsassessment  ofhowthemaritalestatewasdividedattheconclusionofthedivorcetrialsincethatrecordwasnotmadeapartofthe t recordonthisappeal.Therefore,wewilldefertothetrialcourtscharacterizationofthedivisionofpropertyas almost 8 equal. SeePrescottv.Prescott ,1990WL8626,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filedFebruary7,1990).^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3m$ !.8H dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  RC$      8  M  _Thetrialcourtalsonotedthatindividingthepartiesassets,itconsideredthatanawardoffeeswouldbemade.  ЀItappearsfromthetranscriptofthefeehearingonremandthatWifeispresentlylivinginthemaritalhomeandwill t remainthereuntiltheiryoungestchildreachestheageof18.Atthatpointintime,thehousewillbesoldandthe 8 proceedsdividedbetweentheparties.Aswedonothavetherecordofthedivorcetrialorthecourtsjudgmentof L divorce,however,wecannotreviewthedetailsofthedivisionofproperty.Therefore,wedefertothetrialcourts  statementswithrespecttothedivisionofproperty.    RC$      1  M  _Therecordonappealpertainssolelytothehearingonremand.Itincludespapersthatwerefiledafterwe  remandedthiscase,thetranscriptoftheSeptember30,2002,hearingfollowingremand,andtheexhibitsenteredatthat t hearing.Neitherparty,however,hasmovedtosupplementthatrecordwithanyportionofthe technicalrecordfrom 8 theoriginaldivorceactionorthetranscriptofthedivorcetrial.Therefore,outofnecessity,wearelimitedtothatwhich L hasbeencertifiedtousbythetrialcourtclerk.  RC$      2  M  _Atthebeginningofthehearingfollowingremand,thetrialcourtconductedvoirdireofMr._Kershaw_Ԁto  determineifhewasqualifiedtobeanexpertwitnessinthiscase.Thetrialcourtqualifiedhimandsubsequently t permittedhimtoremaininthecourtroomduringWifestestimonysohemightcommentontheamounttypicallycharged 8 inadivorcecase,andtheamountofworktypicallyperformedinsuchacase.  RC$      7  M  _The Acknowledgmentof[WifesAttorney],inwhichWifesattorneyacknowledgedthatthetimeindicated  intheattachedbillwasactuallyexpendedonthismatter,wasfiledwithWifesmotionforfeesfollowingthedivorce t trial.However,theacknowledgmentwasnotresubmittedasanexhibitatthehearing.Despitethefactitwasnotmade 8 anexhibit,thetrialcourt,initsorder,indicatedthat [t]heMotioncontainedtheacknowledgmentof[Wifesattorney] L thatherattachedfeestatementwastimeactuallyspentbyheronbehalfofthe[Wife].HusbandarguesthatWifes  failuretoresubmitthisdocumentpreventedhimfromrespondingtoitandconductingcrossexaminationbaseduponit.  However,thereisnoevidenceinthisrecordthatHusbandeveraskedthecourttopermithimtocrossexamineWifes H  attorneywithrespecttoherchargedfees.Hadhemadesucharequest,hewouldhavebeenentitledtoasktheattorney  \ questionspertainingtoherworkandthereasonablenessofhercharges.Infact,inouropinionremandingthiscasefor   ahearing,weindicatedthatweweredoingsotoallowHusbandanopportunitytocrossexamineanywitnessescalled    byWife,includingherattorney. SeeBell ,2001WL1627612,at*3.Wifehasbeenrepresentedbythesameattorney X   throughoutthismatter.Whileitisclearthatmaterialfiledbytheattorneywasconsideredbythecourt,suchwasnot  n  errorwhennoobjectionwasmadebyHusbandatthehearingandwherehedidnotseektocompeltheoraltestimony  2  oftheattorney.SP;694b00008b241SDU_253#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ni) !.8H dd8     _  H 8XXdd8  @ JH INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#H J #Ԉ &   May11,2004Session L XXH  #H XX#ELLEN_HOPSON_ԀBELLv.WILLIAMHALLBELLXXH   J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforGreeneCounty  J @@No.00CV469JeanA.Stanley,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200202762_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDNOVEMBER29,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThematternowbeforeusfindsitsgenesisinadivorceactionbroughtbyEllen_Hopson_ԀBell( Wife) x  againstherhusband,WilliamHallBell( Husband).Inhercomplaintfordivorce,Wifesought, d interalia,reasonableattorneysfees.Sherenewedherrequestforfeesattheconclusionofthe P divorcetrial.Withoutconductingahearing,thetrialcourtorderedHusbandtopayWife$5,000, < representingonehalfofherreasonablelegalexpensesincurredinthedivorce.Husbandappealed. (x Wesubsequentlyvacatedthetrialcourtsjudgment,remandingthemattertothetrialcourtfora d hearingontheissueofWifesentitlementtoafeeaward.Thetrialcourtconductedahearingand P subsequentlyorderedHusbandtopayWife$5,250asanallowanceonherlegalexpenses.Husband < appeals.WeaffirmandholdthatWifeisentitledtoherfeesandexpensesincurredonappeal. (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt  Affirmed;CaseRemanded.     #H X݉#XX.H CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,_P.J._, t andWilliamH._Inman_,_Sr.J._,joined. ` WilliamH.Bell,appellant,_Greeneville_,Tennessee,ProSe. 8!  SandraLee_Stanbery_ԄFoster,_Greeneville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Ellen_Hopson_ԀBell. #`"   OPINION #H XX #XXH  $8 $ I. &"& #H XX #  XXH   In Bellv.Bell ,No.E200101348_COA_ԄR3CV,2001WL1627612,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App. (#( _E.S._,filedDecember19,2001),wevacatedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtawardingfeestoWifeand )$) remandedthiscaseforahearingto determine,basedonproperlysubmittedevidence,whether,and p*%*  towhatextent,anawardofattorneysfeesisappropriateinthiscase.Inaccordancewithour \+&+ _remand,thetrialcourtconductedahearing.c #  1      ׀Atthetimeofthehearing,Wifeclaimed$13,200in   attorneysfees.    Wifewasthesolewitnesstotestifyinsupportofherrequestforfees.Shetestifiedtothe t following:herwrittenagreementwithherattorneyreflectingthatWifewouldberesponsibleforthe ` costofherrepresentation;heroriginalunderstandingwithhercounselthatWifewouldpayaretainer L  of$1,000forthefirst10hoursofwork,thetimeanticipatedtobenecessarytoresolvethedivorce; 8  whattranspiredduringthependencyofthedivorceproceeding;andWifesownassetsandexpenses. $ t AlthoughWifetestifiedthatshebelievedthebillingshereceivedfromherattorneytobea fair  ` representationof...thetimethat[herattorney]expendedonthetrial,therewasnoadditional  L  evidenceprofferedastothereasonablenessofthechargedfees.Basedonthefactthattherewasno  8  suchevidencepresented,HusbandsoughttodismissWifescaseatthecloseofWifesevidencedue $  toWifes failuretoprovethatthefeesincurredwerereasonable.Afterhearingargumenton   Husbandsmotion,thetrialcourtaddressedWifesattorneyasfollows:     8 ` Frankly...Ithinkitsaprettyclosecall.Ireallythinkthebestthing   foryoutohavedoneistogetonthestandandsaythattheseare p reasonableandnecessaryattorneyfees....Ithinkitsaclosecall.\` x` x Thetrialcourt,however,deniedthemotion.Husbandsdefenseconsistedprimarilyofthetestimony 4 ofEdKershawed #  2      ,aGreenevilleattorney,whowasprofferedasanexpertonthestandardsfor  p litigatingdomesticrelationscasesintheGreenevillearea.Husbandalsotestifiedatthehearing,but  \ histestimonyondirectwaslimitedtostatingthathehimselfhadexpendedatotalof$3,250forhis H representation.Oncrossexamination,Husbanddeniedthathehadpaidlessthanthetruevaluefor 4 hisrepresentation.Thetrialcourt,however,didnotfindthistestimonytobecredible.Infact,the   trialcourtfoundthatitwas obviousthat [Husbandsattorney]intendedtoprovidemuchifnot   allofhislegalserviceto[Husband]forlittleornocharge.    InanorderenteredOctober15,2002,thetrialcourtdecreedthatHusbandwastoreimburse  Wife$5,250inpartialpaymentofherfees.ThetrialcourtfoundthattheamountsoughtbyWife l !$13,220!wasexcessive.Itadjustedthatfiguredownwardby20%.Thecourtfoundthe X  calculatedamountof$10,500tobe areasonableandnecessaryfeeinthiscase,andHusbandwas D! orderedtopayhalfofit. 0"  Ї@)II.    Thesingleissuebeforeusiswhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourts  decisiontoawardWife$5,250infees.Husbandchallengesthejudgmentofthetrialcourtontwo t grounds.First,HusbandcontendsthatWifefailedtopresentadequateproofregardingthe ` reasonablenessofthefeesincurredduringthedivorceproceedings.Second,Husbandcontendsthat L  thetrialcourt,ineffect,awarded,inhiswords, punitivealimonytoWifesinceshehadsufficient 8  fundstodefraythecostofherownrepresentationand,consequently,thatanawardoffeeswasnot $ t appropriate.  `   Insupportofhisdualarguments,Husbandattemptstorelyuponfactsthatarenotbeforeus.  8  Throughouthisbrief,Husbandciteslanguagefromandfrequentlyreferencesdocumentsfiledinthe $  underlyingdivorceactionandthetranscriptfromthedivorceproceedingsofFebruary22and23,   2001.However,noneofthismaterialisincludedintherecordcertifiedtousbythetrialcourtclerk.   Therecordwedohaveconsistsofthepostremandfilingsbythepartiesandthetrialcourtsorders,   thetranscriptofthehearingonfees,andexhibitspertainingtotheissueoffees.Neitherthe   transcriptoftheunderlyingdivorceproceedingsnoranyportionofthe technicalrecordfromthe p divorceactionwerecertifiedasapartoftherecord. Thedutytoseetoitthattherecordonappeal \ containsafair,accurate,andcompleteaccountofwhattranspiredwithrespecttotheissuesbeing H raisedonappealfallssquarelyontheshouldersofthepartiesthemselves,notthecourts. Trusty 4 v.Robinson ,No.M200001590COAR3CV,2001WL96043,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filed  p February6,2001)(citationsomitted).  \   Intheinstantcase,HusbanddidnotundertakethenecessarystepssetforthinTenn.R.App. 4 P.24toseethatpaperspertainingtotheunderlyingdivorceproceedingswerecertifiedtothiscourt   asapartoftherecordonthisappeal.Consequently,ourreviewofthefactualpredicatesfor   Husbandsdualargumentsarelimited.Iftheallegederrorsarenotreflectedintherecordbeforeus,  wecannotconsidertheseargumentsonappeal. Trusty ,2001WL96043,at*4.    Onappeal,Husbandallegestwosetsoferrors:first,thatWifedidnotprofferevidenceasto l thereasonablenessofthefeessoughttobereimbursed,andsecond,thatWifehadadequateassets X  suchthatanawardoffeesisnotappropriate.Wewillexaminetheseissuestotheextentpossible D! giventherecordbeforeus. 0"  @*@vv(III. $X"   Ourreviewofthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsisdenovoupontherecord,accompaniedby %0!$ apresumptionofcorrectness.Thosefindingscannotbedisturbedbyusunlesstheevidence &"% preponderatesagainstthem.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Anawardofattorneysfeesisconsideredan '#& awardofalimony. Gilliamv.Gilliam ,776S.W.2d81,86(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Indetermining (#' whetherafeeawardisappropriate,acourtisdirectedtoconsiderthesamestatutoryfactorsasthose )$( utilizedwhenacourtisfacedwitharequestforgeneralalimony. Houghlandv.Houghland ,844 |*%) S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).ThosefactorsaresetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.365 h+&* 101(d)(1)(E)(Supp.2003)  #  3      .  Generallyspeaking,themostimportantfactorsaretheneedofthe  disadvantagedspouseandtheabilityoftheobligorspousetopay. Wilderv.Wilder ,66S.W.3d892,  894(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(citing Cranfordv.Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)).  Thetrialcourthaswidediscretiontoawardfees,andconsequentlythetrialcourtsjudgmentwill t onlybeinterferedwithifthereisa showingofabuseofdiscretion,wheretheevidence ` preponderatesagainsttheaward,andamanifestinjusticewillbedoneifthe[t]rial[c]ourtsdecision L  isallowedtostand. Id. (citationsomitted).Inlightoftheseprinciples,weturntotheissues 8  presentedbyHusbandsappeal. $ t    L  @ll)IV.    HusbandfirstchallengesthetrialcourtsawardoffeesonthegroundthatWifefailedto  presentanyevidencepertainingtothereasonablenessoftherequestedfees,U #  4      ׀andconsequently, t accordingtoHusband,therewasnoevidenceuponwhichthetrialcourtcouldreasonablyfashion ` suchanaward.HusbandcontendsthatWifefailedtoprofferevidenceinaccordancewiththe L  relevantfactors.SeeTenn.Sup.Ct.R.8.(DR1.5). 8    Wehaveopinedinanearliercasethat  `   8 ` atrialjudgemayfixthefeesoflawyersincausespendingorwhich  8  havebeendeterminedbythecourt,withorwithoutexperttestimony $  oflawyersandwithorwithoutaprimafacieshowingbyplaintiffsof   whatareasonablefeewouldbe. ` x` x  Cainv.Cain ,No.W200300563COAR3CV,2004WL404489,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filed   March3,2004)(quoting WilsonMgmt.Co.v.StarDistribs.Co. ,745S.W.2d870,873(Tenn. p 1988)).However,apartyagainstwhomafeeisrequestedisentitledtoanaskedforhearingonthe \ otherpartysrequest. H   ThetrialcourtreceivedtestimonyfromWife,AttorneyEdKershaw,andHusband,andfound  p thefollowingwithrespecttothetimeinvestedinlitigatingthisaction:(1)thatwhentheoriginal  \ complaintwasfiledin2000,Wifeproposedamaritaldissolutionagreementandmadeseveral H subsequentoffers,noneofwhichwererespondedtountiljustpriortotrialonFebruary22,2001;(2) 4 thatparentingtimeandchildsupportremainedanissueuntilthedayofmediation,whichtookplace   oneweekbeforetrial;(3)thatdespiteWifesearlierrequestsforHusbandsfinancialinformation,   itwasnotprovideduntiltheeveoftrial;(4)thatHusbandneglectedtoretrievecertainitemsawarded  bythetrialcourtinthepropertydivisiondespiteWifesrequeststhathepickthemupfromthe  formermaritalresidence;and(5)thatWifeandherattorneywererequiredtodevoteseveralhours  towhatshouldhavebeen nonissues,suchaswhethercertainbankshareswereseparateormarital l property,whereitwasclear,accordingtothecourt,thattheseshareswereseparateproperty. X  Althoughthetrialcourtfoundthattheamountoftimeexpendedonthiscasewasgreaterthanwould D! normallybeexpectedinadomesticrelationsmatter,mostofitwasreasonableinlightofthese 0"  findingsastotheHusbandsactions.Thecourtalsofelttherewasa personalagendabetweenthe #l! attorneysonbothsides,whichmeantthatmorehoursthanusualwerenecessary.Thecourtalso $X" noted,however,thatsomeofthetimeexpendedwasunreasonablebecauseWifesattorneyexpended $D #  moretimeonthiscasethanitdeserved.W #  5      ׀ %0!$   Wifedidnotprofferanyexperttestimonyastothereasonablenessofthefeesincurred.   Husband,however,didpresentthetestimonyofEdKershaw,anattorneywhohandlesdomestic  relationscasesinGreeneville,inanattempttodemonstratetheunreasonablenessofWifesfees.  Husbandcontendsonappealthatthetrialcourt overlookedMr.Kershawstestimonyastothe t following:thatWifesattorneydidmoreworkthanwhatheorotherattorneyswouldhavedonein ` asimilarcase;thatthemosthehadeverchargedforadivorcewherecustodywasindisputewas L  $10,000;andthatadversarycounselsmethodoflumpingtogetherhertimeonherbillingstatement 8  differsfromhismethod,pursuanttowhichhedelineatesmoreclearlyhowhespendshistime.Inits $ t writtenorder,thetrialcourtacknowledgedthistestimony,butalsogavecredencetootherevidence  ` presentedbywayofMr.Kershawstestimony.Inparticular,thecourtcitedMr.Kershaws  L  complimentarystatementsaboutWifesattorneythatifsheclaimedshehadputthismanyhoursin  8  thiscase,hebelievedher.Thetrialcourtalsonotedthat [Mr.Kershaw]hasalmostnofamiliarity $  withthiscaseoritscontentiousnature,astheonlythinghereviewedwasWifesbillfromher   attorney,andheonlyreceivedthatjustpriortotakingthestand.Also,Mr.Kershawtestifiedthat   althoughhewouldhavedonehisbillingdifferently,hecouldnototherwisefindfaultwiththe   attorneysmethodology.Therewasnotestimonythatthehourlyrateof$100to$125perhourwas   anunreasonableratefortheGreenevillearea;onthecontrary,thepartiesstipulatedthatthe p attorneyshourlyrateswerereasonable. \   Basedontheforegoingevidence,thetrialcourtdeterminedthat 4   8 ` [Wifesattorney]hasexpendedmorehoursonthiscasethanis  \ normal.Thiswascausedlargelyinpartbythefailureandrefusalof H [Husband]andhisattorneytotimelyprovidefinancialinformation 4 andtorespondtoandenterintogoodfaithnegotiations. ` x` x   8 ` Theattorneyspersonalanimositytoeachotherundoubtedlyalso  resultedinanincreasednumberofhours.Forthisreason,theCourt  findsthatthetotalbillof$13,220shouldbereducedby  approximately20%.TheCourtthusfindsthat$10,500isthe l reasonablefeefor[Wifesattorney]sservices.Havingsaidthis,the X  Courtcannotfindthatitisreasonablefor[Wife]topay$10,500while D! [Husband]hasonlypaid$3,250inacasewherethepropertyhasbeen 0"  dividedinanalmostequalfashion\ #  6      ׀andinacasewherethehigher #l! attorneyfeehasmostlyresultedfromtheactsoftheotherparty.$X"` x` x   %0!$ DespiteWifesfailuretoofferevidenceontheissueofthenecessityoftheworkperformedbyher   counsel,itappearstousthatthetrialcourt,baseduponitsfirsthandandintimateknowledgeofthis  contentiouslitigation,relied,atleastinpart,uponthefactthatHusbandsactionsweretheimpetus  behindmuchofthetimeexpendedbyWifesattorney.Consequently,wefindthattheevidencedoes t notpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment.HusbandchallengesWifesclaimthat ` Husbandsactionsincreasedtheamountoftimenecessarytohandlethismatter.Hecontendsthat L  heconcededcustody,agreedtoletWifehavevirtuallyallofthepersonalpropertyexceptsomeitems 8  ofsentimentalvalue,andproposedasettlementagreementpriortotrialwhichWiferejected. $ t However,thereisalsoevidencethatHusbanddelayedprovidinginformationrequiredbylocalrule  ` ofcourt,thathedelayedrespondingtocorrespondencefromWife,andthathecontestedthe  L  classificationofpropertywhenthetrialcourtfoundthatthepropertywasclearlyseparateinnature.  8  TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentthatHusbandsactions $  contributed,atleastinpart,totheexcessivenumberofhoursexpendedbyWifesattorneyin   handlingthiscase.i #  7      ׀   @ll)IV.     HusbandconteststheproprietyofthefeesawardedonthegroundthatWifehadsufficient \ assetstocoverherownlegalexpenses.Aspreviouslyindicated,indeterminingwhethertoaward H feestoWife,thetrialcourtwasrequiredtoconsiderthefactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.365 4 101(d)(1). Houghland ,844S.W.2dat623.Themostimportantfactorsinthetrialcourtsdecision  p aretheneedofthedisadvantagedspouseandtheabilityoftheobligorspousetopay. Wilder ,66  \ S.W.3dat894  .Inlightoftheseprinciples,thetrialcourtarrivedatthefollowingconclusionsin H supportofitsdecisiontoawardfeesof$5,250toWife: 4   8 ` TheCourtunderstandsthatthereareanumberoffactorstobe   consideredindeterminingthegrantofattorneyfeesinacasesuchas  this.Primaryamongstthoseareneedandabilitytopay.Certainly,  [Wife]isnotdestitute.However,herseparatepropertyhasdrastically  decreasedinvalueduetothefluctuationinthestockmarket.She l paysamajorityoftheexpensesforthepartiessonincollege.  Althoughshenetsmoreincomethan[Husband],hisearningcapacity  issuperiortohers.Thisisamarriageofsignificantduration.In  dividingthepartiesassets,theCourtconsideredthatagrantof t attorneyfeesmighthavetobemade.TheCourthasalreadyfoundthe ` faultinthisdivorcetobethatof[Husband].L ` x` x Asdiscussedabove,thetranscriptoftheoriginaldivorceproceedingandthepleadingsintheoriginal $ t divorcecasearenotapartoftherecordonthisappeal.Therefore,wedonothavethebenefitof  ` knowingtheexactdivisionofassets,thehistorypertainingtochildsupportandalimony,andthe  L  courtsreasonsforitsdecreesinthedivorcecase.Basedupontheevidencecontainedintherecord  8  nowbeforeus,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsawardoffees $  toWife.Wifetestifiedthatwhen,onDecember20,2000,shefiledthedisclosuresrequiredbythe   trialcourtslocalrule,herstockinGreeneCountyBankwasvaluedatabout$37,000.Yet,when   Wifecheckedthestocksvalueintheearlypartof2003,thestockwasvaluedatapproximately   $13,000.Wifetestifiedthatshepaidforthebulkofhersonstuitionforcollegebyborrowing   againstherstockandherretirementfund,andconsequentlyshewasabletoobtainapproximately p $41,000inloans.Husbandcontributedapproximately$12,000towardthisexpenseoveraperiod \ oftwoyears.TherecordalsoreflectsthatHusbandsearningcapacitysurpassesthatofWife.Wife H hasahighschooldiplomaandhascompletedapproximatelythreeyearsofcollege;Husbandhas 4 multipledegrees,includingalawdegreeandhepresentlyhasalawpractice.b #  8      ׀  p   Husbandcontendsthatthetrialcourtsawardoffeesconstitutes punitivealimonybecause H Wifehadsufficientassetstocoverherfeesandthereforetheawardissimplypunishmentforhis 4 faultinthedivorce.Thiscourthaspreviouslyrejectedthenotionofpunitivealimony,  definingit   asunneededalimonythatisimposedtopunishaguiltyspouse. Wilder ,66S.W.3dat895(citing    Duncanv.Duncan ,686S.W.2d568(Tenn.Ct.App.1984)).However,wefindthefeesawarded  inthiscasedonotfallundertherubricof punitivealimony.Thisisnotaninstancewherethe  amountawardedhasnorationalrelationshiptothefeesorwherethetrialcourthasdemonstratedan  intenttopunishaspouse.See id .Rather,wefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthe l trialcourtsdecision,andontherecordbeforeus,thereappearstobenoevidencethatthisaward X  ispunitiveinnature. D!   #l! @ll)IV.    Wifeasksforanadditionalawardoffeesforprofessionalservicesrenderedtoheronthis  appealplusherexpenses.Wefindsuchanawardappropriate. t   Onthefirstappealofthiscase,Husbandcomplainedthatthetrialcourthadnotaffordedhim L  ahearingonWifesrequestforfees.Weagreedandremandedforsuchahearing.Followingthe 8  remand,thetrialcourtgaveHusbandahearing.Atthathearing,eachofthepartiespresented $ t evidence.Asfaraswecantell,bothpartiesweregivenafullopportunitytopresentsuchrelevant  ` evidenceastheydeemedappropriate.ThetrialcourtreducedWifesbillfromherattorneyby20%;  L  itthenburdenedHusbandwith50%ofthereducedamount.Thetrialcourtclearlydelineatedits  8  reasonsforfindingthat80%ofWifesfeebillisreasonableanditsfindingthatHusbandshouldpay $  50%ofwhatremainedafterthecourtsreduction.Beingdissatisfiedwiththetrialcourtsholding   !aholdingthatwehavefoundtobecompletelyreasonableinnature!Husbandpursuedasecond   appealprose.This,ofcourse,requiredWifetorespond;butnotbeinganattorney,she,onceagain,   hadtosecuretheservicesofherattorney,todefendherfeeaward.     HavingfoundthatHusbandshouldpayWifesfeesandexpensesforthisappeal,weremand \ forthetrialcourttoholdahearingforthepurposeofdeterminingwhatthosereasonablefeesand H expensesare.See Folkv.Folk ,357S.W.2d828,82829(Tenn.1962). 4 @)V.  \   Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinallrespects.Thiscaseisremandedforahearing 4 todeterminetheamountofthefeesandexpensestowhichWifeisentitledinconnectionwiththis   appealandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappeal   aretaxedtotheappellant,WilliamH.Bell.     `     h     _______________________________ X     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE