WPC Pz%XiprL$m?^Gk0]?!c {-)# L,Zo7GT^WmޕV4G`c9RX[TCFbɍ/t0~Y:t+DĆNa@i|N|01k E8Gj2V, (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*GRA~1P 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 R4$      1    _Husbandwasgivenacredittowardthisamountfor$1,200paidafterMay,1999.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0     R4$      2    _Althoughreferredtoasanawardofalimonyinfuturo,atleastpartofthisaward!fromMay,1999,untilthe  entryofthejudgmentofdivorcein_Feburary_,2001!ismoreappropriatelylabeledasalimony_pendente_Ԁlite.- -(|G24$ !.8\dd8         0   d(|3nj$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3nj$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\dd8     _  \8QXXdd8  р@ T,\INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#\T, #Ԉ &   December13,2001Session L XQX\ #\XXQ#JANK.BURNSv.JAMESF.BURNSXQX\  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.97DR0814 @ JacquelineE.Schulten,Judge  6 FILEDJANUARY30,_2002_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101039COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Inthisdivorcecase,thehusbandappealsthetrialcourtsawardsofalimonypendenteliteand x  alimonyinfuturotothewife.Therecordbeforeusdoesnotdemonstratethattheevidence d preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment.Accordingly,weaffirm. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt (x Affirmed;CaseRemanded  d   #\XQg#XQX.\CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard, < P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined. ( RichardA.Schulman,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JamesF.Burns.  SandraJ.Bott,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JanK.Burns.   OPINION #\XXQ#XQX\ ` #\XXQ#XQX\    I. 8!  C   JanK.Burns( Wife)andJamesF.Burns( Husband)weremarriedin1977.Therewere #`" nochildrenborntotheirunion.Formostofthepartiesmarriage,theyoperatedacommercialsign #L# business,anenterprisewithahistoryoffinancialproblemsstemmingprimarilyfromtheparties $8 $ failuretopaypayrollandincometaxesforseveralyears.Althoughtheexactamountowedbythe %$!% partiesintaxesandpenaltiesisnotclearfromtherecord,itappearsthattheamountowedisgreater &"& thantheirnetworth. '"'   WifeinitiateddivorceproceedingsinMarch,1997.InJune,1997,thetrialcourtawarded )$) heralimonypendenteliteof$1,500permonth.ThisdivorcelitigationwassetfortrialonAugust p*%* 12,1998.Husbanddidnotappearatthehearing,however,duetoanallegedmedicalemergency. \+&+ AlthoughthereisnotranscriptorstatementoftheevidenceoftheAugust12,1998,proceedings,it H,', appearsfromtherecordbeforeusthatHusbandsattorneyrequestedacontinuanceofthetrialaswell 4-(- astheappointmentofaspecialmaster.Wifesattorney,inturn,madeanoralmotionfora  modificationofalimony.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionforacontinuanceandappointeda  specialmaster,butalsoallowedWifetopresentevidenceregardingherneedforincreasedtemporary  support.UponhearingWifesevidence,thetrialcourtincreasedthetemporarysupportawardto t $2,000permonth. `   InMarch,1999,Wifefiledapetitionforcontempt,allegingthatHusbandhadfailedtopay 8  anypendentelitesupportsinceAugust,1998.Thereafter,Husbandretainednewcounsel,and,in $ t May,1999,filedapetitiontomodifytheawardoftemporarysupport,allegingthatWifewas  `  gainfullyemployedandshouldnotbeallowedtoobtainalimonyatthistime.  L    Thisdivorcematterproceededbeforethespecialmaster,whofiledhisreportwiththetrial $  courtonSeptember22,2000.Bothpartiesfiledobjectionstothereport.InNovember,2000,the   trialcourtconductedahearinguponthepartiesobjections;Wifespetitionforcontemptforfailure   topaypendentelitesupport;Husbandspetitiontomodifythependentelitesupport;andtheissue   ofpermanentalimony.     Followingthehearing,thetrialcourtenteredajudgmentofdivorce,awardingthedivorce \ toWifeonthegroundsofinappropriatemaritalconductandadoptingthespecialmastersreport H withsomeexceptions.Thetrialcourtorderedtheremainingassetsofthepartiesbusiness,which 4 thecourtnotedwas basicallyinsolvent,tobesoldandtheproceedsappliedtothedebtsoftheir  p business.Thecourtdividedthemaritalpropertyandorderedthemaritalresidencetobesoldand  \ directedthattheproceedsfromthesalebeappliedtothepartieslargetaxliability.Regarding H alimony,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatHusbandowedWife$20,000inalimonypendentelitefor 4 theperiodfromAugust,1998,toMay,1999.  #  1      ׀ThetrialcourtdecreedthatfromMay,1999,forward,   HusbandwouldbeobligatedtopayWife$500permonthasalimony infuturo._T #  2      _Ԁ     Husbandappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterred(1)indeterminingthatalimony_pendente_  litewasduefromJune,1997,toMay,1999;(2)indeterminingthatalimony_pendente_Ԁlitewasdue  fromMay,1999,untiltheentryofthedivorcejudgment;and(3)inawardingWifealimonyinfuturo. l     II. D! J  Theamountanddurationofalimonyareissueswithrespecttowhichthetrialcourtexercises #l! widediscretion. Garfinkelv.Garfinkel, 945S.W.2d744,748(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Inmaking $X" analimonydetermination,acourtshouldbeguidedbythefactorssetforthinT.C.A. $D # 36-5-101(d)(1)(A)-(L)(2001).Inmakinganalimonydetermination,courtsmostoftenconsiderthe %0!$ needsoftherequestingspouseandthe_obligor_Ԁspousesabilitytopay.See Mittsv.Mitts, 39S.W.3d &"% 142,146(Tenn.Ct.App.2000),perm.app.deniedMarch5,2001.Additionally,thefaultofthe  obligorspouseisacommonfactor.See Bullv.Bull, 729S.W.2d673,675(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).  Theamountofalimonyshouldbesuch thatthepartyobtainingthedivorce[isnot]leftinaworse  financialsituationthanheorshehadbeforetheoppositepartysmisconductbroughtaboutthe t divorce. Shacklefordv.Shackleford, 611S.W.2d598,601(Tenn.Ct.App.1980). ` ~    T.C.A.36-5-101clearlyreflectsalegislativepreferenceforanawardofrehabilitative 8  alimony.SeeT.C.A.36-5-101(d)(1). Thepurposeofrehabilitativesupportistoenablethe $ t disadvantagedspousetoacquireadditionaljobskills,education,ortrainingthatwillenablehimor  ` hertobemoreself-sufficient. Andertonv.Anderton, 988S.W.2d675,682(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).  L  Whererehabilitationisnotfeasible,however, courtsmaystillawardlong-termsupportand  8  maintenanceuntilremarriageordeathoftherecipient, Isbellv.Isbell, 816S.W.2d735,739(Tenn. $  1991),becauselong-termalimonyisdesigned toprovidesupporttoadisadvantagedspousewho   isunabletoachievesomedegreeofself-sufficiency. Anderton, 988S.W.2dat682.Acourtmay   awardlongtermalimonyas closinginmoneytoenabletherecipientspousetomoreclosely   approachhisorherpre-divorcestandardofliving.See Aaronv.Aaron, 909S.W.2d408,411(Tenn.   1995). p    III. H %  WefirstaddresstheawardofpendentelitesupportfortheperiodfromJune,1997,thedate  p oftheinitialaward,untilMay,1999,thedateofHusbandspetitiontomodify.Husbandarguesthat  \ theinitialawardoftemporarysupportwas,inhiswords, notsupportedbytheevidence.He H furthercontendsthatthetrialcourtsmodificationoftheawardinAugust,1998,wasinerrorbecause 4 therewasnospecificfindingofneed.     Becausetherecordbeforeusdoesnotcontainatranscriptorstatementoftheevidencefrom  theseproceedings, wemustassumethattherecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontained  sufficientevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsfactualfindings. Sherrodv.Wix, 849S.W.2d780,  783(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Accordingly,thisissueisfoundadverselytoHusband.  l     WewillnextaddressthetrialcourtsmodificationofthependenteliteawardeffectiveMay, D! 1999,andtheawardofalimonyinfuturo.Thetrialcourtmodifiedthetemporarysupportaward, 0"  reducingitto$500permonth.Thealimonyinfuturoawardwasalsosetatthisamount.Husband #l! contendsonappealthatneitheroftheseawardswaswarrantedbecause,sotheargumentgoes,Wife $X" didnotdemonstratetherequisiteneedandHusbanddidnothavetheabilitytopay. $D #   ImplicitinthetrialcourtsawardofalimonyinfuturoarefindingsthatWifeiseconomically &"% disadvantagedrelativetoHusbandandthatshecannotberehabilitated.Uponreviewingtherecord, '#& wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheseimplicitfindings.Asthetrialcourt (#' noted,theparties livedoutofthebusinessandusedbusinessfundstopaypersonalexpenses )$( duringthemarriage;this,coupledwiththelackofincometaxreturnsforseveralyears,makeit |*%) difficulttodeterminetheincomeofthepartiespriortothedivorce.Judgingfromtheassets h+&* accumulatedbytheparties,however,itappearsthatthepartieshadacomfortablelifestyleduring  themarriage.Currently,Wifeearns$32,600annuallyasapublicschoolteacher.Shesubmittedan  incomeandexpensestatementindicatingthatshehasexpensesof$4,260permonth.Husband  currentlyworksforanothersigncompanyandearns$25,992annually;however,theevidence t adducedattrialindicatesthatHusbandhad,untilrecently,beenonapacetoearnbetween$40,000 ` and$45,000peryear.Baseduponthisevidence,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourterredinfinding L  thatWifewaseconomicallydisadvantagedrelativetoHusband. 8    Uponreviewingtherecord,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionin  ` awardingWifealimony_pendente_Ԁliteandalimonyinfuturoof$500permonth.Thetrialcourtfound  L  thatHusbandsinappropriatemaritalconductprecipitatedthisdivorce.Additionally,thiswasa  8  marriageoflongduration,duringwhichbothpartiesmadesubstantialcontributionstotheirsign $  business.Becauseofthepartiesdebtsandtaxliabilities,however,therearenosignificantassets,   maritalorotherwise,outofwhichWifecouldsupplementherincomeorprovideforretirement.We   findthatanawardof$500alimonyinfuturowillallowWifetomorecloselyapproachherstandard   oflivingpriortothedivorce.Wefurtherfindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthe   trialcourtsdeterminationthatHusbandhastheabilitytopaysuchanaward.Accordingly,we p affirmtheawardofalimonyasdeterminedbythetrialcourt. \ %  IV. 4 c7  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforenforcementofthe  \ judgmentandcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealare H taxedtotheappellant,JamesF.Burns. 4    `     h     _______________________________  7   `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE