WPC |b8lh S|Wk & s1)<1 S eT }a< ՋmY\ ";[o@ⅈUCÌ=lJmS^Y"kK%aiMa-!|ͣS%]5iZ-H L_B4ʌnKF#` ]2W7oK|']Dcۆݭ ,*ZOiR[T]>.gpl&́3F cAmű=B(5^%q];o_Z6óc绍ddjY~ilqBc;':+ ff1UO~`4 Sy4} 2Q`2$MSwb54Dvw`Q!=bW/U)Zp[+G˼&B?K6C*Y&1j bb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   v< 0DN   Eb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K$$ ASo 0 0D, Apy_/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularp)/:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4,,,,0  Rz$      1    _Inhisbrief,HusbanddoesnottakeissuewiththetrialcourtsdecisiontoburdenhimwiththeWashington  Mutualdebt.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  - -(|G2z$ !.8^dd8         0   d(|3?$ !.8^dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$ !.8^dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8^dd8     _  ^8qXXdd8  @ _L^INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#^_L #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsJuly18,2003 L XqX^ #^XXq#JEANETTESUEBROOKSv.CHARLESVIRGILBROOKSXqX^  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Sevier_ԀCounty  J @@No.20010767IBenW.Hooper,II,Judge  6 FiledOctober31,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200202458_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisadivorcecase.ThetrialcourtgrantedJeanetteSueBrooks( Wife)adivorcefromCharles x  VirgilBrooks( Husband),dividedthepartiesmaritalpropertyanddebts,andawardedalimony d toWifeintheamountof$150permonth.Husbandappealstheawardofalimonyandthedivision P ofthepartiesdebts.Weaffirm. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt d Affirmed;CaseRemanded  P   #^Xq{#XqX.^CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks#^XXqw#XqX^and ( #^XXq#XqX^D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined.#^XXq~#XqX^  DavidB.Hill,Newport,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CharlesVirgilBrooks.  JamesW._Greenlee_,_Sevierville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JeanetteSueBrooks. t H OPINION #^XXq #XqX^ L  #^XXq #XqX^    I.#^XXq #XqX^ $"t!    HusbandandWifewereoriginallymarriedin1971.OnJuly8,1993,theyweregranteda #L# divorce.Despitethis,theycontinuedtolivetogetherwithoutinterruptionandweretogetherwhen $8 $ theyremarriedonNovember12,1998. %$!%   Atthetimeoftheirsecondmarriage,Wifeworkedparttimeforalocalmotel,andHusband '"' hadtwojobs,oneofwhichwaswiththe_Sevier_ԀCountySchoolSystem.Approximatelyoneyear (#( aftertheyremarried,Wifebecamedisabledandwasnolongerabletowork. x  )$)   OnOctober23,2001,Wifefiledfordivorce,alleging,interalia,inappropriatemarital \+&+  conduct.Husbandanswered,admittingthatgroundsfordivorceexisted.Hecoupledhisanswer H,', _withacounterclaimfordivorce,premiseduponseveralgrounds,includinginappropriatemarital  conduct.     ThecasewasheardonMay13,2002.AfinaljudgmentwasenteredJune4,2002,dismissing t HusbandscounterclaimandgrantingWifeadivorceonthegroundsofinappropriatemarital ` conduct.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheonlymaritalpropertyofthepartiesconsistedofroughlya L  quarteracreofrealpropertyinSevierCountyanda1990Pontiacautomobile.Thecourtthen 8  awardedWifeall realestate,separateandmarital,aswellasthePontiacanda1979Fordtruck $ t  which[Husband]apparentlygaveto[Wife].Husbandwasawardedallremainingpersonal  ` propertyandautomobiles;hewasdirectedtopaythedebtoftheparties.Finally,thetrialcourt  L  orderedHusbandtopayWifealimonyinfuturoof$150permonth.  8    Fromthisjudgment,Husbandappeals.   p      x       II.     Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectness p astothetrialcourtsfactualfindings, unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. \ Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarenotaccordedthesamedeference. H  Brumitv.Brumit ,948S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). 4   III.  \   TheissueofalimonyinthiscasecausesustofocusonTenn.CodeAnn.365 4 101(d)(1)(E)(i)(xii)(Supp.2003),whichprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:   8  8`   (i)Therelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancial  resourcesofeachpartyincludingincomefrompension,profitsharing  orretirementplansandallothersources;` x` x 8  8`   (ii)Therelativeeducationandtrainingofeachparty,theabilityand X  opportunityofeachpartytosecuresucheducationandtraining,and D! thenecessityofapartytosecurefurthereducationandtrainingto 0"  improvesuchpartysearningcapacitytoareasonablelevel;#l!` x` x 8  8`   (iii)Thedurationofthemarriage;$D #` x` x 8  8`   (iv)Theageandmentalconditionofeachparty;&"%` x` x 8  8`   (v)Thephysicalconditionofeachparty,including,butnotlimitedto, (#' physicaldisabilityorincapacityduetoachronicdebilitatingdisease;)$(` x` x   |*%) 8  8`   (vi)Theextenttowhichitwouldbeundesirableforapartytoseek   employmentoutsidethehomebecausesuchpartywillbecustodian  ofaminorchildofthemarriage;` x` x 8  8`   (vii)Theseparateassetsofeachparty,bothrealandpersonal, ` tangibleandintangible;L ` x` x 8  8`   (viii)Theprovisionsmadewithregardtothemaritalpropertyas $ t definedin364121; `` x` x 8  8`   (ix)Thestandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthe  8  marriage;$ ` x` x 8  8`   (x)Theextenttowhicheachpartyhasmadesuchtangibleand   intangiblecontributionstothemarriageasmonetaryandhomemaker   contributions,andtangibleandintangiblecontributionsbyapartyto   theeducation,trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;p` x` x 8  8`   (xi)Therelativefaultofthepartiesincaseswherethecourt,inits H discretion,deemsitappropriatetodoso;and4` x` x 8  8`   (xii)Suchotherfactors,includingthetaxconsequencestoeachparty,  \ asarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.H` x` x   IV.   !  HusbandfirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredinawardingalimonytoWife basedonthe  durationoftheparties[]presentmarriageandthedurationofapreviousmarriageoftheparties.    #  Indeterminingthepropriety,nature,andamountofanalimonyaward,courtsaretoconsider l thestatutoryfactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(E)(i)(xii). [T]hereisno X  absoluteformulafordeterminingtheamountofalimony. Aaronv.Aaron ,909S.W.2d408,410 D! (Tenn.1995).Thetwomostimportantfactorsinsettingtheamountofanalimonyawardareneed 0"  andtheabilitytopay,withneedbeing thesinglemostimportantfactor. Id. ,quoting Cranfordv. #l! Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Becausetheamountofalimonytobeawarded $X" iswithinthetrialcourtssounddiscretioninviewoftheparticularcircumstancesofthecase, $D # appellatecourtswillnotaltersuchawardsabsentanabuseofdiscretion. Lindseyv.Lindsey ,976 %0!$ S.W.2d175,180(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). &"%   Initsfinaljudgment,thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindingswithrespecttoalimony: (#' 8  8`   Thisisacaseforsupportof[Wife]onalongtermbasis,becauseof |*%) herpoorhealthanddisability,theoveralldurationoftherelationship h+&* ofover31years,fiveofwhichwerewhiledivorced,butthey  continuedtolivetogetherduringthistime.TheCourthasconsidered  therelativefaultoftheparties,becauseitisfelttobeappropriateto  dosointhiscaseunderallthefactsandcircumstances.t` x` x   Husbandassertsthatthetrialcourtimproperlyconsideredtheentirelengthoftheparties L  relationship,which,sotheargumentgoes,isinoppositiontothisCourtsfindingin Flanaganv. 8  Flanagan ,656S.W.2d1(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).In Flanagan ,weheldthatanawardofalimony $ t isdependentonlyuponthecircumstancesofthepresentmarriage,andthatpreviousmarriages  ` cannotbetakenintoconsideration. Id. at3.However, Flanagan isdistinguishablefromthecase  L  atbarinthatthepartiesinthatcasedidnotcontinuetolivetogetherfollowingtheirinitialdivorce.  8  Indeed,theFlanagansweremarriedatotalofthreetimes,andMrs.Flanaganwasmarriedto $  someoneelseinbetweenhersecondandthirdmarriagestoMr.Flanagan. Id. at1.Bycontrast,the   recordintheinstantcasereflectsthatHusbandandWifelivedtogetherbothinandoutofmarriage   continuouslyforsome31years.Moreover,thetrialcourtstatedthatitwasconsidering theoverall   durationoftherelationshipoftheparties,ratherthantheperiodsoftheirtwomarriages.(Emphasis   added).Thislongrelationshiptogetherisanappropriatefactortobeconsideredinthiscasein p weighing theequitiesbetweentheparties,ascontemplatedbyTenn.CodeAnn.365 \ 101(d)(1)(E)(xii).Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsconsiderationofthefactthattheseparties H livedtogetherforsome31years. 4   Withrespecttotheproprietyofthealimonyaward,wearemindfulofthetwocriticalfactors  \ !needandabilitytopay.See Aaron ,909S.W.2dat410.Ourreviewoftherecordindicatesthat H Wifeearns$309permonthinSocialSecuritybenefits,whileHusbandsnetmonthlyincomeis 4 $1598.AsthetrialcourtorderedHusbandtopaythemonthlymortgagepaymentof$430onWifes   residence,aswellas$150inalimony,Wifewillhavetheuseorbenefitof$889permonth.Ofthat   $889,$459isspendableincometobeusedforutilitiesandhouseholdexpenses,clothing,  transportation,andherotherexpenses.Subtractingthe$430mortgagepaymentandthe$150  alimonypayment,Husbandwillhavetheuseof$1018permonth.BaseduponWifesneedand  Husbandsabilitytopay,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninmakingthis l award. X     `     h       V. 0"  5  Husbandnextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinassigningtohimfullresponsibilityforthe $X" partiesdebt,assomeofthedebtwasseparate,ratherthanmarital,debt.Wedisagreewith $D # Husbandspositiononthismatter. %0!$   Maritaldebtissubjecttoequitabledivisioninthesamemannerasmaritalproperty.See '#&  Cutsingerv.Cutsinger ,917S.W.2d238,243(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); Mondelliv.Howard ,780 (#' S.W.2d769,773(Tenn.Ct.App.1989). Maritaldebtsarethosedebtsincurredduringthemarriage )$( forthejointbenefitoftheparties,...orthosedirectlytraceabletotheacquisitionofmarital |*%) property. Mondelli ,780S.W.2dat773(citationsomitted).Individingmaritaldebts,courtsshould h+&* considerthefollowingfactors:(1)thedebtspurpose;(2)whichpartyincurredthedebt;(3)which  partybenefittedfromincurringthedebt;and(4)whichpartyisbestabletorepaythedebt. Id.     Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtorderedHusbandtopayallofthepartiesdebt.Thisdebt t includeda$64monthlypaymenttoWashingtonMutual,a$100monthlypaymentonthebankruptcy ` paymentplan,andthe$430monthlymortgagepaymentonWifesresidence,foratotalof$594.We L  construeHusbandsargumenttocontendthatsomeofthisisseparatedebt,andassuch,heshould 8  notberequiredtopayit.However,thereisabsolutelynoindicationintherecordastowhichpart $ t ofthisdebt,ifany,isindeedseparateratherthanmaritaldebt.t?  ` =  WithrespecttotheWashingtonMutualdebt,therecordfailstoestablishtheamountofthe  8  loan,theloansoutstandingbalance,thepurposeoftheloan,orthedateoforiginationoftheloan. $  Weonlyknowthatthemonthlypaymentsare$64.Wifetestifiedattrialthatthepartiesfiledfor   Chapter13bankruptcyonNovember13,1998,whichwasthedayaftertheywereremarried.Other   thantheamountofthemonthlypayments,therecordcontainsnootherinformationonthisChapter   13obligation.Astothemortgagedebt,thepartiesjointlyrefinancedthemortgagein1994 topay   offbillsthathadbeenincurredandtoputwindowsintheresidence.Withoutmoreevidence,we p cannotsaythatthetrialcourterredinclassifyingallofthisdebtasmaritaldebt.Theevidencebefore \ usdoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsimplicitholdingthatallofthedebtwasmaritalin H nature. 4   TotheextentthatHusbandisarguingthatthestatementoftheevidenceisdeficient,wenote  \ that,astheappellant,itwashisresponsibilitytofurnishastatementthatwould conveyafair, H accurateandcompleteaccountofwhattranspiredwithrespecttothoseissuesthatarethebasesof 4 appeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(c).Ifevidencewasinfactpresentedtothetrialcourtreflecting   thatsomeportionofthedebtwasseparateinnature,Husbandmusttaketheblameforfurnishinga   recordthatfailstoreflectthis.    Turningtothe Mondelli factors,thepurposeofboththeChapter13obligationandthe  mortgagedebtwastorepayotherdebtsandbillsoftheparties.  #  1      ׀See Mondelli ,780S.W.2dat773. l Inaddition,themortgagedebtwasusedtomakeimprovementstothepartiesresidence.See id.  X  Bothpartiesincurredthedebtandbothpartiesostensiblybenefittedfromthedebt.See id. Finally, D! baseduponthedisparityinthepartiesincome,Husbandisclearlyinabetterpositiontorepaythe 0"  debt.See id. Themonthlydebtpaymentis$594.Wifestotalmonthlyincome,includingalimony, #l! is$459.Husbandreceives$1448permonth,afterdeductionofhis$150alimonypayment.Asthe $X" trialcourtfound, Wifehasabsolutelynowaytopayanydebts.Accordingly,wedonotfindthat $D # theevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsholdingthatitisequitabletorequireHusband %0!$ toberesponsibleforthesedebts. &"%  (#' Ї  VI.   J  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfor  collectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtothe t appellant,CharlesVirgilBrooks. `    `     h     _______________________________ $ t    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE