ÿWPCë 4 %èbî 0(ö8w@V4–UNªø 0x 0D AQà 0J 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n 0ô 1u„ 0dù B] Æz 0D@ 0@„ 0DÄ D/ B7 D3T U>‡ B)Å DCî AM1 U*~ *¨ Ò +ov~švÓX- ù-($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\opn.wpt ø ù Eú Pû Dü ý Pþ Ó€D  ê‚_#(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular3|x (((2¬$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌNovember€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€parties€agreed€on€the€following€values:Ìà àà à1974€Motor€Homeà àà à$4000Ìà àà àTime€Shareà àà àà à$5500Ìà àà à1992€Berettaà àà àà à$7400Ìà àà à1994€Truckà àà àà à$8300Ìà àà àðð€Tractorà àà àà à$2500Ìà àà àFurnitureà àà àà à$3400Ìà àà àà àà àTOTALà à$31,100Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Husband€relies€on€òòò òThompson€v.€Thompsonó óóó,€No.€03A01„9608„PB„00254,€1997€WLÏ9723€(Tenn.€App.€1997)€to€support€her€argument.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€this€case€isÏdistinguishable€from€the€present€case.€€The€husband€in€òòò òThompsonó óóó€owned€a€piece€of€propertyÏupon€which€he€had€begun€to€build€a€house€prior€to€the€marriage.€€After€the€marriage,€the€husbandÏexecuted€a€deed€creating€an€estate€by€the€entirety€between€the€husband€and€the€wife.€€òòò òSeeÏThompsonó óóó,€1997€WL€9723,€at€*1.€€The€parties€completed€the€house€approximately€ten€monthsÏafter€getting€married.€€Within€a€year€of€moving€into€the€house,€the€wife€filed€for€divorce.€€At€theÏhearing,€the€wife€contended€the€deed€constituted€a€gift€to€her€of€one„half€interest€in€the€property€andÏthe€interest€was€her€separate€property.€€The€husband€countered€that€the€deed€had€transformed€hisÏseparate€property€into€marital€property.€€òòò òSee€id.ó óóó€at€*2„3.€€The€òòò òThompsonó óóó€court€concluded€theÏlanguage€of€the€deed€did€nothing€other€than€create€an€estate€by€the€entirety€and€affirmed€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòò òSee€id.ó óóó€at€*3.€€The€court€did€not€address€and€the€parties€did€not€raise€the€transmutationÏissue.€€The€husband€in€òòò òThompsonó óóó,€unlike€Husband,€was€not€arguing€that€the€property€retained€itsÏseparate€nature.€€For€these€reasons€the€decision€in€òòò òThompsonó óóó€is€clearly€distinguishable.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÔ€*¼ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€czXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌFRANKLIN€THOMAS€BURNS,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAPPEAL€NO.Ìà àPETITIONER/APPELLEE,à àà à)à à01„A„01„9705„CH„00218Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àMONTGOMERY›ÌBERNICE€A.€BURNS,à àà àà àà à)à àCHANCERY€œ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœNO.€96„02„0146›Ìœ›à àRESPONDENT/APPELLANT.à àœ)›à à̜ـ!ÙßR€-/,A1-j|"¯` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌÌAT€CLARKSVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ALEX€W.€DARNELL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓCHRISTINE€E.€ZELLARÌ218€South€Second€Street,€Suite€AÌClarksville,€Tennessee€37040Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLANTÌÌEDWARD€ROBERTSONÌPO€Box€871ÌClarksville,€Tennessee€37041„0871Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€JUDGEÌòòòòÓ  ÓÔ€*„ÔOpinionóóóóÌÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÔ€*¼ÔÌÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€respondent/appellant,€Bernice€A.€Burns€(ð ðWifeðð),Ïfrom€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€Wife€and€petitioner/appellee,€FranklinÏThomas€Burns€(ð ðHusbandðð),€a€divorce,€dividing€the€marital€property,€andÏgranting€temporary€alimony.€€Wife€complains€the€court€erred€when€it€divided€theÏpartiesðð€property€and€awarded€Wife€$400.00€alimony€per€month€for€six€months.€ÏThe€facts€out€of€which€this€matter€arose€are€as€follows.€ÌÌà àWife€and€Husband€married€on€December€31,€1992.€€Prior€to€the€marriage,ÏHusband€owned€a€motorcycle,€acreage€in€Arkansas€with€a€rental€house,€twenty„eight€acres€in€Clarksville€with€a€trailer,€and€twenty„two€head€of€cattle.€€HusbandÏalso€had€money€from€VA€educational€benefits.€€After€the€marriage,€the€partiesÏpurchased€a€Yamaha€four„wheeler.€€In€order€to€purchase€the€four„wheeler,ÏHusband€traded€in€the€motorcycle€and€contributed€$2,700.00€from€his€VAÏeducational€benefits.€€Husband€had€made€payments€on€the€Arkansas€propertyÏmortgage€for€nine€years€prior€to€the€marriage.€€He€paid€off€the€mortgageÏbalance,€approximately€$2,000.00,€during€the€first€year€of€the€marriage.€ÏHusband€made€the€payments€with€the€rental€income€received€from€his€tenants.€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€Wife€brought€any€property€into€the€marriage.ÌÌà àThe€parties€also€acquired€several€items€during€the€marriage.€€TheyÏpurchased€a€used€International€464€Tractor€for€$6,000.00.€€Husband€claimed€heÏpaid€for€half€of€the€tractor€with€pre„marital€funds.€€The€parties€also€purchased€aÏ1974€Dodge€motor€home,€a€time€share€in€the€Smokey€Mountains,€a€1992ÏChevrolet€Beretta,€a€1994€Chevrolet€C„1500€truck,€and€various€furnishings.ÌÌà àDoctors€diagnosed€Husband€with€cancer€during€the€marriage.€€HusbandÏsold€the€Arkansas€property€while€undergoing€treatment.€€Husband€realizedÏ$30,000.00€from€the€sale€of€the€property€and€reinvested€the€money€into€aÏcertificate€of€deposit.€€He€designated€the€account€as€payable€on€death€and€listedÏWife€as€the€beneficiary.€€He€also€listed€Wife€as€a€joint€member€on€the€CD.€ÏHusband€purchased€the€CD€because€he€wanted€Wife€to€have€the€proceeds€if€heÏdied.€€Wife€also€had€health€problems.€€She€has€had€Chrons€disease€since€she€wasÏtwenty„five,€but€her€condition€was€treatable€and€not€serious€at€the€time€of€theÏfinal€decree.ÌÌà àThe€record€contains€little€evidence€of€Wifeððs€employment€history€orÏearning€capacity.€€She€testified€she€began€working€as€a€real€estate€agent€in€earlyÏ1996,€but€claimed€she€did€not€have€any€regular€income€because€it€takes€time€toÏget€established.€€Husband€testified€he€paid€$1,254.00€for€her€real€estate€training.ÌÌà àThere€is€more€evidence€of€Husbandððs€earning€capacity.€€Each€monthÏHusband€receives€a€military€retirement€check€in€the€amount€of€$1,535.00€and€aÏVeteranððs€Administration€disability€check€in€the€amount€of€$91.00.€€Husband€alsoÏhas€seasonal€employment€at€Fort€Campbell,€Kentucky€where€he€earns€an€additionÏ$1000.00€a€month€from€mid„April€through€October.ÌÌà àHusband€filed€a€complaint€for€absolute€divorce€on€February€28,€1996.€ÏWife€filed€an€answer€and€counterclaim.€€The€court€filed€an€order€on€SeptemberÏ25,€1996€and€made€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à àThe€parties€were€married€on€December€31,€1992.Ìà8 à2.à àThe€Wife€was€employed€at€the€time€of€the€marriage.€€TheÏHusband€was€retired€military€with€a€seasonal€job.Ìà8 à3.à àThe€Defendant€is€now€a€real€estate€agent€and€has€been€for€theÏyear€1996.Ìà8 à4.à àThere€has€been€no€appreciable€accumulation€of€propertyÏvalues€during€the€marriage.Ìà8 à5.à àThe€parties€did€obtain€during€the€marriage€a€four„wheeler,€aÏused€ractor€[sic],€a€recreational€vehicle,€time€share€interest,€all€ofÏwhich€the€Court€estimated€the€enhanced€value€of€$8,000.Ìà8 à6.à àThe€real€estate€owned€by€the€Plaintiff€was€purchased€beforeÏthe€marriage€and€has€not€sustained€an€appreciable€increase€in€value.€ÏThe€Plaintiff€owned€real€estate€in€Arkansas€and€paid€approximatelyÏ$2,000€in€payments€during€the€marriage€and€has€subsequently€soldÏsaid€property€for€$30,000€and€purchased€a€certificate€of€deposit€inÏboth€parties€names€in€the€amount€of€$30,000.€€The€time€shareÏinterest€that€the€parties€own€was€purchased€for€$8,000€and€has€a€netÏvalue€at€the€present€time€of€$4,000.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓThe€court€then€ordered€Husband€to€pay€Wife€$350.00€as€alimony€pendente€liteÏfor€the€month€of€August€and€reserved€ruling€on€all€other€issues€pending€aÏdetermination€of€Wifeððs€physical€condition.€€On€November€7,€1996,€the€courtÏfiled€an€opinion€in€which€it€held€Wife€was€entitled€to€$400.00€per€month€for€sixÏmonths€to€balance€the€equities€between€the€parties.€€The€court€filed€the€finalÏdecree€of€divorce€on€December€5,€1996.€€The€court€ordered€the€parties€divorcedÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„4„129(B),€awarded€each€partyÏthe€ð ðassets€now€in€his€or€her€possession€or€under€his€or€her€control,ðð€and€awardedÏWife€alimony€of€$400.00€per€month€for€six€months.€€Thereafter,€Wife€filed€aÏtimely€notice€of€appeal.€€There€was€no€court€reporter€present€at€the€hearing€soÏthe€parties€filed€an€agreed€statement€of€the€facts.€€Wife€lists€seven€issues;Ïhowever,€these€can€be€narrowed€to€a€review€of€the€courtððs€division€of€the€maritalÍproperty€and€the€alimony€award.ÌÌò òI.€€Division€of€PropertyÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àA.à àClassification€of€Property€as€Marital€or€SeparateÌÌó óà àTennessee€courts€have€the€authority€to€divide€marital€property,€not€separateÏproperty.€€ò òòòSee€óóó óòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€36„4„121(a)(1)€(1996).€€Thus,€it€is€essentialÏthat€courts€properly€classify€property€before€dividing€it.€€òòò òSee€Batson€v.ÏBatsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€856€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏdefines€marital€and€separate€property€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(b)€For€purposes€of€this€chapter:Ìà8 à(1)(A)€"Marital€property"€means€all€real€and€personal€property,€bothÏtangible€and€intangible,€acquired€by€either€or€both€spouses€during€theÏcourse€of€the€marriage€up€to€the€date€of€the€final€divorce€hearing€andÏowned€by€either€or€both€spouses€as€of€the€date€of€filing€of€aÏcomplaint€for€divorce,€except€in€the€case€of€fraudulent€conveyance€inÏanticipation€of€filing,€and€including€any€property€to€which€a€rightÏwas€acquired€up€to€the€date€of€the€final€divorce€hearing,€and€valuedÏas€of€a€date€as€near€as€reasonably€possible€to€the€final€divorceÏhearing€date.Ìà8 à€€(B)€"Marital€property"€includes€income€from,€and€any€increase€inÏvalue€during€the€marriage€of,€property€determined€to€be€separateÏproperty€in€accordance€with€subdivision€(b)(2)€if€each€partyÏsubstantially€contributed€to€its€preservation€and€appreciation€and€theÏvalue€of€vested€pension,€retirement€or€other€fringe€benefit€rightsÏaccrued€during€the€period€of€the€marriage.Ìà8 à€€(C)€As€used€in€this€subsection,€"substantial€contribution"€mayÏinclude,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€direct€or€indirect€contribution€of€aÏspouse€as€homemaker,€wage€earner,€parent€or€family€financialÏmanager,€together€with€such€other€factors€as€the€court€havingÏjurisdiction€thereof€may€determine.Ìà8 à€€(D)€Property€shall€be€considered€marital€property€as€defined€byÏthis€subsection€for€the€sole€purpose€of€dividing€assets€upon€divorceÏand€for€no€other€purpose;€€andÌà8 à(2)€"Separate€property"€means:Ìà0 à€€(A)€All€real€and€personal€property€owned€by€a€spouse€before€marriage;Ìà0 à€€(B)€Property€acquired€in€exchange€for€property€acquired€before€theÏmarriage;Ìà0 à€€(C)€Income€from€and€appreciation€of€property€owned€by€a€spouse€beforeÏmarriage€except€when€characterized€as€marital€property€under€subdivisionÏ(b)(1);€€andÌà0 à€€(D)€Property€acquired€by€a€spouse€at€any€time€by€gift,€bequest,€devise€orÏdescent.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óò òòòId.óóó ó€ðð36„4„121(b).€€Separate€property,€however,€may€become€marital€propertyÏunder€the€doctrine€of€transmutation.€€This€court€has€defined€the€doctrine€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 à[Transmutation]€occurs€when€separate€property€is€treated€in€such€aÏway€as€to€give€evidence€of€an€intention€that€it€become€maritalÏproperty.€€One€method€of€causing€transmutation€is€to€purchaseÏproperty€with€separate€funds€but€to€take€title€in€joint€tenancy.€€ThisÏmay€also€be€done€by€placing€separate€property€in€the€names€of€bothÏspouses.€€The€rationale€underlying€both€these€doctrines€is€that€dealingÏwith€property€in€these€ways€creates€a€rebuttable€presumption€of€aÏgift€to€the€marital€estate.€€This€presumption€is€based€also€upon€theÏprovision€in€many€marital€property€statutes€that€property€acquiredÏduring€the€marriage€is€presumed€marital.€€The€presumption€can€beÏrebutted€by€evidence€of€circumstances€or€communications€clearlyÏindicating€an€intent€that€the€property€remain€separate.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óòòò òSee€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€858€(quoting€2€òòH.€Clarkóó,€òòThe€Law€of€DomesticÏRelations€in€the€United€Statesóó€ðð16.2,€at€185€(1987)).ÌÌà àThe€parties€do€not€dispute€the€classification€of€most€of€the€property.€€BothÏagreed€the€motor€home,€the€time„share,€the€1992€Beretta,€the€1994€truck,€one„half€the€value€of€the€tractor,€and€the€furniture€were€marital€property.€€Moreover,Ïthe€parties€agreed€the€combined€value€of€these€items€equaled€$31,100.00.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€TheÍparties€also€agreed€the€twenty„eight€acres€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee€and€the€trailerÏwere€Husbandððs€separate€property.€€Therefore,€we€do€not€address€theÏclassification€of€these€items.ÌÌà àà àò ò1.à àCertificate€of€Depositó óÌÌà àThe€highest€valued€contested€item€is€the€certificate€of€deposit.€€WifeÏcontends€the€entire€CD€is€marital€property€under€the€doctrine€of€transmutation.€ÏTo€support€her€argument€Wife€cites€òòò òBarnhill€v.€Barnhilló óóó,€826€S.W.2d€443Ï(Tenn.€App.€1991)€and€òòò òBatson€v.€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849€(Tenn€App.€1988).€ÏHusband€responds€that€he€could€not€have€made€a€gift€of€the€CD€to€the€marriageÏbecause€he€conditioned€the€delivery€on€his€death.ÌÌà àBefore€a€court€can€classify€property€as€marital€property€based€on€theÏtheory€of€transmutation,€the€court€must€find:€1)€the€separate€property€ownerÏperformed€an€act€evidencing€an€intent€to€create€marital€property€and€2)€theÏseparate€property€owner€failed€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€a€gift€to€the€maritalÏestate.€€òòò òSee€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€858.€€The€separate€property€owner€may€rebutÏthe€presumption€by€establishing€that€one€of€the€legal€requirements€of€a€gift€isÏmissing.€€ð ðThe€formal€requirements€of€a€gift€are€the€òòintentionóó€by€the€donor€toÏmake€a€present€gift€coupled€with€the€òòdeliveryóó€of€the€subject€of€the€gift€by€whichÏcomplete€dominion€and€control€of€the€property€is€surrendered€by€the€donor.ðð€Ïòòò òHansel€v.€Hanselóóó ó,€939€S.W.2d€110,€112€(Tenn.€App.€1996)€(emphasis€added).€ÏThus,€a€party€may€establish€there€was€no€intention€to€make€a€present€gift€to€theÍmarriage€by€showing€an€intention€that€the€property€remain€separate.€€òòò òSeeÏBatsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€858.€€In€addition,€the€separate€property€owner€may€rebutÏthe€presumption€by€proving€the€delivery€was€incomplete.ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€Arkansas€property€was€Husbandððs€separateÏproperty€prior€to€the€marriage.€€Moreover,€it€is€undisputed€that€Husband€paid€offÏthe€mortgage€shortly€after€the€marriage€with€income€derived€from€renting€theÏproperty€and€that€Husband€used€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€property€toÏpurchase€the€CD.€€Finally,€it€is€undisputed€that€Husband€purchased€the€CD€andÏlisted€Wife€as€a€joint€member.€€Thus,€Husband€performed€an€act,€buying€the€CDÏin€both€partiesðð€names,€which€triggered€the€presumption€of€transmutation.€€TheÏonly€question€remaining€is€whether€Husband€rebutted€the€presumption€of€a€gift€toÏthe€marital€estate.€€ÌÌà àHusband€contends€he€rebutted€the€presumption€by€proving€that€he€could€notÏhave€intended€to€make€a€gift€to€the€marriage€because€he€conditioned€the€deliveryÏof€the€money€on€his€death€and€a€person€can€not€complete€delivery€of€an€intervivosÏgift€contingent€on€their€death.€€Wife€does€not€dispute€that€Husband€placed€bothÏnames€on€the€CD€because€he€was€afraid€he€might€die€from€cancer,€but€interpretsÏthis€act€differently€than€Husband.€€Wife€argues:€ð ðAppellee€specifically€intended€toÏcreate€a€right€of€survivorship,€showing€an€intent€to€make€a€gift€to€the€marriage.ðð× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌà àBoth€parties€present€interesting€arguments.€€We€address€HusbandððsÏargument€first.€€The€doctrine€of€transmutation€rests€on€the€premise€that€the€donorÏspouse€intended€the€property€become€marital€property,€not€the€donee€spouseððsÏseparate€property.€Wifeððs€conclusion€that€Husband€intended€to€grant€her€a€right€ofÏsurvivorship€and,€therefore,€to€make€a€gift€to€the€marriage€is€flawed.€€To€explain,Ïhad€Husband€given€Wife€a€right€of€survivorship,€he€would€have€given€her€theÏgift,€not€the€marriage.€€This€conclusion€is€substantiated€by€the€fact€that€HusbandÏdesignated€the€CD€as€payable€to€Wife€upon€his€death.€€There€is€no€evidence€WifeÏor€Husband€intended€to€use€the€money€for€their€joint€benefit.€€In€other€words,€ifÏanything,€Husband€intended€that€Wife€have€the€money€as€her€separate€propertyÏafter€his€death.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€burden€is€on€Husband€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€a€giftÏto€the€marital€estate€created€by€the€purchase€of€the€CD€in€both€partiesðð€names.€€ItÏis€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€Husband€has€satisfied€that€burden.€€HusbandÏargues€that€he€could€not€have€intended€a€gift€to€the€marriage€because€the€deliveryÏof€a€gift€could€not€have€been€conditioned€upon€his€death.€€We€agree€with€HusbandÏin€part.€€The€ð ðintentðð€and€ð ðdeliveryðð€elements€of€a€gift€are€exclusive.€€òòò òSeeÏHanseló óóó,€939€S.W.2d€at€112.€€A€person€can€intend€to€make€a€gift,€but€fail€toÏactually€make€the€gift€if€he€or€she€does€not€relinquish€complete€control€over€theÏsubject€of€the€gift.€€Thus,€Husband€could€have€intended€to€make€a€gift€to€theÏmarriage€even€if€the€delivery€was€incomplete.€€Despite€this€flaw€in€HusbandððsÏargument,€he€must€still€prevail€because€the€conditional€delivery€confirms€he€didÏnot€relinquish€complete€dominion€and€control.€€Therefore,€the€delivery€wasÍincomplete.€€Moreover,€as€previously€stated,€the€evidence€reveals€HusbandÏintended€Wife€to€have€the€money€only€after€his€death€from€cancer,€not€before.€ÏHe€did€not€òòintendóó€the€parties€to€use€the€monies€as€a€marital€asset.€€Thus,€HusbandÏhas€also€rebutted€the€presumption€of€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate€by€establishingÏthat€he€did€not€intend€to€make€a€gift,€the€first€formal€requirement€of€a€gift.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€HusbandÏsuccessfully€rebutted€the€presumption€that€he€intended€to€make€a€gift€to€theÏmarriage€when€he€purchased€the€CD€in€both€partiesðð€names.€€It€follows€that€theÏCD€purchased€with€Husbandððs€separate€property€remains€his€separate€property.ÌÌà àà àò ò2.à àCattleó óÌÌà àThe€record€in€this€case€reveals€Husband€owned€twenty„two€head€of€cattleÏprior€to€the€marriage€and€there€were€twenty„two€head€of€cattle€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce.€€The€record€also€reveals€that€these€were€not€the€same€twenty„two€head€ofÏcattle€as€some€had€been€sold€and€born€from€the€time€of€the€marriage€until€theÏdivorce.€€Wife€argues€the€cattle€is€marital€property€because€some€of€the€animalsÏare€different€and€because€the€parties€necessarily€used€marital€funds€to€maintainÏthe€cattle.ÌÌà àWifeððs€argument€is€without€merit.€€First,€we€know€Husband€came€into€theÏmarriage€with€the€cattle€and€the€cattle€were€his€separate€property.€€Thus,€theÏheads€of€cattle€which€were€not€sold€or€born€during€the€marriage€are€HusbandððsÏseparate€property.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€36„4„121(b)(2)(A).€€The€issue€thenÏbecomes€whether€any€increase€in€value€of€these€same€head€of€cattle€was€maritalÏproperty€as€a€result€of€each€partyððs€substantial€contribution€to€the€preservationÍand€appreciation€of€the€cattle.€€òòò òSee€id.ó óóó€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B).€€Wife€asserts€in€herÏbrief€that€the€upkeep€of€the€cattle€necessitated€the€expenditure€of€funds.€€WifeÏdoes€not,€however,€cite€any€evidence€in€the€record€establishing€substantialÏcontribution€as€defined€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„4„121(b)(1)(C).€ÏThus,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€cattle€which€remained€in€HusbandððsÏpossession€from€the€time€of€the€marriage€until€the€divorce€remain€his€separateÏproperty.ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€cattle€born€during€the€marriage.€€Wife€seems€to€argueÏthat€these€cattle€are€marital€property€because€they€were€acquired€during€theÏmarriage.€€We€can€not€agree.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€moreÏappropriate€classification€is€as€an€appreciation€of€separate€property.€€òòò òSee€id.ó óóó€ððÏ36„4„121(b)(2)(C).€€Moreover,€because€Wife€has€not€established€that€thisÏappreciation€is€marital€property€as€a€result€of€substantial€contribution,€we€mustÏconclude€that€it€is€Husbandððs€separate€property.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€do€not€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€income€received€fromÏthe€sale€of€cattle€during€the€marriage€is€marital€or€separate€property€as€neitherÏparty€raised€this€issue€below€or€on€appeal.€€Therefore,€given€the€above€discussion,Ïit€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€twenty„two€head€of€cattle€are€HusbandððsÏseparate€property.ÌÌà àò òà à3.à àYamaha€Four„Wheeleró óÌÌà àThe€agreed€statement€of€the€facts€provides€as€follows€with€regard€to€theÏfour„wheeler:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€parties€purchased€a€Yamaha€four„wheeler,€which€theÏHusband€valued€at€$3,000.00.€€The€Husband€testified€that€he€hadÍtraded€in€a€motorcycle€he€had€owned€before€the€marriage.€€HeÏfurther€testified€that€he€had€contributed€$2700.00€towards€theÏpurchase€of€the€four„wheeler€from€his€VA€educational€benefits.€€TheÏfour„wheeler€was€in€the€possession€of€the€Husband.€€Neither€partyÏspecifically€asked€to€be€awarded€the€four„wheeler.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓThe€parties€do€not€contest€that€the€$2,700.00€contributed€by€Husband€was€hisÏseparate€property.ÌÌà àProperty€acquired€with€separate€property€remains€separate€property.€€òòò òSeeÏid.ó óóó€ðð€36„4„121(b)(2)(B).€€Thus,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€$2,700.00€ofÏthe€four„wheelerððs€value€is€Husbandððs€separate€property.€€While€there€is€noÏevidence€in€the€record€regarding€the€value€of€the€motorcycle€traded€in,€it€isÏreasonable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€found€this€to€complete€the€$3,000.00Ïvalue€of€the€four„wheeler€and€awarded€it€to€Husband€as€separate€property.ÌÌà àò òB.à àEquitable€Division€of€Marital€Propertyó óÌÌà àA€trial€courtððs€division€of€marital€property€is€entitled€to€great€weight€onÏappeal,€and€this€court€will€not€alter€such€distribution€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€it.€€òòò òSee€Barnhilló óóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€449„50;€òòò òBatsonó óóó,€769ÏS.W.2d€at€859.€€Wife€prepared€a€chart€for€the€purposes€of€appeal€which€revealedÏthat€the€trial€court€awarded€her€thirteen€percent€of€the€marital€property€andÏHusband€eighty„seven€percent€of€the€marital€property.€€It€is€her€contention€thatÏthis€division€is€inequitable€in€light€of€the€factors€listed€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€36„4„121(c).€€We€can€not€agree.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€held€that€ð ðit€is€appropriate€to€divide€the€property€in€a€wayÏthat,€as€nearly€as€possible,€places€the€parties€in€the€same€position€they€would€haveÏbeen€in€had€the€marriage€never€taken€placeðð€when€the€marriage€is€of€a€shortÍduration.€€òòò òBatsonóóó ó,€769€S.W.2d€at€859.€€Wife€does€not€the€dispute€the€aboveÏholding,€but€argues€this€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòò òBatson€ó óóóbecauseòòò ò€ó óóóthe€primaryÏmarital€assets€in€òòò òBatsonóóó ó€were€the€increase€in€the€value€of€separate€property.€ÏWhile€true,€this€œfact€does›€not€relate€œto€the›€courtððs€above€quoted€holding.€€Instead,Ïthe€fact€related€to€the€courtððs€decision€that€an€equal€division€is€not€appropriateÏwhen€the€evidence€reveals€the€partiesðð€monetary€contributions€to€the€accumulationÏof€marital€assets€were€not€equal.€€òòò òSee€id.ó óóó€at€859„60.ÌÌà àWife€also€argues€she€is€entitled€to€more€than€thirteen€percent€because€herÏearning€capacity€is€less€than€Husbandððs.€€Again,€we€can€not€agree.€€During€theÏmarriage,€Husband€paid€for€Wifeððs€real€estate€training.€€There€is€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€Wife€has€obtained€her€real€estate€license€and€has€begun€to€receiveÏcommissions€from€sales.€€Husband€lives€off€of€his€retirement€income,€disabilityÏcheck,€and€seasonal€employment.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€indicatingÏthat€Wife€is€underemployed.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€Wife€has€failed€toÏestablish€that€her€earning€capacity€is€less€than€Husbandððs.ÌÌà àThis€was€a€marriage€of€short€duration.€€The€parties€married€on€DecemberÏ31,€1992,€and€Husband€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce€on€February€28,€1996.€€WifeÏbrought€little€into€the€marriage€and€should€not€be€permitted€to€walk€away€with€aÏwindfall.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€as€to€equitable€division.ÌÌò òII.à àAlimonyó óÌÌà àð ðAppellate€courts€give€wide€latitude€to€trial€courtsðð€spousal€support€andÏmaintenance€decisions.€These€decisions€are,€however,€subject€to€appellateÍreview.ðð€€òòò òCrain€v.€Crainó óóó,€925€S.W.2d€232,€233€(Tenn.€App.€1996)€(citationsÏomitted).€€We€review€a€trial€courtððs€decisions€regarding€spousal€support€pursuantÏto€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€òòò òSee€Jones€v.ÏJonesó óóó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€Thus,€we€review€findings€ofÏfact€de€novo€upon€the€record€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòò òSee€ó óóóòòTenn.€R.€App.€P.óó€13(d)Ï(1997„98).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à àBernice€Burns€does€have€an€immediate€and€temporary€needÏfor€some€funds.Ìà8 à2.à àFranklin€Burns€is€financially€capable€of€making€a€monthlyÏpayment€to€her.Ìà8 à3.à àThere€needs€to€be€a€balance€of€the€equities€in€view€of€theÏdisproportionate€earnings€of€the€parties.Ìà8 à4.à àA€payment€of€$400.00€per€month€to€Bernice€Burns€for€sixÏmonths€would€satisfy€these€requirements.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓWe€have€reviewed€the€evidence€in€the€record€and€find€that€it€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€Wife€argues€that€she€needsÏmore€money€for€a€longer€period€of€time€and€Husband€can€pay€more.€€AlthoughÏthe€evidence€does€show€that€Husband€could€pay€more,€it€does€not€show€that€WifeÏneeds€more.€€Of€particular€interest€is€the€fact€that€Wife€received€the€1992€BerettaÏwhich€was€paid€for€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€but€lists€a€car€payment€of€$308.53Ïon€her€monthly€income€an€expense€statement.€€In€addition,€Wife€claims€she€needsÏ$360.00€a€month€for€food.€€The€trial€court€properly€refused€to€award€Wife€allÏthe€money€she€claimed€to€need€on€her€monthly€income€and€expense€statement.€ÏFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€as€to€spousal€support€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌò òIII.à àConclusionó óÌÌà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€CD,€cattle,€and€the€Yamaha€four„wheeler€are€Husbandððs€separate€property.€€Wife€is€entitled€to€thirteen€percent€ofÏthe€marital€property,€and€Husband€is€entitled€to€eighty„seven€percent€of€theÏmarital€property.€€Finally,€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€spousal€support€is€proper.ÌÌà àTherefore€it€follows€that€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€OnÏremand,€the€trial€court€shall€enter€an€order€in€accordance€with€the€aboveÏdecision.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€against€respondent/appellant,€Bernice€A.ÏBurns.ÌÓÓœ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWalter€W.€Bussart,€JudgeÌœÌConcur:ÌÌÌ_____________________________›ÌBen€H.€Cantrell,€JudgeÌœÌÌ›Ì_____________________________ÌWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€Judge