ÿWPCA" ?# ‚UN %Û 0 Ná 0Í/büw@4DXg†o 0DõN9 ; m= 0LT 0J  0Tê 0^> 0hœ 0r 0|v 0†ò 0x 1u 0d} AQá Æ2 0Dø B< 0@Y 0D™ D/Ý B  D3)U>\B)šDCà AM 0NSU*¡KËß0õ0%ŒUáv~ðvÓn˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(24^$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XŽöX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ¸ ¹ º » À¼ Ke½ e¾ D¿ À Ó€Ê ê‚_#ÔôtTÔô3|xÊ Cheatham v. Cheatham - Opinion Í(; ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ> ÿÿ$Large Circleððà0 à2 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"#%&'Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd"%3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ>û¥$Large Circleððà0  à< Œ 9p`(Arial AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ#"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌNovember€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Section€8(a)€program€is€a€business€development€program€administered€by€the€SmallÏBusiness€Administration€for€the€benefit€of€socially€and€economically€disadvantaged€firms.€€òòSeeóó€15ÏU.S.C.A.€ðð€637(a)(1)(C)€(West€1997).€€Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(2)(A)€„€(D).Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(A)€&€(B).Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Peters€was€already€working€for€Advanced€Integrated€Technology,€and€the€companyÏpaid€him€a€bonus€sufficient€to€enable€him€to€purchase€the€stock.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€though€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€owned€approximately€65%€of€the€company,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_ÔððsÏexpert€determined€that€the€value€of€his€interest€was€diluted€by€the€outstanding€option€to€purchaseÏthe€20%€interest€in€the€company.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€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&Ò¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœ›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àÔ€1„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ"ÙßR€473A1-j|;` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÔ€1¼ÔÌó óEUGENE€CALVIN€Ô_ÔCHEATHAMÔ_Ô,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€92„729ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9508„CH„00380ÌÔ_ÔKARYNÔ_Ô€ELIZABETH€Ô_ÔCHEATHAMÔ_Ô,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€MAURY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€COLUMBIA,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌW.€Gary€Blackburnà àà àà àà àà àMary€Frances€LyleÌDavid€F.€Goreà àà àà àà àà àà àBruce,€Weathers,€Ô_ÔCorleyÔ_Ô,ÌÓ` °ŠXLÐ XÓBlackburn,€Ô_ÔSlobeyÔ_Ô,€Freeman€&€Ô_ÔHappellÔ_Ôà àà àà à€Dughman€&€LyleÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌà@ àÔ€1„Ôò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIED€IN€PARTÌà@ àAND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€1¼ÔÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ° ÑÓ€ÓÔ€1„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€1¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€stems€from€the€dissolution€of€a€twenty„seven€year€marriage.€ÏTwo€years€after€entering€a€relationship€with€another€woman,€the€husband€filedÏsuit€for€divorce€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Maury€County.€€The€wife€initiallyÏresisted€the€divorce€but€later€counterclaimed€for€divorce.€€The€trial€court€heardÏthe€case€without€a€jury€and€awarded€the€wife€a€divorce€based€on€the€husbandððsÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€trial€court€also€divided€the€marital€estateÏequally,€awarded€the€wife€$3,000€per€month€in€long„term€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support,€andÏordered€the€husband€to€pay€an€additional€$41,000€for€the€wifeððs€legal€expenses.€ÏThe€husband€takes€issue€on€this€appeal€with€the€valuation€of€his€business,€theÏdivision€of€the€marital€estate,€the€long„term€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€award,€and€the€awardÏfor€legal€expenses.€€While€we€have€determined€that€the€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€award€isÏproper,€we€have€decided€that€the€division€of€the€marital€estate€must€be€modifiedÏto€correct€a€classification€error€and€that€the€award€for€legal€expenses€must€also€beÏrevised.€€Accordingly,€we€modify€and€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àÔ_ÔKarynÔ_Ô€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€and€Eugene€Calvin€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€met€while€theyÏwere€attending€Ohio€State€University.€€They€were€married€in€July€1965,€whenÏMr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€was€a€rising€sophomore,€and€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€was€about€to€begin€herÏsenior€year.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€did€not€complete€college€following€the€marriage.€ÏBoth€she€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€worked€until€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€graduated€from€OhioÏState€in€1969.€€Thereafter,€the€parties€moved€to€Michigan€where€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_ÔÏobtained€a€masterððs€degree€in€public€policy€from€the€University€of€Michigan.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€birth€of€their€first€child€in€1971,€the€parties€moved€toÏNashville€because€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€had€accepted€an€appointment€at€Fisk€UniversityÏas€an€assistant€professor€and€Director€of€the€Center€for€Urban€Public€Affairs.€ÏThe€parties€adopted€their€second€child€in€1973.€€In€addition€to€her€role€as€aÏhomemaker,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€briefly€operated€a€small,€part„time€crafts€business.€ÏThe€parties€moved€to€North€Carolina€in€1976€so€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€could€take€a€jobÏwith€the€State€of€North€Carolina.€€He€left€that€position€a€short€time€later€to€workÏat€North€Carolina€State€University.€€The€parties€experienced€their€first€maritalÏdifficulties€in€North€Carolina€and€sought€marital€counseling€while€they€wereÏthere.€ÌÌà àThe€parties€returned€to€Nashville€in€1978.€€Mr.€Cheatham€worked€as€aÏconsultant,€and€later€joined€with€Tony€and€Bill€Pogue,€two€venture€capitalists,€toÏfound€Advanced€Integrated€Technology,€Inc.,€a€business€providing€automationÏand€computer€consulting€services€to€other€businesses.€€After€the€Small€BusinessÏAdministration€certified€the€company€as€a€Section€8(a)€business,× ƒ8 ××  ×€the€companyÏbecame€eligible€for€preferences€with€regard€to€government€contracts.€ÏThereafter,€the€company€procured€several€lucrative€government€contracts,€asÏwell€as€contracts€with€large€industrial€customers.ÌÌà àMs.€Cheatham€obtained€an€advance€contract€from€a€publisher€for€a€book€inÏ1980,€but€by€this€time€life€at€home€was€not€going€smoothly.€€Mr.€Cheatham€hadÏan€affair€in€1981€which€he€concealed€from€Ms.€Cheatham€until€after€the€partiesÏseparated.€€Sensing€the€changes€in€the€relationship,€Ms.€Cheatham€suggested€moreÍmarital€counseling,€but€Mr.€Cheatham€declined,€blaming€the€demands€of€hisÏbusiness€for€his€long€absences€from€home.€ÌÌà àMr.€Cheathamððs€business€and€personal€relationships€changed€in€the€earlyÏ1990s.€€In€1991€he€helped€start€another€business€called€ProgressiveÏCommunications€Technology.€€The€business€sells€automated€operator€services,Ïand€Mr.€Cheatham€€owns€twenty„five€percent€of€the€company.€€One€year€later,€inÏ1992,€the€Pogue€Brothers€withdrew€from€Advanced€Integrated€Technology,€andÏthe€company€repurchased€their€stock.€€At€about€the€same€time,€Mr.€CheathamÏbegan€having€an€affair€with€Diane€Murphy€who€was€an€employee€of€ProgressiveÏCommunications€Technology.ÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€became€increasingly€distant,€and€Ms.€Cheatham€began€toÏsuspect€that€his€relationship€with€Ms.€Murphy€was€more€than€simply€business.€€InÏearly€October€1992,€Mr.€Cheatham€announced€that€ð ðI€just€canððt€do€this€any€moreððÏand€moved€out€of€the€house.€€Mr.€Cheatham€soon€began€lavishing€extravagantÏgifts€on€Ms.€Murphy€and€her€daughter,€and€in€early€1993,€Mr.€Cheatham€and€Ms.ÏMurphy€began€living€together€as€husband€and€wife.€€Ms.€Murphy€quit€her€job€atÏProgressive€Communications€Technology€in€the€spring€of€1993.€€From€that€timeÏon,€except€for€some€child€support€and€assistance€from€Ms.€Murphyððs€parents,€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€has€€supported€Ms.€Murphy€and€her€daughter.ÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€filed€for€an€irreconcilable€differences€divorce€in€DecemberÏ1992.€€Ms.€Cheatham€contested€the€divorce€and€professed€that€she€desired€aÏreconciliation.€€In€August€1994,€Ms.€Cheatham€filed€an€amended€counterclaimÏseeking€a€divorce€based€on€irreconcilable€differences,€cruel€and€inhumanÏtreatment,€and€adultery.€€The€trial€court€heard€the€proof€during€September€andÍOctober€1994€and€filed€its€judgment€in€December€1994.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏMs.€Cheatham€the€divorce€based€on€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€It€alsoÏdetermined€that€the€parties€should€each€receive€one„half€of€the€marital€estate,Ïwhich€the€trial€court€valued€at€$1,108,175.€€The€trial€court€also€directed€Mr.ÏCheatham€to€pay€Ms.€Cheatham€spousal€support€in€the€amount€of€$3,000€perÏmonth€until€her€death€or€remarriage.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€awarded€Ms.ÏCheatham€$41,141.98€to€defray€her€legal€expenses€because€Mr.€Cheatham€hadÏð ðattempt[ed]€to€paint€a€distorted€picture€of€this€martial€estateðð€during€the€lengthyÏand€sometimes€acrimonious€pretrial€discovery.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Division€of€the€Marital€Estateóóó óÌÌà àWe€begin€by€considering€the€division€of€the€marital€estate€because€theÏmanner€in€which€the€trial€court€allocates€marital€property€and€debts€can€affect€itsÏdecisions€with€regard€to€spousal€support.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)(G)€&€(H)€(Supp.€1997).€€Mr.€Cheatham€takes€issue€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€distribution€on€three€grounds:€€(1)€that€the€trial€court€improperly€valuedÏhis€interest€in€Advanced€Integrated€Technology,€(2)€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€classified€four€items€of€property,€and€€(3)€that€the€overall€effect€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€marital€estate€and€debts€was€inequitable.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌà@ àò òThe€Classification€of€the€Propertyó óÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€argues€that€the€trial€court€included€property€in€the€maritalÏestate€that€was€not€actually€marital€property.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€the€trialÍcourt€should€not€have€classified€a€1987€Porsche€and€a€1992€Jeep€Grand€CherokeeÏthat€were€owned€or€leased€by€Advanced€Integrated€Technology€and€a€1991€HondaÏAccord€and€a€condominium€titled€to€Diane€Murphy€as€marital€property.€€Ms.ÏCheatham€responds€that€including€this€property€in€the€marital€estate€was,€atÏworst,€harmless€error€because€the€trial€court€did€not€place€a€value€on€the€PorscheÏand€the€Jeep€and€because€the€trial€court€was€taking€into€account€the€possibility€thatÏMr.€Cheatham€might€have€an€equitable€interest€in€Ms.€Murphyððs€œproperty.›ÌÌà àThe€division€of€the€marital€estate€necessarily€begins€with€the€classificationÏof€the€partiesðð€property.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1994);€òòMcClellan€v.€McClellanóó,€873€S.W.2d€350,€351€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1993).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121€(1996)€provides€the€ground€rules€for€thisÏtask€by€providing€the€now€familiar€definitions€for€ð ðseparate€propertyðð× ƒ9 ××  ×€andÏð ðmarital€property.ðð× ƒ: ××  ×€€As€a€general€matter,€property€must€be€owned€by€one€orÏboth€spouses€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€in€order€to€be€considered€maritalÏproperty.€€òòSee€Brock€v.€Brockóó,€941€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€ÏTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€classifying€and€dividing€property€in€divorceÏproceedings.òò€€See€Fisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244,€246€(Tenn.€1983);€òòWilson€v.ÏMooreóó,€929€S.W.2d€367,€372€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€classify€theseÏfour€items€as€marital€property.€€Even€though€the€courts€may€look€behind€theÏrecord€title€of€property€in€cases€of€this€sort,€òòsee€Jones€v.€Jonesóó,€597€S.W.2d€886,Ï887€(Tenn.€1979);€òòLangford€v.€Ô_ÔLangfordÔ_Ôóó,€220€Tenn.€600,€604,€421€S.W.2d€632,Í634€(1967),€we€find€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Mr.€Cheatham€ð ðacquiredðð€anyÏof€this€property€ð ðduring€the€course€of€the€marriage€up€to€the€date€of€the€finalÏdivorce€hearing.ðð€€The€evidence€is€undisputed€that€Advanced€IntegratedÏTechnology,€not€Mr.€Cheatham,€owned€or€leased€the€Porsche€and€Jeep€GrandÏCherokee.€€While€Mr.€Cheatham€conceded€that€he€supported€Ms.€MurphyÏfinancially€following€the€separation,€there€is€no€evidence€that€he€acquired€theÏ1991€Honda€Accord€or€the€condominium€and€then€placed€them€in€Ms.€MurphyððsÏname€to€prevent€them€from€being€considered€marital€property.€€By€the€time€ofÏthe€divorce€hearing,€the€money€that€Mr.€Cheatham€had€provided€to€Ms.€MurphyÏwas€not€in€the€possession€of€either€party,€and€accordingly€neither€the€money€norÏits€proceeds€should€have€been€classified€as€marital€property.ÌÌà àEven€though€we€have€determined€that€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€theseÏfour€items€of€property€was€erroneous,€it€does€not€necessarily€follow€that€we€mustÏoverhaul€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€marital€estate.€€Because€the€trial€courtÏassigned€no€value€to€these€assets,€classifying€the€Porsche€and€the€Jeep€GrandÏCherokee€as€marital€property€had€no€effect€upon€the€overall€distribution€of€theÏmarital€property.€€The€trial€court€valued€Ms.€Murphyððs€1991€Honda€Accord€atÏ$5,000€and€her€interest€in€the€condominium€at€$5,000.€€We€will€assess€theÏramifications€of€these€classification€errors€on€the€overall€effect€of€the€division€ofÏthe€marital€estate€when€we€consider€whether€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€theÏmarital€estate€was€equitable.€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌà@ àò òThe€Valuation€of€the€Interest€in€Advanced€Integrated€Technologyó óÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€valuation€of€his€65%Ïinterest€in€Advanced€Integrated€Technology.€€He€argues€that€Ms.€CheathamððsÏvaluation€expert€based€his€opinion€on€erroneous€assumptions€and€that€the€valueÏplaced€on€his€interest€by€the€trial€court€is€not€supported€by€the€testimony€of€eitherÏpartyððs€expert€witness.€€We€have€determined€that€the€trial€courtððs€valuation€ofÏAdvanced€Integrated€Technology€is€within€the€range€of€the€valuation€evidence.ÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€and€the€Pogue€brothers€started€Advanced€IntegratedÏTechnology€after€the€parties€returned€from€North€Carolina.€€At€the€time€of€theÏdivorce,€the€company€employed€105€persons€and,€from€1989€to€1993,€grossedÏbetween€$10,000,000€and€$33,000,000€per€year.€€In€addition€to€the€governmentÏcontracts€obtained€through€the€Small€Business€Administration,€the€company€alsoÏhad€contracts€with€DuPont€Corporation,€Nissan,€Northern€Telecom,€andÏMcDonald„Douglas.€€ÌÌà àThe€Pogue€brothers,€who€owned€two„thirds€of€the€companyððs€outstandingÏshares,€decided€to€withdraw€from€the€business€following€a€dispute€with€Mr.ÏCheatham.€€The€company€purchased€their€shares€for€$1,600,000,€leaving€Mr.ÏCheatham€as€the€sole€owner€of€the€company.€€Following€this€transaction,€Mr.ÏCheatham€represented€that€the€value€of€his€interest€in€Advanced€IntegratedÏTechnology€was€as€high€as€$3,942,059.€€In€June€1993,€Mr.€Cheatham€sold€aÏ35.3%€interest€in€the€company€to€Donnie€L.€Peters€for€$690,311,€supposedly€toÏhonor€a€prior€commitment€made€to€induce€Mr.€Peters€to€join€the€company.× ƒ; ××  ×€ÏLater,€in€August€1994,€Mr.€Cheatham€violated€an€order€restraining€him€fromÏalienating€property€by€giving€a€lender€the€right€to€purchase€twenty€percent€of€theÍcompanyððs€stock€in€return€for€a€$1,200,000€loan.€€Just€six€weeks€before€the€trial,ÏMr.€Cheatham€valued€his€interest€in€the€company€at€$614,595.ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€companyððs€capitalized€earnings€and€net€asset€valueÏadjusted€for€the€effect€of€the€preferred€shares,€Ms.€Cheathamððs€valuation€expertÏtestified€that€the€value€of€Advanced€Integrated€Technology€was€$942,000.€€HeÏalso€determined€that€Mr.€Cheatham€effectively€owned€52%× ƒ< ××  ×€of€the€company€andÏthat€the€value€of€his€interest€was€$489,840.€€Mr.€Cheathamððs€expert€valued€Mr.ÏCheathamððs€interest€in€Advanced€Integrated€Technology€at€$187,000€by€givingÏgreater€weight€to€the€companyððs€more€recent€earnings.ÌÌà àValuation€of€marital€property€is€a€fact€question€whose€outcome€depends€onÏthe€proof€presented€by€the€parties.€€The€parties€have€the€obligation€to€presentÏcompetent€valuation€evidence,€and€they€are€bound€by€the€evidence€they€present.€ÏòòSee€Wallace€v.€Wallaceóó,€733€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€When€theÏparties€present€conflicting€valuation€evidence,€the€trial€courts€may€place€a€valueÏon€the€property€that€is€within€the€range€of€the€values€presented.€€òòSee€Brock€v.ÏBrockóó,€941€S.W.2d€at€902;€òòKoch€v.€Kochóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€577€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1993);€òòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€411€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Like€otherÏfact€questions,€a€trial€courtððs€decision€concerning€the€value€of€marital€property€isÏentitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal,€and€we€will€not€second„guess€the€decisionÏunless€it€is€inconsistent€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121€or€is€contrary€to€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Brock€v.€Brockóó,€941€S.W.2d€at€902;€òòSmith€v.ÏSmithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,€157€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€challenges€the€opinion€of€Ms.€Cheathamððs€valuation€expertÏon€the€ground€that€the€expert€overlooked€the€pattern€of€declining€earnings€overÏthe€past€five€years€and€failed€to€give€more€weight€to€the€companyððs€recentÏearnings.€€Our€review€of€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Cheathamððs€expert€does€notÏsupport€these€criticisms.€€Ms.€Cheathamððs€expert€determined€that€the€companyððsÏearnings€history€did€not€show€steadily€declining€revenues€but€rather€a€mixed€bagÏof€profits€and€losses€because€of€several€non„recurring€expenses.€€He€alsoÏconsidered€each€one€of€the€valuation€techniques€discussed€in€òòBlasingame€v.ÏAmerican€Materials,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€659,€666€(Tenn.€1983)€and€then€based€hisÏopinion€on€the€results€of€the€capitalization€of€earnings€method€and€the€net€assetÏvalue€method.ÌÌà àThe€choice€of€the€method€or€methods€used€to€value€a€corporation€dependsÏupon€the€unique€status€of€each€corporation.€€òòSee€Wright€v.€Quillenóó,€909€S.W.2dÏ804,€810€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€We€find€no€basis€for€discounting€the€conclusionÏof€Ms.€Cheathamððs€valuation€expert.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€his€conclusion€that€Mr.€Cheathamððs€interest€in€AdvancedÏIntegrated€Technology€was€worth€$489,840.ÌÌà àEven€though€Ms.€Cheathamððs€expert€valued€Mr.€Cheathamððs€interest€inÏAdvanced€Integrated€Technology€at€$489,840,€it€does€not€necessarily€follow€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€placing€a€$600,000€value€on€this€interest.€€Rather€thanÏrounding€up€the€expert€proof€by€$111,000€as€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€claims,€the€trialÏcourt€was€actually€accrediting€Mr.€Cheathamððs€own€representations€about€theÏvalue€of€his€interest€in€the€company.€€In€a€personal€financial€statement€datedÏAugust€9,€1994,€Mr.€Cheatham€stated€that€his€interest€in€Advanced€IntegratedÏTechnology€was€worth€$614,595.€€€Mr.€Cheatham€is€competent€to€testifyÍconcerning€the€value€of€his€company€and€is€bound€by€his€representations.€€WeÏfind€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€place€a€value€on€Mr.€CheathamððsÏinterest€in€Advanced€Integrated€Technology€that€is€consistent€with€his€ownÏvaluation€just€six€weeks€before€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌà@ àò òThe€Division€of€the€Marital€Estateó óÌÌà àThe€trial€court€undertook€to€award€each€party€exactly€one„half€of€the€netÏvalue€of€the€marital€estate.€€Nevertheless,€Mr.€Cheatham€asserts€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€division€was€inequitable€because€the€assets€he€received€were€ð ðfinanciallyÏunstableðð€and€ð ðburdened€by€heavy€indebtednessðð€while€the€assets€Ms.€CheathamÏreceived€were€liquid€and€unencumbered.€€After€adjusting€for€the€classificationÏerrors,€we€find€that€the€overall€effect€of€the€division€of€the€marital€property€isÏequitable.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€when€dividing€the€martial€property€andÏallocating€the€martial€debts.€€òòSee€Fisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€at€246;€òòWade€v.ÏWade,óó€897€S.W.2d€702,€715€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòKoch€v.€Kochóó,€874€S.W.2dÏat€579.€€We€customarily€give€these€decisions€great€weight€on€appeal,€òòsee€WilsonÏv.€Mooreóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€372,€and€we€decline€to€alter€these€decisions€unless€theyÏare€inconsistent€with€the€factors€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121€(1996)€or€areÏunsupported€by€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€168;ÏòòMahaffey€v.€Mahaffeyóó,€775€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€a€statutory€mandate€to€divide€marital€property€equitably.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(a)(1).€€Their€distribution,€however,€is€notÍrequired€to€be€mathematically€equal€to€be€equitable.€€òòSee€Cohen€v.€Cohenóó,€937ÏS.W.2d€823,€832€(Tenn.€1996);€òòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€1988);ÏòòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,€944€S.W.2d€379,€389€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€addition,Ïeach€party€is€not€entitled€to€receive€a€share€of€each€piece€of€marital€property€inÏorder€for€the€division€to€be€equitable.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€168.ÌÌÑ Ð ÑÑ ì Ñà àThe€trial€courtððs€purpose€in€dividing€the€marital€estate€was€(1)€to€awardÏMr.€Cheatham€his€two€businesses€and€his€commercial€real€estate€holdings€and€(2)Ïto€award€Ms.€Cheatham€more€liquid€assets€that€could€provide€her€with€futureÏsupport.€€The€trial€court€also€required€Mr.€Cheatham€to€be€responsible€for€theÏdebts€related€to€his€business€and€required€Ms.€Cheatham€to€be€responsible€for€herÏpersonal€bankcard€debts.€€Because€the€value€of€the€assets€Mr.€Cheatham€receivedÏwere€greater€than€those€Ms.€Cheatham€received,€the€trial€court€equalized€theÏdistribution€by€requiring€Mr.€Cheatham€to€pay€Ms.€Cheatham€an€additionalÏ$154,295.50€either€in€a€lump€sum€or€over€a€five„year€period€at€ten€percentÏinterest.ÌÌà àThis€distribution€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€weighed€the€relevantÏfactors€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121.€€The€marriage€is€of€long€duration.€ÏDuring€the€early€years€of€the€marriage,€Ms.€Cheatham€sacrificed€her€own€formalÏeducation€to€provide€some€of€the€financial€support€that€allowed€Mr.€Cheatham€toÏobtain€his€undergraduate€and€graduate€degrees.€€She€contributed€throughout€theÏmarriage€as€a€homemaker€and€mother,€and€her€efforts€enabled€Mr.€Cheatham€toÏbecome€successful€in€business.€€Now,€at€the€age€of€fifty„four,€Ms.€Cheatham€isÏless€employable€than€Mr.€Cheatham,€and€thus€her€earning€capacity€and€her€abilityÏto€accumulate€capital€assets€in€the€future€is€inferior€to€his.€€Based€on€herÏcontributions€to€the€marriage,€her€future€employment€prospects,€and€her€physicalÍcondition,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€awarded€her€one„half€of€theÏmarital€estate.ÌÌà àWe€determined€earlier€in€Section€II(A)€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏclassifying€Ms.€Murphyððs€1991€Honda€Accord€and€the€equity€from€aÏcondominium€in€her€name€as€marital€property.€€The€combined€value€of€thisÏproperty€is€$10,000.€€To€offset€this€error,€we€have€determined€that€the€propertyÏdivision€should€be€modified€by€eliminating€Ms.€Cheathamððs€one„fourth€interest€inÏthe€Sam€Johnson€property€and€by€awarding€Mr.€Cheatham€the€entire€interest€inÏthis€property.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Award€of€Long„term€Spousal€Supportóóó óà àÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€require€him€toÏpay€Ms.€Cheatham€spousal€support€in€the€amount€of€$3,000€per€month€until€herÏdeath€or€Ñ Ü ÑÑ ° Ñremarriage.€€He€insists€that€the€trial€court€ignored€the€legislativeÏpresumption€favoring€rehabilitative€support€as€well€as€the€proof€that€Ms.ÏCheatham€is€not€economically€disadvantaged€because€of€the€amount€of€maritalÏproperty€she€has€received€and€because€of€her€income€potential€as€a€writer.€€WeÏfind€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€consistent€with€the€evidence€and€the€factors€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€(Supp.€1997).€€ÌÌà àThere€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€spousal€support€decisions.òò€€See€CrainÏv.€Crainóó,€925€S.W.2d€232,€233€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Trial€courts€have€broadÏdiscretion€in€setting€the€amount€and€duration€of€spousal€support.€€òòSee€Garfinkel€v.ÍGarfinkelóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€784ÏS.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Their€decisions€should€be€guided€by€theÏunique€facts€of€each€case€and€by€a€careful€balancing€of€the€factors€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€òòSee€Hawkins€v.€Hawkinsóó,€883€S.W.2d€622,€625€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1994);€òòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€at€412.€€Appellate€courts€customarilyÏdecline€to€second„guess€trial€courtsðð€spousal€support€decisions€unless€they€are€notÏsupported€by€the€evidence€or€are€contrary€to€the€public€policy€embodied€in€theÏapplicable€statutes.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòIngram€v.€Ingramóó,Ï721€S.W.2d€262,€264€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àEven€though€fault€is€a€relevant€consideration€when€setting€spousal€support,Ïòòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)(K),€spousal€support€decisions€are€notÏintended€to€be€punitive.€€òòSee€Duncan€v.€Duncanóó,€686€S.W.2d€568,€571€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1984);€òòMcClung€v.€McClungóó,€29€Tenn.€App.€580,€584,€198€S.W.2d€820,Ï822€(1946).€€Their€purpose€is€to€assist€the€economically€disadvantaged€spouse€toÏbecome€and€remain€self„sufficient€and,€when€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible,€toÏmitigate€the€harsh€economic€realities€of€divorce.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913ÏS.W.2d€at€169.€€The€principle€factors€influencing€spousal€support€decisionsÏinclude€the€need€of€the€recipient€spouse€and€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€toÏpay.€€òòSee€Varley€v.€Varleyóó,€934€S.W.2d€659,€668€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòCrain€v.ÏCrainóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€234;€òòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€reflects€a€preference€for€temporary,Ïrehabilitative€support,€as€opposed€to€long„term€support.€€òòSee€Wilson€v.€Mooreóó,Ï929€S.W.2d€at€375.€€This€preference€does€not€entirely€displace€other€forms€ofÍspousal€support€when€the€facts€warrant€longer€term€or€more€open„ended€support.€ÏòòSee€Aaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1995);€òòIsbell€v.€Isbellóó,€816ÏS.W.2d€735,€739€(Tenn.€1991).€€Trial€courts€have€the€prerogative€to€determineÏthe€type€of€spousal€support€that€best€fits€the€circumstances,€and€thus€trial€courtsÏmay€award€several€different€kinds€of€support€in€the€same€case€when€the€factsÏwarrant€it.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€property€she€received€in€the€division€of€the€maritalÏestate,€Ms.€Cheatham€is€economically€disadvantaged€compared€to€Mr.€CheathamÏand€to€her€pre„divorce€standard€of€living.€€She€is€now€54€years€old€and€isÏsuffering€from€sickle€cell€disease.€€While€she€has€received€some€modest€incomeÏfrom€her€writing€and€photography€during€the€past€seventeen€years,€she€has€beenÏout€of€the€workplace€for€approximately€twenty€years.€€Her€prospects€forÏemployment€and€for€significant€financial€rehabilitation€at€this€stage€in€her€life€areÏguarded€at€best.€€In€light€of€Ms.€Cheathamððs€education,€current€health,€andÏduration€of€the€marriage,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€she€isÏentitled€to€long„term€spousal€support.ÌÌà àWe€have€noted€in€other€cases€that€long„term€spousal€support€may€be€used€toÏmitigate€the€harsh€economic€effects€of€divorce€on€an€innocent€spouse.€€òòSeeÏShackleford€v.€Shacklefordóó,€611€S.W.2d€598,€601€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€WhileÏdivorcing€parties€often€lack€sufficient€income€or€assets€to€enable€both€of€them€toÏmaintain€their€pre„divorce€standard€of€living,€òòsee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2dÏat€169,€an€obligor€spouse€may€occasionally€be€able€to€provide€some€ð ðclosing€inÏmoneyðð€to€enable€a€former€spouse€to€approach€his€or€her€former€economicÏposition.€€òòSee€Aaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€411.€€In€this€case,€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€isÍfinancially€able€to€provide€ð ðclosing€in€moneyðð€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô,€and€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€has€demonstrated€that€she€needs€and€deserves€long„term€support.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€order€Mr.€Cheatham€to€payÏMs.€Cheatham€$3,000€per€month€until€her€death€or€remarriage.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Award€for€Ms.€Cheathamððs€Legal€Expensesóóó óÌÌà àMr.€Cheatham€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€pay€Ms.ÏCheatham€an€additional€$41,141.98€to€defray€her€legal€expenses.€€He€argues€thatÏMs.€Cheatham€has€received€sufficient€liquid€assets€to€enable€her€to€pay€her€ownÏlegal€expenses.€Ms.€Cheatham€responds€that€Mr.€Cheathamððs€conduct€duringÏdiscovery€provided€adequate€grounds€for€the€trial€courtððs€order.€€We€haveÏdetermined€that€the€award€for€legal€expenses€should€be€reduced.ÌÌà àAwards€for€legal€expenses€in€divorce€litigation€are€considered€to€beÏadditional€awards€of€spousal€support.€€òòSee€Gilliam€v.€Gilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòRaskind€v.€Raskindóó,€45€Tenn.€App.€583,€601,€325€S.W.2dÏ617,€625€(1959).€€They€are€appropriate€when€an€economically€disadvantagedÏspouse€lacks€funds€to€defray€his€or€her€legal€expenses,€òòsee€Harwell€v.€Harwellóó,Ï612€S.W.2d€182,€185€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980),€but€are€inappropriate€when€theÏspouse€seeking€the€award€is€able€to€pay€his€or€her€own€lawyer€either€from€his€orÏher€own€earnings€or€from€the€assets€received€in€the€divorce.€€òòSee€Inman€v.ÏInman,€óó811€S.W.2d€870,€874€(Tenn.€1991);€òòMcCarty€v.€McCartyóó,€863€S.W.2dÏ716,€722€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àThese€awards€for€legal€expenses€should€be€distinguished€from€monetaryÏsanctions€for€discovery€abuse€permitted€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€37.01(4)€and€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€37.02.€€We€have€approved€the€imposition€of€monetary€sanctions€forÏdiscovery€abuse€in€a€divorce€case€following€an€appropriate€motion€and€hearing.€ÏòòSee€Mansfield€v.€Mansfieldóó,€App.€No.€01A01„9412„CH„00058,€1995€WL€643329,Ïat€*8€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€3,€1995)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€ÏHowever,€we€have€also€held€that€awards€for€additional€legal€expenses€caused€byÏobstructive€behavior€should€not€be€awarded€in€the€absence€of€a€proper€request€forÏmonetary€sanctions.€€òòSee€Turner€v.€Turneróó,€App.€No.€01A01„9506„CV„00255,Ï1997€WL€136448,€at€*13€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€27,€1997)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï11€application€filed).€€ÌÌà àMs.€Cheatham€did€not€pursue€monetary€sanctions€against€Mr.€Cheatham€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€37.€€The€trial€court€never€held€a€hearingÏconcerning€the€propriety€of€sanctions€and€never€determined€the€portion€of€Ms.ÏCheathamððs€legal€expenses€that€could€properly€be€applicable€to€Mr.€CheathamððsÏinappropriate€conduct€during€discovery.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€review€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€award€Ms.€Cheatham€$41,141.98€in€legal€expenses€using€theÏstandards€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€37.€€Rather,€we€must€review€the€attorney€fee€awardÏusing€the€standards€traditionally€used€to€review€awards€for€legal€expenses€inÏdivorce€cases.€€òòSee€Turner€v.€Turneróó,€òòsupraóó,€1997€WL€136448,€at€*13.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€the€division€of€the€marital€property,€Ms.€Cheatham€hasÏreceived€assets€valued€at€approximately€$500,000,€including€a€$154,000€cashÏpayment.€€Accordingly,€she€has€received€sufficient€liquid€assets€to€enable€her€toÍpay€her€legal€bills.€€However,€she€should€not€be€forced€to€bear€the€full€burden€ofÏthese€expenses€if€she€will€have€to€dispose€of€assets€that€she€will€need€later€toÏsupport€herself.€€Based€on€the€evidence€concerning€her€health,€education,€andÏprospects€for€employment,€Ms.€Cheatham€will€most€likely€be€required€to€use€aÏlarge€portion€of€the€property€she€received€in€the€division€of€the€marital€estate€toÏprovide€housing€for€herself€and€to€support€herself€in€the€future.€€She€is,€however,Ïnot€without€some€ability€to€support€herself.€€Accordingly,€we€reduce€the€awardÏfor€legal€expenses€from€$41,141.98€to€$15,000.€€€à àÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Modification€of€the€Decreeóóó óÌÌà àAs€a€final€matter,€Mr.€Cheatham€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÏamended€the€December€2,€1994€decree€because€Ms.€Cheathamððs€motion€was€notÏtimely€filed.€€We€find€little€merit€to€this€argument€because€the€December€2,€1994Ïdecree€had€not€disposed€of€all€the€issues€between€the€parties.€€ÌÌà àThe€December€2,€1994€decree€allocated€Ms.€Cheathamððs€bank€card€debts€toÏher€but€failed€to€specifically€allocate€the€responsibility€for€the€other€debts.€€OnÏApril€19,€1995,€Ms.€Cheatham€filed€a€motion€requesting€the€trial€court€to€addressÏthe€remaining€debts€and€to€order€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€should€be€responsible€forÏthem.€€In€its€June€2,€1995€order€amending€the€divorce€decree,€the€trial€courtÏspecifically€found€that€it€had€ð ðthrough€inadvertence€.€.€.€omitted€from€the€FinalÏDivorce€Decree€the€provision€concerning€the€partiesðð€joint€personal€and€businessÏdebts€other€than€those€specifically€ordered€to€be€paid€by€the€Wife.ðð€€ÌÌà àUnder€these€circumstances,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ôððs€post„judgment€motion€wasÏtimely€and€proper.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.01€permits€the€correction€of€clericalÏmistakes€in€judgments€and€orders,€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€permits€reliefÏfrom€judgments€because€of€inadvertence.€€When€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€filed€a€timelyÏmotion€to€call€attention€to€the€trial€courtððs€oversight,€the€trial€court€acknowledgedÏthat€it€had€overlooked€allocating€all€the€partiesðð€debts€in€the€original€order€andÏthen€entered€an€order€correcting€its€own€Ô_ÔinadvertentÔ_Ô€oversight.€€We€find€no€faultÏwith€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ôððs€motion€or€with€the€trial€courtððs€response.ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€as€modified€herein€and€deny€Ms.€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_ÔððsÏrequest€for€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal.€€We€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€whatever€further€proceedings€are€required,€and€we€tax€the€costs€of€this€appealÏin€equal€proportions€to€Eugene€Calvin€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€and€his€surety€and€to€Ô_ÔKarynÔ_ÔÏElizabeth€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌBEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€JUDGE€œ›