ÿWPC- …›nŒàÚ/VÌFü8â‹ ·‚¡Ñ§К¾n]‹e%|„£-d5WA€Nm¨ƒ†S±\›$”G¾®‚lC˜[’ÐÝ*NíJ.ÞçŒohßëϦ£zPþ‹Ê¦wMIg ÷£1ÑÑ¡8‹ßn‘§#±I·¾Ó«,¼Ü¶Wy{=Þ%©:\(iõcâA⵫ZQ)6Y[½ˆ8Üò?œ(ƒüÿt©½¸²¹Ï" ô :i A«‚»+“+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*쥀¹¥Do£3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 ÌÝ ƒRë@$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€does€not€include€costs€for€medical€expenses€which€was€listed€separately.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  IÝ ƒRë@$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€indicated€above,€Husband€was€awarded€a€$10,000€interest€in€the€home€in€the€divorce€decree€from€the€firstÐ ° Ðmarriage.€€Thus,€Husband€has€a€total€interest€of€$21,627.00€in€the€home.€€- ù-(|G2ë@$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ò»»Ô d(|3¿i$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿i$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ e»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ e»»»ÔÑ8€XéXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î$ eÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ e»îî$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€16,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XXéX»¼ eÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼ e»XXXéõ#ÔPAMELA€K.€CANTRELL€v.€JAMES€MICHAEL€CANTRELL,€JR.ó óÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ€XXéX»¼ eÔAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bradley€CountyÐ  Z  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€V„99„1030€€€€€€Jerri€S.€Bryant,€Chancellor,€by€InterchangeÐ öF  ÐÌFILED€DECEMBER€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ Î  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E„2001„00259„COA„R3„CVÐ µ ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Œ` AßÐ Ý Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌPamela€K.€Cantrell€(ð ðWifeðð)€filed€for€divorce€from€James€Michael€Cantrell,€Jr.€(ð ðHusbandðð).€€ThisÐ `° Ðwas€the€second€time€the€parties€had€been€married€to€each€other.€€After€a€trial,€the€Trial€Court€awardedÐ Lœ ÐWife€a€divorce€on€the€basis€of€Husbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€Trial€Court€dividedÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€marital€assets€and€awarded€Wife€rehabilitative€alimony.€€Husbandððs€main€issues€on€appealÐ $t Ðchallenge€the€division€of€marital€assets€and€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony.€€We€modify€theÐ ` Ðrehabilitative€alimony€award€and€affirm€the€division€of€marital€assets.€€Ð üL ÐÌÓ¹ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theÐ À ÐCircuit€Court€Affirmed€as€Modified;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ¬ü ÐÓ  ÓÌòòÌD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.,Ð p"À! Ðóóand€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,€óójoined.Ð \#¬" ÐÌÌB.€Prince€Miller,€Jr.,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€James€Michael€Cantrell,€Jr.Ð  &p!% ÐÌÌRandy€Sellers,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Pamela€K.€Cantrell.Ð ä(4$( ÐÌÌÌÌÐ €-Ð(-ý ЇÌÓÓÓÓà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ œì ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌÓô ÓÓÓà  àà ` àThis€divorce€case€involves€the€second€time€these€parties€have€been€married€to€eachÐ L œ Ðother€and€then€divorced.€€The€main€issues€on€appeal€concern€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€maritalÐ 8 ˆ Ðassets€and€award€of€alimony.€€Husband€does€not€challenge€the€Trial€Courtððs€granting€of€a€divorce€toÐ $ t ÐWife€on€the€basis€of€his€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€and,€therefore,€this€conclusion€by€the€TrialÐ  ` ÐCourt€is€final.€€Accordingly,€we€will€discuss€the€facts€only€as€they€pertain€to€the€property€divisionÐ ü L  Ðand€alimony€award.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€graduated€from€high€school€and€has€one€and€one„half€years€of€collegeÐ À  Ðeducation.€€He€has€worked€at€Bowater€for€almost€16€years€and€earns€approximately€$61,858.00€perÐ ¬ü  Ðyear.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Wife€was€44€years€old€and€had€a€high€school€education.€€She€hadÐ ˜è  Ðexperience€as€a€receptionist€and€a€nursing€assistance€making€$7.00€per€hour€before€buying€a€floralÐ „Ô  Ðbusiness€in€1997.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€testified€she€and€Husband€were€married€for€about€10€years€the€first€time,€andÐ H˜ Ðobtained€a€divorce€by€ð ðagreementðð€in€1994.€€Their€relationship€continued€after€the€divorce€and€theyÐ 4„ Ðremarried€in€1996.€€Wife€and€Husband€borrowed€approximately€$43,000.00€to€purchase€a€floralÐ  p Ðbusiness€and€stock€it€with€inventory.€€Wife€testified€they€have€been€able€to€make€only€interestÐ  \ Ðpayments€on€the€loan€and€have€not€yet€started€paying€on€the€principal.€€According€to€Wife,€althoughÐ øH Ðthe€business€has€not€made€a€profit€as€of€yet,€it€has€done€remarkably€well€and€is€an€establishedÐ ä4 Ðbusiness€with€a€growing€clientele.€€Any€extra€money€is€reinvested€into€stock€or€improvements€in€theÐ Ð  Ðbuilding.€€Wife€claimed€that€if€she€were€to€sell€the€inventory,€the€proceeds€would€be€enough€to€payÐ ¼  Ðoff€the€$43,000.00€debt,€but€no€more.€€Neither€Wife€nor€Husband€have€paid€themselves€anything€ofÐ ¨ø Ðany€consequence€from€the€business.€€Wife€estimated€she€would€be€able€to€start€paying€herself€a€salaryÐ ”ä Ðin€about€two€years.€€The€gross€sales€from€the€floral€business€in€1999€were€$119,000.00.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€their€first€divorce,€Wife€received€the€marital€residence€which€the€parties€beganÐ X ¨ Ðbuilding€in€1990€and€which€virtually€was€completed€by€the€time€of€the€first€divorce.€€This€house€wasÐ D!” Ðbuilt€on€land€owned€by€Wifeððs€parents.€€Wife€valued€the€house€at€$150,000.00€as€of€the€date€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðfirst€divorce.€€Both€Wife€and€Husband€agreed€that€it€was€worth€$175,000.00€at€the€time€of€the€trialÐ #l! Ðfor€the€second€divorce.€€Husband€testified€they€could€realize€$175,000.00€out€of€the€home,€pointingÐ $X" Ðout€that€they€ð ðput€over€$100,000€in€materials€in€it€ten€years€ago€and€every€year€improved€it.ðð€€WifeÐ ô$D # Ðclaimed€that€during€their€first€marriage,€it€was€her€and€Husbandððs€understanding€that€one€day,€WifeððsÐ à%0!$ Ðparents€would€deed€the€land€to€her€as€an€inheritance€since€she€was€their€only€child.€€The€land€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðdeeded€to€both€Husband€and€Wife€during€the€second€marriage.€€Wife€testified€that€Husband€askedÐ ¸'#& Ðher€parents€to€deed€the€land€to€them,€and€her€parents€complied€with€his€request.€€Husband€testifiedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€Wifeððs€parents€initiated€the€discussions€about€deeding€the€land€to€both€of€them.€€Husband€statedÐ )à$( Ðthat€even€at€the€time€of€the€first€marriage,€he€knew€that€Wifeððs€parents€were€going€to€give€them€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðland€on€which€the€house€was€located.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àWife€filed€an€income€and€expense€statement€with€the€Trial€Court.€€In€that€statement,Ð ° Ðthere€is€no€mortgage€payment€listed,€although€the€loan€for€the€floral€business€is€apparently€securedÐ œì Ðwith€the€house€as€collateral.€€Wife€listed€no€monthly€income.€€Her€listed€monthly€expenses€totaledÐ ˆØ Ð$1,765.00.€€Wifeððs€expenses€on€the€income€and€expense€statement€included€$300.00€per€month€forÐ tÄ Ða€car€payment€and€$200.00€per€month€for€health€insurance.€€Wifeððs€monthly€expenses€did€not€includeÐ `° Ðthe€interest€payments€being€made€on€the€floral€business€which€were€being€paid€out€of€moneyÐ L œ Ðgenerated€from€that€business.€€Wife€claimed€she€needed€alimony€for€18€months€to€two€years€beforeÐ 8 ˆ Ðshe€would€be€able€to€become€self„sufficient€with€the€floral€business.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€agreed€in€the€first€divorce€that€Wife€be€awarded€the€marital€residenceÐ ü L  Ðalong€with€the€indebtedness€to€Wifeððs€parents€as€the€parties€had€borrowed€approximately€$46,000.00Ð è 8  Ðfrom€them€to€complete€the€house.€€The€parties€further€agreed€that€Husband€would€retain€a€$10,000.00Ð Ô$  Ðinterest€in€the€house€which€Wife€would€have€to€pay€upon€her€remarriage€or€if€the€house€was€sold.€Ð À  ÐIt€also€was€agreed€that€Husband€would€receive€as€his€property€his€pension,€profit€sharing,€and€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðother€retirement€he€had€through€his€employer,€Bowater.€€One€year€before€the€second€marriage€began,Ð ˜è  ÐHusband€had€$30,000.00€in€his€401K€account€with€Bowater.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€determined€the€value€of€the€marital€residence€prior€to€the€secondÐ \¬ Ðmarriage€was€$150,000.00,€and€that€it€was€Wifeððs€separate€property€pursuant€to€the€previous€divorceÐ H˜ Ðdecree,€subject€to€Husbandððs€$10,000.00€interest.€€Since€the€parties€agreed€that€the€current€value€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€house€with€the€land€was€$175,000.00,€the€Trial€Court€determined€that€the€$25,000.00€increaseÐ  p Ðwas€marital€property.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Husbandððs€401K€account€was€valued€at€$94,000.00.€Ð  \ ÐBased€on€Husbandððs€testimony€that€his€401K€was€worth€$30,000.00€one€year€prior€to€the€beginningÐ øH Ðof€the€second€marriage,€the€Trial€Court€divided€the€$64,000.00€increase€in€that€account€equally€withÐ ä4 Ðeach€party€receiving€$32,000.00.€€The€Trial€Court€awarded€the€house€to€Wife,€along€with€the€debtÐ Ð  Ðto€her€parents.€€Husband€was€given€a€lien€on€the€house€for€$11,627.00.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Wife€was€awarded€the€floralÐ ¼  Ðshop€and€responsibility€for€the€$43,000.00€loan.€€The€Trial€Court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$768.65Ð ¨ø Ðin€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€period€of€12€months.€€He€also€was€ordered€to€pay€Wifeððs€car€paymentÐ ”ä Ðfor€12€months,€and€to€pay€for€her€health€insurance€for€the€18€month€period€in€which€she€was€eligibleÐ €Ð Ðto€remain€on€his€health€care€plan€pursuant€to€COBRA.€€The€Trial€Court€also€awarded€Wife€$2,500.00Ð l¼ Ðin€attorney€fees.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€appeals€arguing€that:€(1)€the€property€division€was€not€equitable;€(2)€theÐ 0"€  Ðaward€of€alimony€was€improper;€(3)€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€awarding€Wife€$2,500.00€in€attorneyÐ #l! Ðfees;€and€(4)€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€that€the€value€of€the€401K€immediately€prior€to€theÐ $X" Ðbeginning€of€the€second€marriage€was€$30,000.00.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àA€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€a€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ tÄ Ðotherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBrooks€v.€Brooksóó,€992€S.W.2d€403,€404€(Tenn.€1999).€€ReviewÐ `° Ðof€questions€of€law€is€òòde€novoóó,€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSee€Nelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,Ð L œ ÐInc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€regard€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€the€marital€assets,€the€many€factors€to€beÐ  ` Ðconsidered€by€a€court€in€making€an€equitable€distribution€of€property€are€set€forth€in€Tenn.€CodeÐ ü L  ÐAnn.€ðð€36„4„121(c),€and€include€age,€physical€and€mental€health,€employability,€the€contribution€ofÐ è 8  Ða€party€to€the€marriage€as€homemaker,€tax€consequences,€etc.€€A€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€inÐ Ô$  Ðdividing€the€interest€of€the€parties€in€marital€property.€€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€449Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€As€noted€by€this€Court€in€òòKing€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2d€216,€219€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.€1998),€when€dividing€marital€property:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€trial€courtððs€goal€in€every€divorce€case€is€to€divide€the€partiesððÐ pÀ Ðmarital€estate€in€a€just€and€equitable€manner.€€The€division€of€theÐ \¬ Ðestate€is€not€rendered€inequitable€simply€because€it€is€notÐ H˜ Ðmathematically€equal,€òòCohen€v.€Cohenóó,€937€S.W.2d€823,€832€(Tenn.Ð 4„ Ð1996);€òòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€1988),€or€becauseÐ  p Ðeach€party€did€not€receive€a€share€of€every€item€of€marital€property.€Ð  \ ÐòòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€[163]€at€168.€.€.€.€In€the€final€analysis,Ð øH Ðthe€justness€of€a€particular€division€of€the€marital€property€andÐ ä4 Ðallocation€of€marital€debt€depends€on€its€final€results.€òòSee€ThompsonÐ Ð  Ðv.€Thompsonóó,€797€S.W.2d€599,€604€(Tenn.€App.€1990).м ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€brief€on€appeal,€Husband€claims€that€Wife€was€awarded€$231,152.47€inÐ ”ä Ðproperty,€but€he€was€awarded€only€$61,377.00.€€Wife€claims€in€her€brief€that€each€party€received€Ð €Ð Ð$53,877.00€in€property.€€Since€there€is€no€dispute€as€to€which€party€was€awarded€what€particularÐ l¼ Ðitem,€it€appears€the€main€disagreement€between€the€parties€centers€around€the€values€to€be€placedÐ X ¨ Ðon€the€property€awarded€and€on€the€determination€of€what€was€and€was€not€marital€property.€€€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€address€the€value€of€the€house€awarded€to€Wife.€€Husband€apparentlyÐ #l! Ðbelieves€that€because€Wifeððs€parents€deeded€the€land€on€which€the€house€is€sitting€to€both€of€themÐ $X" Ðduring€the€second€marriage,€then€he€automatically€is€entitled€to€one„half€of€the€òòentireóó€current€valueÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€house€and€land€as€marital€property.€€This€argument€completely€ignores€the€fact€that€after€theÐ à%0!$ Ðfirst€marriage€ended,€Wife€received€the€house€(with€no€land)€subject€to€Husbandððs€$10,000.00Ð Ì&"% Ðinterest.€€The€difference€in€the€value€of€the€house€with€no€land€immediately€before€the€secondÐ ¸'#& Ðmarriage,€and€the€value€of€the€house€with€the€land€at€the€end€of€the€second€marriage€is€maritalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproperty.€€The€parties€agreed€that€the€current€value€of€the€house€with€the€land€is€$175,000.00.€Ð )à$( ÐTherefore,€the€only€valuation€as€to€this€property€to€be€made€by€the€Trial€Court€was€the€value€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðhouse€immediately€before€the€second€marriage€started.€€Wife€testified€that€at€the€end€of€the€firstÐ h+¸&* Ðmarriage,€the€house€was€worth€$150,000.00.€€Husband€presented€no€proof€whatsoever€as€to€the€valueÐ ° Ðof€the€house€before€the€second€marriage,€but€did€admit€they€ð ðput€over€$100,000€in€materials€in€it€tenÐ œì Ðyears€ago€and€every€year€improved€it.ðð€€There€was€no€expert€proof€presented€on€this€issue.€€GivenÐ ˆØ Ðthis€testimony,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€determined€that€the€houseÐ tÄ Ðwas€worth€$150,000.00€prior€to€the€start€of€the€second€marriage,€and€the€house€and€land€at€the€timeÐ `° Ðof€trial€were€worth€$175,000.00.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€arguing€that€the€property€was€not€equitably€divided,€Husband€improperlyÐ $ t Ðassigned€the€entire€value€of€the€house€as€property€awarded€to€Wife€from€this€divorce,€including€theÐ  ` Ðvalue€which€constituted€Wifeððs€separate€marital€property€from€the€first€divorce.€€This€accounts€forÐ ü L  Ðthe€vast€majority€of€Husbandððs€claimed€disparity€in€the€property€awarded€to€the€parties.€€MoreÐ è 8  Ðimportantly,€given€that€Wife€was€awarded€the€house€in€the€first€divorce€as€her€sole€property,€we€findÐ Ô$  Ðnothing€inequitable€in€the€Trial€Courtððs€decision€concerning€the€division€of€this€property,€even€if€theÐ À  Ðhouse€and€not€just€the€land€was€marital€property,€in€this€short€duration€second€marriage.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€also€was€awarded€the€floral€business.€€Husband€claims€this€was€a€$43,000.00Ð „Ô  Ðasset€awarded€to€Wife.€€The€Trial€Court,€however,€concluded€that€while€the€floral€shop€was€worthÐ pÀ Ð$43,000.00,€there€was€a€$43,000.00€indebtedness€on€that€business€leaving€a€net€value€of€$0.00.€€AtÐ \¬ Ðtrial,€Wife€testified€that€if€she€sold€the€inventory,€the€proceeds€would€be€sufficient€to€pay€off€theÐ H˜ Ðindebtedness,€but€no€more.€€Husband€offered€no€testimony,€either€in€the€form€of€opinion€or€expertÐ 4„ Ðtestimony,€as€to€what€value€should€be€placed€on€the€floral€shop.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€TrialÐ  p ÐCourt€improperly€valued€the€floral€shop€at€$0.00€when€the€Trial€Court€relied€upon€the€only€testimonyÐ  \ Ðactually€offered€on€that€subject.€€Husband€has€artificially€inflated€the€amount€of€property€awardedÐ øH Ðto€Wife€by€$43,000.00€and€has€offered€no€proof€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€assigned€value€was€incorrect.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àA€trial€court€is€required€to€divide€the€property€equitably.€€The€division€of€maritalÐ ¼  Ðproperty€is€not€inequitable€simply€because€it€is€not€mathematically€equal.€€òòCohenóó,€òòsupraóó.€€On€appeal,Ð ¨ø ÐHusband€assigns€inflated€values€to€the€assets€awarded€to€Wife,€and€then€argues€that€the€property€wasÐ ”ä Ðnot€equitable€divided.€€The€inflated€value€assigned€by€Husband€to€these€two€assets€alone€exceedsÐ €Ð Ð$161,000.00.€€When€the€proper€value€assigned€to€these€assets€by€the€Trial€Court€is€considered,€weÐ l¼ Ðcannot€conclude€that€the€division€of€marital€assets€was€inequitable.€€This€is€particularly€so€given€theÐ X ¨ Ðaward€to€Wife€of€the€house€in€the€first€divorce.€We€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€marital€assets.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€challenges€the€alimony€award€to€Wife.€€Trial€courts€have€broad€discretionÐ #l! Ðto€determine€whether€spousal€support€is€needed€and,€if€so,€its€nature,€amount,€and€duration.€€òòKinardÐ $X" Ðv.€Kinardóó,€986€S.W.2d€220,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòGarfinkel€v.€Garfinkelóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€òòóóÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àDeterminations€concerning€the€amount€and€duration€of€alimony€are€factually€drivenÐ ¸'#& Ðand€require€a€balancing€of€the€various€factors€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,€944€S.W.2d€379,€387„88€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€These€factors€include:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(A)€€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financialÐ ° Ðâ âresources€of€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,€profitÐ œì Ðsharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(B)€€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€andÐ `° Ðopportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€andÐ L œ Ðthe€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€and€training€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðimprove€such€partyððs€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(C)€€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(D)€€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(E)€€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limitedÐ ¬ü  Ðto,€physical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitatingÐ ˜è  Ðdisease;Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(F)€€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seekÐ \¬ Ðemployment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€be€custodianÐ H˜ Ðof€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(G)€€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangibleÐ  \ Ðand€intangible;ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(H)€€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€asÐ Ð  Ðdefined€in€ðð€36„4„121;м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(I)€€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€theÐ ”ä Ðmarriage;ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€andÐ X ¨ Ðintangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€and€homemakerÐ D!” Ðcontributions,€and€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€toÐ 0"€  Ðthe€education,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(K)€€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€itsÐ ô$D # Ðdiscretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€andÐà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(L)€€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,Ð ¸'#& Ðas€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌAlthough€all€of€these€factors€are€relevant,€when€ð ðaddressing€an€òòinitialóó€award€of€support,€the€need€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€spouse€must€necessarily€be€the€most€important€factor€to€consider,€because€alimony€is€primarilyÐ h+¸&* Ðintended€to€provide€some€minimal€level€of€financial€support€for€a€needy€spouse.ðð€€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,Ð ° Ð____€S.W.3d€_____,€2001€WL€1386102€at€*5€(Tenn.€2001).Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€Wife€had€the€ability€to€earn€$1,204.00€in€gross€monthlyÐ tÄ Ðwages,€or€$996.35€per€month€after€taxes.€€Neither€party€appeals€this€determination.€€Wife€testified€Ð `° Ðshe€would€be€able€to€be€self€sufficient€in€18€months€to€two€years.€€The€Trial€Court€obviouslyÐ L œ Ðdetermined€she€could€become€self€sufficient€in€approximately€one€year.€€Wife€does€not€appeal€eitherÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€amount€or€length€of€the€alimony€awarded.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€awarded€alimony€based€on€Wifeððs€claimed€monthly€expenses€ofÐ ü L  Ð$1,765.00,€less€the€amount€of€her€earning€potential€of€$996.35,€for€a€total€award€of€$768.65€perÐ è 8  Ðmonth€for€12€months.€€In€addition€to€the€alimony€awarded,€Husband€also€was€required€to€make€theÐ Ô$  Ðpayment€for€12€months€on€the€vehicle€awarded€to€Wife.€€Husband€also€was€required€to€pay€WifeððsÐ À  Ðhealth€insurance€premiums€for€the€18€month€period€in€which€she€was€able€to€remain€covered€onÐ ¬ü  ÐHusbandððs€health€care€plan€pursuant€to€COBRA.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€concern€with€the€amount€of€alimony€awarded€by€the€Trial€Court€is€two„fold.€Ð pÀ ÐFirst,€Wife€claimed€on€her€monthly€expenses€an€estimated€monthly€car€payment€of€$300.00.€€Second,Ð \¬ Ðshe€claimed€health€insurance€costs€of€$200.00.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€By€requiring€Husband€to€make€these€paymentsÐ H˜ Ðseparate€and€in€addition€to€the€$768.65,€Wife€is€ð ðdouble„dippingðð€because€she€also€is€being€awardedÐ 4„ Ðthese€very€same€expenses€with€the€alimony€award.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€taking€into€account€the€facts€of€this€case€as€contained€in€the€record€and€afterÐ øH Ðð ðcareful[ly]€balanc[ing]€.€.€.€the€factors€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),ðð€we€hold€that€the€TrialÐ ä4 ÐCourtððs€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€is€reduced€from€$768.65€to€$400.00€per€month€for€12Ð Ð  Ðmonths.€€òòSee€Anderton€v.€Andertonóó,€988€S.W.2d€675,€683€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€In€making€thisÐ ¼  Ðreduction,€we€give€primary€consideration€to€Wifeððs€needs,€but€also€consider€all€other€relevant€factorsÐ ¨ø Ðsuch€as€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay;€their€relative€educational€levels,€income,€expenses,€and€earningÐ ”ä Ðcapacities;€and€the€division€of€marital€property.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àAttorney€fee€awards€are€treated€as€alimony.€€òòGilliam€v.€Gilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€In€determining€whether€to€award€attorney€fees,€a€trial€court€should€considerÐ D!” Ðthe€relevant€factors€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),€òòsupraóó.€€Awards€of€attorney€feesÐ 0"€  Ðare€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€award.€€òòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $X" Ð1995).€€Applying€the€relevant€factors,€we€hold€the€Trial€Court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€whenÐ ô$D # Ðit€awarded€Wife€$2,500€in€attorney€fees.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àHusbandððs€final€issue€on€appeal€is€his€claim€that€the€Trial€Court€improperly€valuedÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€401K.€€At€trial,€Husband€testified€that€the€value€of€the€401K€one€year€prior€to€the€secondÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmarriage€was€$30,000.00.€€Husband€offered€no€evidence€on€the€value€of€the€401K€one€year€later€onÐ )à$( Ðthe€date€the€parties€were€remarried.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded,€based€on€the€only€reliable€evidenceÐ ° Ðsubmitted,€that€the€value€of€the€401K€on€the€date€the€parties€remarried€was€$30,000.00.€Ð œì ÐApproximately€one€month€after€the€Trial€Court€entered€its€Judgment,€Husband€apparently€locatedÐ ˆØ Ðdocumentation€showing€that€the€value€of€the€401K€at€the€time€of€the€second€marriage€was€actuallyÐ tÄ Ð$36,125.70.€€Relying€on€this€newly€discovered€evidence,€Husband€filed€a€motion€to€modify€theÐ `° Ðjudgment€to€reflect€the€correct€pre„marital€value€of€the€401K.€€The€Trial€Court€denied€the€motion,Ð L œ Ðconcluding€that€Husband€was€bound€by€his€testimony€at€trial.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€hold€that€the€Trial€Court€did€not€err€in€denying€Husbandððs€motion€to€alter€orÐ  ` Ðamend€the€judgment.€€Husband€claims€in€his€motion€that€this€information€was€unavailable€at€trial,Ð ü L  Ðbut€offers€no€explanation€as€to€why€it€was€unavailable€or€what€efforts€he€undertook€to€make€itÐ è 8  Ðavailable€at€trial.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€Trial€Courtððs€denial€of€Husbandððs€motion€to€alter€or€amendÐ Ô$  Ðbased€on€this€issue.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€only€claim€made€by€Wife€on€appeal€is€a€request€for€her€attorney€fees€associatedÐ ˜è  Ðwith€this€appeal.€€We€decline€to€award€Wife€attorney€fees€on€appeal.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÐ 4„ Ðthe€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€andÐ  p Ðfor€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€the€Appellant,€James€MichaelÐ  \ ÐCantrell,€and€his€surety,€and€one„half€to€the€Appellee,€Pamela€K.€Cantrell.Ð øH ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEYÐ X ¨ ÐÌ