WPC R9"gOytOtXD/>wfBu6#1uH7pjK"qy[u2veS>$:r#K>wCĽu5bERZ?ҋs H~%0xRy@6ҋ;#vO%.Eѳphiwȡh(O@ټN3kI6*)sI|дfACk2"YϮ!5*SӱD<7r9U3 AuOtA\걁{ tELrb4>F}|n~6}$wQ WIɺv 'b8;h^gMW_{':˨P]L"_FBC!pi G'֟2wSco^(paU ,eFFm JT{p~lYz#ֻRsnl;Q'sOs "`>-V Ac|7b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz  n 4 0DNEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS5 0N 0D A6\\IB27S11T\stats1,,,,0dh>-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular$w%-:i+00 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.wpt3|xU  R$      1  XX  _Husbandcites_Crabtree_Ԁv._Crabtree_,16S.W.3d356(Tenn.2000),wheretheCourtheldthat  awardsofrehabilitativeandinfuturoalimonyareinconsistent.Inthiscase,however,therewasno  awardofinfuturoalimony.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   - -(|G2$ !.8Ndd8         0  XX d(|3G$ !.8Ndd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Ndd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Pdd8     __P8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @ SubmittedonBriefs,August20,2002 $ XXP #PXX#  PHILLIPRAY_BURDETT_Ԁv.KATHY_ARWOOD_Ԁ_BURDETT_XXP  " @S S  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMonroeCounty  " @ No.V00088PHon.Lawrence_Puckett_,CircuitJudge     FILEDSEPTEMBER27,2002    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200201071_COA_ԄR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   Inthisdivorceaction,theissueiswhetherthedivisionofmaritalpropertybytheTrialCourtis < equitable.Weaffirm.   (x #PXX#XXP Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  P HerschelPickensFranks#PX #XX.P,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich#PX#XX.PCharlesD.Susano, ( Jr.,J.,andD.Michael_Swiney_,#PXL#XX.PԀJ.,joined.  KevinW.Shepherd,_Maryville_,Tennessee,forAppellant,PhillipRay_Burdett_.  J.ReedDixon,_Sweetwater_,Tennessee,forAppellee,Kathy_Arwood_Ԁ_Burdett_. t @& OPINION #PXX#XXPԀ $ t    ` Inthisdivorceaction,thesoleissueonappealasframedbythehusbandis: Whether "<" theinequitabledivisionofpropertybytheTrialJudgewasjustified,basedupontheTrialCourts #(# findingthattheinequitabledivisionwhichfavoredthewifewouldbedeemedatypeofalimony. $ $    ` Inthisregard,theTrialCourtintheDivorceDecree,aftermakingadivisionofthe &!& maritalassets,held: '"' 0  0` (#(#BasedupontheCourtsevaluationofassets,thevalueoftheassets,theplaintiffis `)$) toreceiveapproximately$44,000.00morethanthevalueofthepropertyawardedto L*%* thedefendant.ThefindingsoftheCourtisbasedonTenn.CodeAnn.364121and 8+&+ isanunequalbutequitabledivision,basedonthedifferenceinincomeandearning $,t', capacityofthepartiesandfurther,asalimonyin_solido_.#-`(-` (#` (# #_ԇ   ` Thepartiesweredivorcedaftera30yearmarriage.Thehusbandworkedforthe  railroadduringmostofthemarriage,andatthetimeofthedivorcewasearningapproximately  $58,000.00/$60,000.00peryeargross.Healsohadaretirementbenefitandasmallamountofstock.  Thewifemaintainedthehomeandrearedthechildren.Duringthelast31/2yearsofthemarriage, t thewifereturnedtoschoolandearnedanRNdegree.Atthetimeofthedivorceshewasworking ` asanursewithasalaryof$28,000.00peryear.Thepartiesownthemaritalresidenceand18acres, L  valuedat$145,000.00. 8     ` Aftertakingintoaccountthemaritaldebtandworkerscompensationbenefit  ` distributiontothehusband,thenetawardtothewifewas$172,832.00,andthenetawardtothe  L  husbandwas$147,330.00.  8     ` Ourreviewofatrialcourtsfindingoffactisdenovowithapresumptionof   correctness,unlessthepreponderanceofevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.Rule13(d).   Kinardv.Kinard,986S.W.2d220,227(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Trialcourtshavewidediscretion   inmakingawardsofalimonyandthedivisionofmaritalproperty,andwearedisinclinedtosecond   guesssuchdeterminationsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.Wilsonv. p Moore,929S.W.2d367,375(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).ThehusbandessentiallyarguesthattheTrial \ Courtdidnotdecidethecaseinthemannerhepreferred,butdoesnotpointoutanerroroflawor H fact.  #  1      ׀TheissuethusbecomeswhethertheTrialCourtabuseditsdiscretion.Thegravamenofthe 4 husbandsargumentfocusesupontheawardofthemaritalresidenceandacreagetothewife.He  p insiststhatheshouldbepermittedtobuyherout,orthepropertybesoldandtheproceedssplit,or  \ thepropertybedividedbetweenthem.Attheoutsetweobserveditissettledthatthedivisionofthe H maritalestateisnotrenderedinequitablesimplybecauseitisnotpreciselyequal.Manisv.Manis, 4 49S.W.3d295,306(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Itisalsosettledthatitistheoverallfinalresultby   whichthefairnessofthedivisionistobejudged;notsinglingoutoneitemofpropertyinisolation.   Wrightv.Quillen,909S.W.2d804,811(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Wattersv.Watters,959S.W.2d585,  591(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).     ` Awardingthemaritalresidenceandacreagetothewifeissupportedbytheevidence. l TheCourtidentifiedandappliedthepertinentstatutoryfactors,thelengthofthemarriage,thewifes X  contributionasahomemakerandparent,andherabsencefromtheworkforceformanyyears. D! Comparedtothehusbandshehaslimitedretirementbenefitsandapproximatelyhalfofhisearning 0"  capacity. #l!    ` Thehusbandarguesthewifewasawardedrehabilitativealimony,butdidnotprove $D # theneed.However,thedecreespecificallycharacterizestheamountoveranequaldistributionas %0!$ alimonyinsolido.Oneappropriatepurposeofinsolidoawardsmaybetoadjustthedistributionof &"% thepartiesmaritalproperty.Burlewv.Burlew,40S.W.3d465,471(Tenn.2001).Anotherpurpose '#& ofspousalsupportistoaidtheeconomicallydisadvantagedspouseinbecomingandremainingself  sufficient,andtomitigatetheharshrealitiesofdivorce.Anunequaldivisionofassetsstrikesa  balancetoequalizetheeconomicpositionsoftheparties.SeeAndertonv.Anderton,988S.W.2d  675,682(Tenn.Ct.App.1998). t    ` ItwasappropriateandtheevidencesupportstheTrialJudgesdeterminationtomake L  anequaldistributionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyandinawardingthehomeandacreagetothe 8  wife,treattheexcessoveronehalfasalimonyinsolido. $ t    ` WeaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,withthecostoftheappeal  L  assessedtoPhillipRayBurdett.  8  #PXX #XXP   `     h     _________________________ p    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. \