WPCDj F|bn=Y:I}9&`!~/VȆb"qպO_O?,$_Va|nS1dW1 vfWWu >~&A%Y-j |9THo(xhIb@UM镃yڰR54#s<9Th]aOW?%K޻jP yZZcX1#XԩJG=< 92QrV["_W~WPKof6}I%V`Y8Ubޭ?,V4T^t%kVIJ2FK)E! 0# 0 0 0` 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0Q 0 0 0F 0 0v 0 0 0! 0C" 0" 0# 0/$b$ 0$ 0a%% 0Dq(^(W+j-z /1 03 0=4 04 0>5 05 06 07 08 09 0w: 0Y; 0< 02< 0=> 0:@@ 0Y5A 0_A 0 A 0B 0yD B*F D/F 0F D/H 0 I 0I 06J 0J BL4!L 0UP D5P D-.Q 0K[Q[Q ASQQ 0R 0DcS AS 0:RT 0^T 0<T 1e&U 0NUU6UU>VU*MVwVsEYDZZG\C^1`1` 0caaa7b7b 1ue 72zezezezezezezezezezeeHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-+00  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U VickiespousalKincaidMahaffeyMondelluRoberstonCrabtree BMIobligorArmentroutCasbyHazlerigShipleyHilandAndertonBurlewWattersPankow S.W.Pendergrass Crim EvidHarwellMcCordNat'lHollingsworthBlankenshipn]othingDavidsonsHanselmanDemseyCarteecolorable COALevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Rd$      7     _Ofcourse,noneofthisevidenceisintherecord.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h - -()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x      ' ib011c20ib011c2 .   (#$  0   T Rd$      1     _Therecorddoesnotclearlyindicatethecontextinwhichthese informaldiscussionstookplace.Because H thetrialcourtwasoneofthecourtsincludedintheParentingPlanpilotproject,ActofMay30,1997,ch.557,1,1997   Tenn.Pub.Acts1175,1176,wepresumethatthepartiesinthiscasewererequiredtoattendaparenteducationalseminar  andtoparticipateinmediationofsomesort. M Rd$      3     _ThetrialcourtneverexplaineditsreasonsforitsratherunorthodoxdecisiontolinkthedurationofMr. H Davidsonsspousalsupportobligationtohisoldersonshighschoolgraduation.Inlightofitscustodydecision,we   presumethatthetrialcourtwasattemptingtooffsetMs.DavidsonsobligationtopaychildsupporttoMr.Davidsonuntil  theirolderchildgraduatedfromhighschool.  Rd$      2     _ThelawyeralsoannouncedthatMs.Davidsonwouldnotopposeanirreconcilabledifferencesdivorce.The H trialcourtremindedMs.Davidsonthatanirreconcilabledifferencesdivorcewasnotavailableinlightofthe   circumstancesofthiscase. p Rd$      4     _InreUseofVideotapeEquipmenttoRecordCourtProceedings(Tenn.Oct.31,1996).Thisorderstatedthat H  thetrialcourtsofDavidsonCountyareherebygrantedauthorizationtousevideotapeequipmenttorecordcourt   proceedingsinaccordancewithTenn.S.Ct.R.26.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtamendedTenn.S.Ct.R.26on  November13,2001topermittheuseofCDROMrecordingsinadditiontovideotaperecordings.  Rd$      5     _Atypicalinstallationhasheretoforeincludedvoiceactivatedmicrophonesatthewitnessstand,thespeakers H podium,infrontofthejurybox,onthebench,andoneateachofthetwocounseltables.TennesseeJudicialConference,   AdHocCommitteeonVideotapedTrialRecords,InterimReportandRecommendations6(Oct.1996).0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKg<6X9`(Courier NewKSh\  `&Times New RomanS  Rd$      10     _Thisruleappliesnotonlytoissuesdirectlyinvolvingthemannerinwhichtrialcourtsdividedthemarital H propertyorallocatedthemaritaldebts,butalsotoissueswhosedispositiondependsonthemannerinwhichthetrial   courtdividedthemaritalproperty.Inthiscase,Mr.Davidsonistakingissuewiththeawardofspousalsupportbased  upontheamountofmaritalpropertyMs.Davidsonreceived.Becausehisargumentinvolvesthedivisionofmarital L property,heshouldhavefiledaTenn.Ct.App.R.7tabulation.42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kg<6X9`(Courier NewKSh\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kg<6X9`(Courier NewKSh\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?i%2A`Arial?  Sh\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dN)1dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?i%2A`Arial?  Sh\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  N)2dxd(|G2d$ !.8@dXXd8         0   0KS.SampleKg<6X9`(Courier NewKSh\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKg<6X9`(Courier NewKSh\  `&Times New RomanS d * Rd$      6     _Theseitemsinclude:(1)informationregardingMr.Davidsons401(k)plan,(2)theproposeddistributionof H thehouseholditems,(3)documentsrelatingtoMs.Davidsonsstudentloan,(4)documentsregardingthepartiestax   debts,(5)Mr.Davidsonsincomeandexpensestatement,(6)Ms.DavidsonsBMIpaystubsshowingthemoney  withheldfromhersalary,(7)copiesofcheckspayabletoMr.Davidsonthathadbeensurreptitiouslyendorsedandcashed L byMs.Davidson,(8)thechildrensreportcards,(9)Ms.Davidsonsoriginalincomeandexpensestatement,(10)Ms. X Davidsonsrevisedincomeandexpensestatement,and(11)amemorandumregardingMs.Davidsonsreleaseofher  consortiumclaiminoneofMr.Davidsonspersonalinjuryactionsagainstathirdparty.  (|3 \$ !.8@dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 \$ !.8@dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  Rd$      8     _TheportionsoftherecordcitedtousbyMr.Davidsondonotcontainanobjectiontothetrialcourtsdecision H oratenderofproof.Rather,theydepictthetrialcourtsexplanationregardingwhyitdidnotdesiretohearthetestimony   regardingthepartiesconduct.AtonepointintheproceedingnotcitedbyMr.Davidson,hislawyercomplainedthat   weshouldnotbeascarefulaboutexcludingstuff.Thisstatementisnotaneffectiveobjectiontotheexclusionof L evidence. i Rd$      13     _Mr.DavidsonaccusedMs.Davidsonofspendingmostofherincomeforherself.Forherpart,Ms.Davidson H accusedMr.Davidsonofgambling.Shealsoadmittedthat webothdidwhatwewantedwithourmoney. : Rd$      11     _Theamountorvalueofseveralitemscannotbefoundintherecordorderivedfrominformationthatisinthe H record.Theseitemsincludethe1992Nissantruck,theChapter13lienclaimedbyMr.Davidson,thestudentloansin   excessof$2,800claimedbyMs.Davidson,thepersonalproperty,andtheanticipatedrecoveryinoneofMr.Davidsons  pendingpersonalinjurylawsuits. = Rd$      14     _Herinterestinthepartiesretirementaccounts($22,800)wasnotliquid,andtheNissanMaxima,valuedat H $5,000wasadepreciatingassetneededfortransportation.  Rd$      12     _ThelumpsumpaymenttoMs.Davidsonrepresentsonehalfoftheequityinthemaritalresidence($9,500) H plus$42.78whichrepresentsthedifferencebetweenonehalfoftheequityinthe1988Cadillac($1,000)minusthe   amountofthethreecheckspayabletoMr.DavidsonthatMs.Davidsonwrongfullycashed($957.22).  Rd$      16     _Theapproachweusetocalculateanobligorspousesincomeforthepurposeofsettingspousalsupportis H substantiallysimilartotheapproachweusetodetermineanobligorparentsincomeforthepurposeofsettingchild   support.(;3$2#  0  .3  0    Rd$      15     _Ms.Davidsonoriginallyproducedanincomeandexpensestatementthatdidnotreflectheranticipated H housingexpenses,herstudentloanpayment,andtheincomefromherparttimejob.Thetrialcourtorderedarecessto   giveheranopportunitytoprepareanamendedstatement.Neithertheoriginalnortheamendedincomeandexpense  statementisintherecord;therefore,wecannotdeterminewithcertaintythatexactamountofthemonthlydeficitbetween L Ms.Davidsonsincomeandherexpenses.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)wi)  Rd$      9     _HadMr.Davidsonproperlypreservedthisissue,wewouldhaveheldthatthetrialcourterredbyexcluding H evidenceregardingMs.Davidsonsconductduringthemarriage.Givingduedeferencetothetrialcourtsdistastefor   derogatorytestimony,faultisoneofthefactorstoconsiderwhensettingspousalsupport.Tenn.CodeAnn.365  101(d)(1)(K).BecausetheevidencepresentedduringthehearingonMr.Davidsonspetitionforaprotectiveordercould L notproperlyhavebeenimportedintothishearing,Mr.Davidsonwasentitledtopresentwhateverevidenceoffaulthe X had.Thatbeingsaid,itisalsoquitelikelythatwewouldhavefoundthetrialcourtserrorstobeharmlessbecauseMs.  Davidsonsconduct,evenifitwasasbadasthetrialcourtcharacterizedit,wouldnothavebeensoegregiousthatit  wouldhavepreventedherfromreceivingspousalsupport. !.8@dd8     _TRY,3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter 3' Letter3'TH  @8yXXdd8  @ H@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE H @kk$ATNASHVILLE#@H|#Ԉ n&   AssignedonBriefsSeptember10,2002 L XyX@ #@XXyr#HENRYLEEDAVIDSON,SR.v.VICKIEDENISEDAVIDSONXyX@  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.00D1199MariettaShipley,Judge ~ 6 @@*AV) ` dE<U ` A V   @@TTNo.M200101830COAR3CVFiledDecember11,_2002_ Q  AV) ` dE<(` A )     Thisappealinvolvesthedissolutionofasixteenyearmarriage.Followingabenchtrial,theCircuit $  CourtforDavidsonCountydeclaredthepartiesdivorced,dividedtheirmaritalpropertyanddebts,   madeprovisionsforthecustodyandsupportoftheirtwominorchildren,andawardedthewife  rehabilitativespousalsupportforapproximatelytenyears.Thehusbandchallengesthespousal  supportawardonthreegrounds!thatthewifedoesnotneedspousalsupportinlightofthemarital  propertyshereceived,thattheamountofspousalsupportistoohighbecausethetrialcourt x miscalculatedhisincome,andthatthetrialcourterroneouslypreventedhimfrompresenting d evidenceregardingthewifesfault.Wehavedeterminedthatthespousalsupportawardissupported P bytheevidenceand,therefore,weaffirmit. < #@XXy#XyX@  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  \   #@Xy1 #XyX.@WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand 4 PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.   JeffreyS.Pulley,Nashville,Tennessee,attorneyfortheappellant,HenryLeeDavidson,Sr.  EdwardL.Hiland,Nashville,Tennessee,attorney(onappeal)fortheappellee,VickieDenise   Davidson.  t!   OPINION "L# I. l$$!%  #@XXy #XyX@#@XXy@ #  XyX@  HenryLeeDavidson,Sr.andVickieDeniseDavidsonweremarriedinChattanoogainMay D&"' 1984.Mr.DavidsongraduatedfromTennesseeStateUniversity,andMs.Davidsonlatergraduated 0'#( fromTennesseeStateUniversityin1991.ThepartiesoldestsonwasborninJanuary1985,and ($) theirsecondsonwasborninApril1988.Thepartiesapparentlyhaddifficultymanagingtheir )%* personalfinances,andbothpartiesfiledforbankruptcyonatleastoneoccasionduringtheir )&+ marriage.Atthetimetheseproceedingsstarted,Mr.DavidsonwasemployedbyBPOilCompany *', andalsooperatedhisownparttimelawncareandcardetailingbusiness.Ms.Davidsonwas +(- employedbyBroadcastMusic,Inc.andalsoworkedparttimeataretailclothingstoreforwomen. ,p).   .H+0 _  OnApril26,2000,Mr.Davidsonfiledacomplaintfordivorce,citingirreconcilable H  differences,inappropriatemaritalconduct,andindignities.Healsosoughtcustodyoftheparties 4 twochildren.Becauseoffinancialconstraints,thepartiescontinuedtoliveinthemaritalresidence   afterMr.Davidsonfiledfordivorce.Ms.Davidsoneventuallyrespondedtothedivorcecomplaint   bydenyingthatMr.Davidsonhadgroundsfordivorceandbyrequestingthedismissalofhis  complaint.Shedidnotcounterclaimfordivorce.    InSeptember2000,Mr.Davidsonrequestedanordergrantinghimexclusivepossessionof  t thepartieshouseandtemporarycustodyofthepartieschildrenbecauseofMs.Davidsons violent  ` andabusivebehavior,includingkickingindoorsandbreakingthewindshieldofhiscar.After  L  encounteringdifficultyinobtainingahearingonhismotion,Mr.Davidsonpetitionedforanorder  8  ofprotection.ThetrialcourtenteredanorderofprotectiononDecember20,2000basedonthe l $  partiesconductthatitlatercharacterizedasan extremecaseofparentsfightingwitheachother. X  ItwasatthispointthatMr.Davidsonmovedintoanapartment,takingsomefurnitureandother D  itemsofpersonalpropertywithhim. 0    Thepartiesdiscussedtheirmaritalcircumstances informallypriortotrialbutwere  apparentlyunabletoresolvealltheirdisagreements.3 2#  1      ׀AtthebeginningofthetrialonFebruary21,  2001,Ms.Davidsonslawyerannouncedthathisclientnolongeropposeddeclaringtheparties  divorcedinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b)(2001)5 2#  2      ׀andassertedthatthis  concessionwouldavoidturningthetrialintoa JerrySpringercircus.HealsomovedtoamendMs. p DavidsonspleadingspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.15.02torequestcustodyofthepartiesyounger \ son,childsupport,rehabilitativespousalsupport,andanequitableshareofthemaritalproperty.Mr. H DavidsondidnotobjecttotheamendmentsbutdidnotagreewithMs.Davidsonsproposals |4 regardingcustodyofthepartiesyoungerson,thedivisionofthemaritalproperty,orspousal h  support. T    Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtdeclaredthepartiesdivorcedpursuanttoTenn.Code , Ann.364129(b).ThetrialcourtalsograntedMr.Davidsoncustodyofthepartiesoldersonand  Ms.Davidsoncustodyofthepartiesyoungersonandmadeprovisionsforthepaymentofchild  support.Afterdividingthepartiesmaritalpropertyandallocatingthemaritaldebts,thetrialcourt  orderedMr.DavidsontopayMs.Davidson$600permonthinrehabilitativespousalsupportuntil  theiroldestchildgraduatedfromhighschoolandthereaftertopayMs.Davidson$250permonth    foreightyears.4 2#  3      ׀Eachpartysubmittedfinaldivorcedecreesandfinalparentingplansfollowingthe !l! trial.Thetrialcourtsignedbothordersdespitethefactthattheycontainedmateriallyconflicting H provisions.Afterthisproblemwasbroughttothetrialcourtsattention,thetrialcourtenteredan 4 amendedfinaljudgmentofdivorceandanorderamendingthepreviouslyfiledparentingplan.Mr.   Davidsonhasperfectedthisappeal.   @) II.   @  TheAdequacyoftheAppellateRecord     BeforeaddressingthesubstantivemeritsofMr.Davidsonsappeal,weareconstrainedto  ` commentontheconditionoftheappellaterecord.Infactintensivecasessuchasthisone,efficient  L  andthoroughappellatereviewcantakeplaceonlywhenthepartieshaveprovidedthecourtwithan  8  adequateappellaterecord.Anadequaterecord,inthewordsofTenn.R.App.P.24(a),isonethat l $  is sufficienttoconveyafair,accurateandcompleteaccountofwhattranspired[attrial]withrespect X  tothoseissuesthatarethebasesofappeal.... Therecordinthiscaseis,atbest,marginally D  adequate. 0    In1993,theTennesseeSupremeCourtpromulgatedTenn.S.Ct.R.26tofacilitateapilot  projecttoassesswhethervideotapedrecordswerealesscostly,yetsatisfactory,alternativeto  traditionalwrittentranscripts.AsaresultofanorderenteredbytheTennesseeSupremeCourton  October31,1996,6 2#  4      ׀thetrialcourtbecameoneofahandfulofstatecourtsusingvideotechnologyto  preservetheofficialrecordoftheirproceedings.Thecurrentconsensusamongvirtuallyalllawyers p andjudgeswhohaveusedvideorecordstoprepareappellatebriefsandopinionsduringthepastnine \ yearsisthattheappellateapplicationofvideotechnologyhasnotliveduptoitspromiseforthree H reasons.First,thevideotapeplaybackequipmenthasprovedtobecumbersomeanddifficulttouse. |4 Second,usingvideorecordshassignificantlyincreasedthetimeandeffortrequiredtoprepare h  appellatebriefsandopinionsbecausereviewingvideorecordsinrealtimeismuchmoretime T  consumingthanreviewingawrittenrecord.Third,theexpectedcostsavingstothetaxpayersand @ thelitigantshavenotbeensubstantiated. ,   Thepoorqualityofthevideoandaudioreproductioninthiscaseexacerbatestheinherent  shortcomingsofvideotapedrecords.Thevideopictureisnoisyandindistinctinplaces.Theaudio  recordingequipmentinthetrialcourtdiffersfromtheequipmentinstalledinothercourtroomsin  whichvideorecordingequipmenthasbeeninstalled.Insteadofsixvoiceactivatedmicrophones,7 2#  5          onlythreemicrophonesappeartobeinstalledinthetrialcourt!oneatthewitnessstand,oneatthe !l! speakerspodium,andoneonthebench.Inadditiontotheproblemscreatedbythelackof "X" microphones,themicrophonelocatedatthewitnessstandwasnotworkingthroughoutthis #D # proceeding,andamalfunctioninthevoiceactivationfeaturecausedthecameratorepeatedlyfocus x$0!$ onanemptywitnesschairfornoapparentreason.Asaresult,significantportionsofthewitnesses d%"% testimonyispracticallyindecipherable,andthestatementsandargumentsofcounselbecamedifficult P&#& tounderstandanytimetheymovedawayfromthespeakerspodiumoraddressedthetrialcourtfrom H thecounseltables. 4   Inadditiontothetechnicalshortcomingsoftherecordingequipment,anapparentlackof   familiaritywiththeproperoperationoftheequipmentcontributedtothe shortcomingsintherecord  inthreematerialrespects.First,therecordingequipmentwasapparentlynotturnedonuntilthetrial  wasalreadywellunderway.Second,theaudioequipmentremainedonduringthetrialcourts   confidentialinterviewinchamberswiththepartieschildren,aswellasduringaprivatediscussion  t betweenthetrialcourtandastaffmemberregardingtheoptionsfordisposingofthemaritalhome.  ` Becausetheaudioequipmentremainedon,thesediscussionsinchamberswerebroadcastintothe  L  courtroomforalltohear.Third,theportionofthevideorecordingofthetrialcourtsdecisionfrom  8  thebenchis,forsomeunexplainedreason,interruptedbyarecordingofapproximatelythirtyseconds l $  ofanetworktelevisionsoapopera. X    Finally,theadequacyoftherecordhasbeencompromisedbythetrialcourtsfailureto 0  prepareandtransmittothiscourtthe testimonylogandwitnesslistrequiredbyTenn.S.Ct.R.26,   2.01(c).Infact,the record doesnotcontainany oftheelevendocumentstenderedtoandactually  consideredbythetrialcourtduringthetrial.W 2#  6      ׀Thevideotaperecorddepictsthetrialcourtreceiving  andconsideringthesedocuments.However,forsomeunexplainedreason,thetrialcourtfailedto  identifyandadmitanyofthemasexhibits.    Thecontentsofthesedocumentsareobviouslyrelevantandmaterialtotheissuesbeing \ raisedonthisappeal.Intheirabsence,andintheabsenceofanyappropriatewaytomakethempart H ofthisrecord,wehavelaboriouslyandrepeatedlyreviewedthe5.5hourvideotapeofthe |4 proceedingstogleanfromthewitnessestestimonyenoughinformationabouttheircontentsto h  decidetheissuesraisedbyMr.Davidsononthisappeal.Despitethedisorganizedpresentationsof T  thelawyers,theinformalityofthetrialcourt,andtheinherentshortcomingsofthevideorecord,we @ haveextractedsufficientinformationtoenableustodecidethisappeal.Thereisnoassurancethat , wewouldhavethesamesuccesswerewetobepresentedwithasimilarrecordinanothercase.     8 @ III.  8 @ TheAwardofSpousalSupport   Y<  TheonlyissuesthatMr.Davidsonhasraisedonappealinvolvetherehabilitativespousal !l! supportaward.First,heassertsthatMs.Davidsondidnotneedspousalsupportinlightofthe "X" maritalpropertyshereceived.Healsoinsiststhatthetrialcourtimproperlypreventedfromhim #D # introducingevidenceoffaultwhichwouldhavedemonstratedthatMs.Davidsondidnotdeserve x$0!$ spousalsupport.Finally,heinsiststhattheamountofspousalsupportwastoohighbecausethetrial d%"% courtmiscalculatedtheamountofhisincome. P&#& Ї@) A.  H   Therearenohardandfastrulesforspousalsupportdecisions.Andertonv.Anderton,988   S.W.2d675,682(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontodeterminewhether   spousalsupportisneededand,ifso,itsnature,amountandduration.Burlewv.Burlew,40S.W.3d  465,470(Tenn.2001).Appellatecourtsaregenerallydisinclinedtosecondguessatrialcourts  spousalsupportdecisionunlessitisnotsupportedbytheevidenceoriscontrarytopublicpolicies  reflectedintheapplicablestatutes.Brownv.Brown,913S.W.2d163,169(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).  t Ourroleisnottofinetuneatrialcourtsspousalsupportaward,Hartmanv.Hartman,No.E2000  ` 01927COAR3CV,2001WL823188,at*7(Tenn.Ct.App.July20,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.  L  11applicationfiled),butrathertodeterminewhethertheawardreflectsaproperapplicationofthe  8  relevantlegalprinciplesandthatitisnotclearlyunreasonable.Boganv.Bogan,60S.W.3d721,733 l $  (Tenn.2001). X    Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(2001)reflectsapreferencefortemporary,rehabilitative 0  spousalsupport,asopposedtolongtermsupport.Crabtreev.Crabtree,16S.W.3d356,358(Tenn.   2000);Goodmanv.Goodman,8S.W.3d289,293(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Rehabilitativesupportis  intendedtoenableaneconomicallydisadvantagedspousetoacquireadditionaleducationortraining  ortoprovidethatspousewithtemporaryincomeduringthepostdivorceeconomicadjustment.  Robertsonv.Robertson,76S.W.3d337,34041(Tenn.2002).Thestatutorypreferencefor  rehabilitativesupportdoesnotentirelydisplaceotherformsofspousalsupportwhenthefacts p warrantlongtermormoreopenendedsupport.Aaronv.Aaron,909S.W.2d408,410(Tenn.1995). \   Initialdecisionsregardingtheentitlementtospousalsupport,aswellastheamountand |4 durationofspousalsupport,hingeontheuniquefactsofeachcaseandrequireacarefulbalancing h  ofallrelevantfactors,includingthefactorsidentifiedinTenn.Code.Ann.365101(d)(1). T  Robertsonv.Robertson,76S.W.3dat338;Wattersv.Watters,22S.W.3d817,821(Tenn.Ct.App. @ 1999).Amongthesefactors,thetwoconsideredtobethemostimportantarethedisadvantaged , spousesneedandtheobligorspousesabilitytopay.Robertsonv.Robertson,76S.W.3dat342;  Boganv.Bogan,60S.W.3dat730;Manisv.Manis,49S.W.3d295,304(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Of  thesetwofactors,thedisadvantagedspousesneedisthethresholdconsideration.Aaronv.Aaron,  909S.W.2dat410.Theobligorspousesabilitytopayplacesanupperlimitontheamountof  spousalsupportthatcanbeordered.2HomerH.Clark,Jr.,TheLawofDomesticRelationsinthe    UnitedStates17.5,at259(2ded.1987). !l! @) B.  #D # @ TheEvidenceRegardingFault  x$0!$   ThepleadingsinthiscasereflectthatMr.DavidsonsprincipalgroundfordivorcewasMs. P&#& Davidsonsviolentandabusiveconduct.Thisconductescalatedafterthefilingofthedivorce <'#' complaint,andMr.Davidsonwaseventuallyrequiredtoobtainanorderofprotectionfromthetrial (($( court.Perceivingthattestimonyconcerningthisconductcouldunderminehisclientscase, )%) especiallyherrequestforcustodyofthepartiesyoungerson,Ms.Davidsonslawyerannouncedat *&* thebeginningofthetrialthatMs.DavidsonnolongercontestedMr.Davidsonsrequestforadivorce *'+ andthatMs.DavidsonwouldagreetodeclaringthepartiesdivorcedinaccordancewithTenn.Code +(,  Ann.364129(b).Ms.Davidsonslawyerhastenedtoaddthatthisconcessionobviatedtheneed ,|)- fortestimonyabouthisclientsconductwhichhepredictedwouldturnthetrialintoa JerrySpringer H circus. 4    Thetrialcourtagreedthatintroducingevidenceregardingthepartiesconductduringthe   marriagewouldnotbehelpfulbecausethecourthadalreadyheardmuchofthesameevidenceduring  theearlierhearingregardingtheorderofprotection. 2#  7      ׀Thecourtcharacterizedthisevidenceas  depictingan extremecaseofparentsfightingwitheachotherandlecturedthepartiesatsome  lengthabouttheeffectoftheirconductontheirchildren.Thereafter,thetrialcourtstatedthatitdid  t notdesiretohearanyevidenceaboutMs.Davidsonsbehaviorunlessitwasinthepresenceofthe  ` children,andwasrelevanttoherfitnesstohavecustodyofthepartiesyoungerson.  L    Mr.DavidsondidnotformallyobjecttothetrialcourtsdecisiontoexcludeevidenceofMs. l $  DavidsonsconductandnevermadeatenderoftheevidenceofMs.Davidsonsfaultthathewas X  preparedtopresent.Theseoversightspreventhimfromraisingthisissueonappeal.Anerroneous D  exclusionofevidencerequiresreversalonlyiftheevidencewouldhaveaffectedtheoutcomeofthe 0  trialhaditbeenadmitted.Pankowv.Mitchell,737S.W.2d293,298(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).   Reviewingcourtscannotmakethisdeterminationwithoutknowingwhattheexcludedevidence  wouldhavebeen.Stackerv.Louisville&N.R.R.Co.,106Tenn.450,452,61S.W.766,766(1901);  Davisv.Hall,920S.W.2d213,218(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Statev.Pendergrass,795S.W.2d150,  156(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).Accordingly,thepartychallengingtheexclusionofevidencemust  makeanofferofprooftoenablethereviewingcourttodeterminewhetherthetrialcourt'sexclusion p ofprofferedevidencewasreversibleerror.Tenn.R.Evid.103(a)(2);Statev.Goad,707S.W.2d \ 846,853(Tenn.1986);Harwellv.Walton,820S.W.2d116,118(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Appellate H courtswillnotconsiderissuesrelatingtotheexclusionofevidencewhenthistenderofproofhasnot |4 beenmade.Dickeyv.McCord,63S.W.3d714,723(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Rutherfordv. h  Rutherford,971S.W.2d955,956(Tenn.Ct.App.1997);Shepherdv.PerkinsBuilders,968S.W.2d T  832,83334(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). @   Anofferofproofmustcontainthesubstanceoftheevidenceandthespecificevidentiary  basissupportingtheadmissionoftheevidence.Tenn.R.Evid.103(a)(2).Theserequirementsmay  besatisfiedbypresentingtheactualtestimony,bystipulatingthecontentoftheexcludedevidence,  orbypresentinganoralorwrittensummaryoftheexcludedevidence.NeilP.Cohen,etal.  TennesseeLawofEvidence103.4,at20(3ded.1995).Anofferofproofisnotrequiredwhenthe    substanceoftheevidenceisapparentfromthecontext,Tenn.R.Evid.103(a)(2),orwhenthetrial !l! court'srefusaltoallowfurtherevidenceseriouslyaffectsthefairnessoftheproceedings.FirstNat'l "X" Bank&TrustCo.v.Hollingsworth,931F.2d1295,1305(8thCir.1991);Blankenshipv. #D # Blankenship,No.02A019603CH00051,1997WL15241,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.17,1997) x$0!$ (NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). d%"%   Tenn.R.App.P.36(a)statesthat [n]othinginthisruleshallbeconstruedasrequiringrelief <'#' begrantedtoapartyresponsibleforanerrororwhofailedtotakewhateveractionwasavailableto (($( preventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror.Wehavecarefullyexaminedthisrecordandcannot )%)  findanystatementbyMr.Davidsonslawyerthatcanreasonablybeconstruedasanobjectiontothe *&* trialcourtsdecisiontoexcludetheevidenceregardingMs.Davidsonsconduct.j 2#  8      ׀Likewise,the H  recordcontainsnoindicationthatMr.Davidsonevermadeatenderoftheevidencehewouldhave 4 presentedhaditnotbeenforthetrialcourtsruling.Accordingly,Mr.Davidsonisinnoposition   nowtotakeissuewiththetrialcourtsdecisiontoexcludeevidenceregardingMs.Davidsons   conduct.d 2#  9        @) C.   @  Ms.DavidsonsNeedForSpousalSupport   t   Mr.DavidsonalsoassertsthatthetrialcourterredbyawardingMs.Davidsonspousalsupport  L  fortenyears.HeinsiststhatMs.Davidsondoesnotneedspousalsupportbecauseoftheamountof  8  propertyshereceivedaspartofthedivisionofthemaritalestateandbecauseshecanearnadditional l $  incomebyincreasingtheamountoftimesheworksatherparttimejob.Wefindlittlemeritin X  eitherargument. D    Thepropertyaspousereceivesaspartofthedivisionofthemaritalestateisanimportant   factorwhenitcomestospousalsupport.Itisoneofthestatutoryfactorsthatmustbeconsidered  whendeterminingthenature,amount,anddurationofspousalsupport.Tenn.CodeAnn.365  101(d)(1)(H).TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasalsodirectedthetrialcourtstousebothspousal  supportandmaritalpropertytoaddresstheneedsofaneconomicallydisadvantagedspouse.  Robertsonv.Robertson,76S.W.3dat341;Crabtreev.Crabtree,16S.W.3dat361,n.4.Whileit p maybetheoreticallypossible,asMr.Davidsonasserts,thatadisadvantagedspousecouldreceive \ somuchmaritalpropertythatheorshewouldnotneedadditionalspousalsupport,thechancesthat H thissituationcouldariseintherealworldareslim.Thiscaseiscertainlynotoneofthoserare |4 circumstances. h    Mr.Davidsonsargumentonthispointisunderminedbythestateoftherecordandbyhis @ failuretocomplywithTenn.Ct.App.R.7whichrequiresthepreparationofatabulationidentifying ,  themaritalpropertyanddebtsandtheirdispositionwhenissuesregardingtheamountofmarital  propertyhavebeenraised.F 2#  10      ׀Basedontherecordwehavebeenprovided,wehavepreparedthe H followingtabulation: 4  @ XXyXyX  DivisionoftheMaritalEstate ld 2#  11      ׈   # Xy;p#XyX @*   `  Husband    h      p    Wife    Assets   `     h     Assets F   XXyE1,X,` X,X!(#XXE  MaritalResidence    h HH$88,000     D 1/2TimeshareProceeds x  @!$5,000      1/2TimeshareProceeds   h  5,000     D 1/2BPRetirement   x  . . B!18,500      1/2BPRetirement    h 18,500     D 1/2BMIRetirement   x   C!4,300  ^    1/2BMIRetirement    h  4,300     D 1993Maxima   x   C!5,000 j "    1988Cadillac    h  2,000     D 10%Lawsuit#1   x  !!H! .    1992NissanTruck    h %     D 10%Lawsuit#2   x  !!E!279     1990Skylark    h "700     D ConsortiumClaiminLawsuit#2  C!1,200 n    90%Lawsuit#1    h %     D PersonalProperty z2    90%Lawsuit#2    h  2,500 >    PersonalProperty      TotalAssets    h rr121,000     D  p TotalAssets   x  . . B!34,279  B #XyX r# Debts   `     h %    Debts    XXy  Mortgage `     h 69,000     D StudentLoans   x   C!2,800 r*   1/22000TaxDebt    h %     D 1/22000TaxDebt 6   Pre2000TaxDebt    h  3,600     D     Lienon1992NissanTruck   h  3,900 v   Chapter13Lien :     TotalDebts    h 76,500     D  p TotalDebts   x   C!2,800       EstateReceived    h 44,500     D  p EstateReceived   x  . . B!31,479  -    LumpSumPaymenttoWo<  2#  12         h HH9,542.78     D LumpSumPaymentfromH x  @!9,542.78 P"   NetFundsReceived    h $34,957.22     D NetFundsReceived   x  >!$41,021.78 v.$  #XyX {#c( ,XX,X!(#X,X,` X,X!(#Xc  TheproofdemonstratesthattheDavidsonsmaritalestateisextremelymodest.Despitethe  =' durationoftheirmarriage,theirfinancialmismanagement,bankruptcies,andpersonalspending q!)( habitsk 2#  13      ׀preventedthemfromaccumulatingmanycapitalassets.Theirnetmaritalestatewasworth H approximately$76,000.Basedonthemannerinwhichthetrialcourtdividedthemaritalproperty 4 andallocatedtheirmaritaldebts,Ms.Davidsonreceivedpropertyworthapproximately$41,022.   However,only$13,222ofthispropertywasliquidandimmediatelyavailabletoMs.Davidson.n 2#  14      ׀   BecauseMs.Davidsonsmonthlyexpensesapparentlyexceededthecombinedamountofherincome  andtheamountofspousalsupportshereceived,uh 2#  15      ׀thetrialcourtstatedspecificallythatitanticipated  thatMs.Davidsonwouldbeforcedtospendtheliquidassetsshereceivedinthepropertysettlement  tosupportherself.Weagree.ItisreasonabletoanticipatethatMs.Davidsonwillspendwhatever  t fundsshereceivesinrelativelyshortorder.Accordingly,wedeclinetofindthatthevalueofthe  ` propertyMs.Davidsonreceivedashershareofthemaritalestateissolargethatitobviatestheneed  L  foranawardofrehabilitativespousalsupport.  8    Mr.DavidsonalsoarguesthatMs.Davidsondoesnotneedasmuchspousalsupportasthe X  trialcourtawardedherbecauseshecouldearnadditionalincomebyincreasingthenumberofhours D  sheworksatTheDressBarn.Weneednottarrylongonthispoint.Mr.Davidsoncameforward 0  withnodirectevidencethatTheDressBarnhadmoreworkforMs.Davidsontodo.More   importantly,thisargumentoverlookstheeffectthatthedivorcewillhaveonMs.Davidsons  circumstances.Shewillnowbeasinglemother.Inadditiontohercurrentfulltimeandparttime  employment,shewillhavetheresponsibilityforraisingoneofhersonsandwillalsohavetheadded  burdenofherstudiesifshereturnstoschoolasplanned.WerejectthecynicalnotionthatMs.  Davidsonshouldbeexpectedtoincreasetheamountoftimesheisworkingatherparttimejob p simplytokeepMr.Davidsonfrompayingspousalsupport. \ @) D.  |4 @   Mr.DavidsonsAbilitytoPaySpousalSupport  h    Asafinalmatter,Mr.Davidsonarguesthattheamountofhisspousalsupportobligationis @ toohigh.Heassertsthatthetrialcourterredbyincludinghisovertimeincomeandannualbonuses , whenitwasconsideringhisabilitytopayspousalsupportandthatthetrialcourtshouldhavelimited  itsconsiderationtohisregularbasesalary.Thisargumentlacksevenacolorablelegalfoundation.    Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(A)directsthecourtstosetspousalsupportbasedonboth  parties earningcapacityand incomefrom...allothersources.Certainlyincomeintheform    ofovertimepayorabonusis incomeforthepurposeofthatstatute.TheTennesseeSupreme !l! Courthasreversedaspousalsupportawardinpartbecausethetrialcourthadfailedtoconsiderthe "X" obligorspousesovertimeincome,Robertsonv.Robertson,76S.W.3dat343,andthiscourthas #D # repeatedlyapprovedspousalsupportawardsinwhichtheobligorspousesovertimepayandannual H bonusesweretakenintoconsideration.E.g.,Nelsonv.Nelson,No.W200101515COAR3CV, 4 2002WL1760450,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.July23,2002)perm.app.filed(Tenn.Sept.25,2002)   (approvingaspousalsupportawardthattookovertimepayintoconsideration);Pagev.Page,No.   W200001314COAR3CV,2001WL523960,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.May15,2001)(NoTenn.R.  App.P.11applicationfiled)(approvinganawardofapercentageofabonuscheckasalimonyin  solido);Hanselmanv.Hanselman,No.M199800919COAR3CV,2001WL252792,at*3(Tenn.  Ct.App.Mar.15,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(approvingaspousalsupport  t awardtakingtheobligorspousesovertimepayintoconsideration);Dempseyv.Dempsey,No.  ` M199800972COAR3CV,2000WL1006945,at*8,n.9(Tenn.Ct.App.July21,2000)(NoTenn.  L  R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(approvingaspousalsupportawardbasedontheobligorspouses  8  averageincomeincludingovertimeandbonuses);Carteev.Cartee,No.03A019801CV00030, l $  1998WL959671,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.31,1998)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled) X  (approvingaspousalsupportawardincludingtheobligorspousesovertimepay).p 2#  16      ׀ D    Mr.DavidsonsbasesalaryasanemployeeofBPOilCompanyis$36,000peryear.   However,inadditiontohisbasepay,Mr.DavidsonhasearnedanannualbonuseversinceBPhas  instituteditsbonusprogram.Whiletheamountoftheannualbonusvariesfromyeartoyear,Mr.  Davidsonearnedbetween$4,000and$9,000inbonusesduringthethreeyearsimmediately  precedingthedivorcetrial.Inaddition,hehasconsistentlysupplementedhisregularincomeby  workingovertime.WhileMr.Davidsonassertedattrialthatheanticipatedtheavailabilityof p overtimetodecrease,hestatedunequivocallythatheexpectedtoearn$50,000peryearatBPforthe \ foreseeablefuture.InadditiontohisincomefromBP,Mr.Davidsonstatedthatheearnedbetween H $1,000and$2,000eachyearfromhisparttimelandscapingandcardetailingbusiness. |4   Mr.Davidsonearnedmorethan$50,000in2000andstatedthatheexpectedtoearn$50,000 T  forthenextfewyears.Inlightofthisadmission,thetrialcourtdidnoterrbyconcludingthatMr. @ Davidsonwasabletopayspousalsupportandbycalculatinghisspousalsupportobligationonthe , assumptionthathewasearning$4,000permonth.Ifanything,thetrialcourterredinMr.  Davidsonsfavor.However,becauseMs.Davidsonhasnottakenissuewiththeamountofthe  spousalsupportaward,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionwithregardtospousalsupport.  @dd) IV.       WeaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontorequireMr.DavidsontopayMs.Davidson$600per "X" monthinspousalsupportuntiltheirolderchildgraduatesfromhighschoolandthen$250permonth #D # foreightyears.Weremandthecasetothetrialcourtforanyfurtherproceedingsthatmaybe x$0!$ requiredandtaxthecostsofthisappealtoHenryLeeDavidson,Sr.andhissuretyforwhich d%"% execution,ifnecessary,mayissue. P&#&    `     h %     D _____________________________ )%)    `     h %     D WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE