ÿWPC‰ jk[¿óüþ}Lÿ1†Âèª#gÎÏT䪲Æ0mÑâwfùΫè—y h‰oÄ “›N̓y AìEý€/ *ø5ÝÄpÌʬ¶1-h®_Tª_ðÆµª|ÎõQy]òêüCô©5nÕñ›è<Š[•Þ†¬ü§¸% ªÈ;ìX%ÇZˆ{‡šN¤å5Å$ ^˜2k—f][$ºcßìe# ýü?Èß*ÎwæTù…5ëÛ"Ñ…8cB­=‡rZ p³8˜¨Ï¥Ib`Ü¥vÿ pß´æH@g–]ú^úì5ÒYeœH ÂÓ8Õ°ÍKüòÙäº[hÈÜÂ2·%›ÆÔv'PϘX˜uª}M,²½r`¹2æ1†­¤h-9m²ýJýÂkc‚¥ð¤Ql¼ÁLatc¥çF•CRŠ&4‚:“3šš_Æ*Ü­2¯ì¹éðû¹˜ &lC‘Ýaµ´ ØÎ cÑðp]ÛCmÄ4Ì:¿ù{pAZ‚F¸M:OG_GÒ‰KHžôñ‹–ê&g´ï 'z WÖkJ÷æŸÂ5 mõ1ê¾Ç’>7*Ån@Sj¹;jL)ùµY¬Ï•lی֔̃>ÒËO}¹ôj.,Ý=Ø-ú…ܲ%Ý]Éb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz •‘ Æ& Æì ƲÆx 0D>N‚ø„„E||||||||||||||||||||||||b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0놆†† Bqq 0¤Ž D32 D-e 0K’’ ASÝÆ0 0¤ö 0Dš A«Þ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»L¤?.s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-ê:i¢Ø+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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ‹Ý ƒRbÎ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X QX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€should€be€noted€that€the€fault€issue€was€determined€early€in€the€trial.€€Nevertheless,€bothÐ ° Ðparties€continually€interjected€their€accusations€throughout€the€trial,€despite€open€exasperation€andÐ œì Ðnumerous€rebukes€from€the€bench.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DenderLangschmidtDunlapCranfordCrabtreeGilliamKincaidSieversEmison DixQuillenMondelli- ù-(|G2bÎ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X QX»»Ô d(|3Ç…$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç…$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼H»»»ÔÑ8€ QXXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ÁÁìàNovember€12,€2002€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡X QX»¼HÔÌò òÔ#†¼H»XX Q£#ÔÓ  ÓWILLIAM€W.€DAVIS,€JR.,€v.€KAREN€A.€DAVISòòóóÔ‡X QX»¼HÔó óÐ Ò" ÐÓéÓÌà@M M ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@á á ìàNo.€140084„1€€€€€€€Hon.€William€M.€Dender,€ChancellorˆÐ ¾  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€JANUARY€31,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ – æ  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2002„01404„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óÌÌIn€divorce€action€the€Trial€Court€ordered€husband€to€pay€alimony€and€ordered€division€of€maritalÐ <Œ Ðproperty.€€The€Judgment€is€affirmed€as€modified.Ð (x ÐÌÔ#†¼H»XX Q##ÔÔ‡X QX»¼HÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed,€asÐ ì< ÐModified,€and€Remanded.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð œì ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,òòóó€joined.€òòWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€Jóó.€(not€participating.)Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†¼H»XX Q¶#ÔÔ‡X QX»¼HÔÌWilliam€W.€Davis,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant.Ð `° ÐÌBrent€R.€Watson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð 8ˆ ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼H»XX QÍ#ÔÔ‡X QX»¼HԈРè"8" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼H»XX QÇ#ÔÔ‡X QX»¼HÔÌà  àà ` àIn€this€divorce€action,€the€Trial€Court€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€$16,810.00€to€wifeÐ ¬%ü % Ðin€the€property€division,€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€$1,250.00€per€month,€provide€health€insurance€to€the€wifeÐ ˜&è!& Ðand€maintain€life€insurance€in€the€amount€of€$100,000.00€payable€to€the€wife.€€The€husband€hasÐ „'Ô"' Ðappealed€the€Trial€Courtððs€Judgment.Ð p(À#( ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issues€on€appeal€relate€primarily€to€the€division€of€property€and€the€award€ofÐ H*˜%* Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€the€wife.Ð 4+„&+ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€were€divorced€after€8ðð€years€of€marriage,€although€they€were€separatedÐ  -\(-ý ÐÔ_Ôfor€a€considerable€period€of€time€during€the€marriage.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€course€of€the€marriage€was€tumultuous€and€stormy,€plagued€by€hostility€andÐ ˆØ Ðprovocative€and€extreme€behavior€of€both€parties.€€The€Trial€Court€presided€over€the€proceeding€withÐ tÄ Ðfirmness,€remarkable€patience€and€restraint,€and€matters€in€the€record€that€encompass€reprehensibleÐ `° Ðconduct€by€both€parties€will€not€be€detailed€on€appeal.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€husband€is€a€practicing€attorney€aged€55,€and€reported€separate€assets€ofÐ $ t Ð$333,000.00€and€separate€debts€of€$357,000.00.€€He€testified€his€monthly€income€was€$5,435.00€perÐ  ` Ðmonth,€with€expenses€of€$7,659.00.€€The€Court€found€this€not€to€be€credible.€€His€annual€incomeÐ ü L  Ðaverages€approximately€$70,000.00€per€year,€with€a€bonus€of€$20,000.00€to€$40,000.00.€€At€issueÐ è 8  Ðare€the€proceeds€of€an€insurance€payment€of€$8,000.00€for€the€wifeððs€stolen€Mazda€automobile.€€TheÐ Ô$  ÐCourt€initially€ruled€the€wife€the€option€of€receiving€the€BMW,€subject€to€its€remaining€debt€ofÐ À  Ð$13,000.00€after€a€$5,000.00€credit€or€$5,000.00€cash.€€He€then€decided,€however,€that€the€wife€couldÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€financially€assume€the€debt€and€ordered€that€she€receive€$5,000.00.€€The€insurance€payment€ofÐ ˜è  Ð$8,000.00€was€the€basis€for€the€award.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€1999,€the€husband€purchased€a€house€for€$227,000.00,€the€parties€residence€for€aÐ \¬ Ðbrief€time€when€they€were€attempting€to€reconcile.€€The€wife€would€not€sign€a€waiver€of€herÐ H˜ Ðhomestead€interest€which€would€permit€the€husband€to€close€the€mortgage€on€the€house,€as€he€didÐ 4„ Ðnot€want€her€to€obtain€any€interest€in€the€property.€€As€a€result,€the€property€was€placed€in€anÐ  p Ðirrevocable€trust€as€the€legal€owner€with€the€husband€as€beneficiary€and€personally€liable€for€theÐ  \ Ðindebtedness.€€The€trust€would€terminate€upon€the€finalization€of€the€divorce.€€This€property€isÐ øH Ðencumbered€with€a€total€debt€of€$325,000.00.€€The€husband€is€indebted€to€his€father,€William€Davis,Ð ä4 ÐSr.,€in€the€amount€of€$73,500.00,€which€is€secured€by€the€property.€€The€wife€testified€to€variousÐ Ð  Ðrepairs€and€improvements€made€to€the€property,€and€her€contribution€to€these€renovations,€on€theÐ ¼  Ðbasis€that€it€would€be€her€marital€home.€€The€Court€found€the€propertyððs€status€in€trust€was€highlyÐ ¨ø Ðquestionable,€and€ð ðbordering€on€a€shamðð,€but€that€he€had€no€evidence€to€void€the€trust.€€The€CourtÐ ”ä Ðheld€the€wife€was€entitled€to€$11,810.00€as€a€marital€share€for€the€improvements.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€was€45€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€€She€had€been€a€successful€real€estate€agentÐ X ¨ Ðin€the€past€earning€about€$42,000.00€in€1996.€€Testimony€indicates€she€had€been€a€successful€salesÐ D!” Ðperson,€but€she€abandoned€her€occupation€and€testified€that€when€they€reconciled€husband€told€herÐ 0"€  Ðhe€did€not€want€her€to€work.€€She€has€been€diagnosed€with€severe€mental€and€emotional€conditions,Ð #l! Ðincluding€depression,€bipolar€disorder,€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome,€attention€deficit€disorder,€andÐ $X" Ðalcohol€and€chemical€abuse.€€Some€of€her€conditions€predated€the€marriage,€but€the€record€indicatesÐ ô$D # Ðthat€her€condition€has€greatly€deteriorated€over€the€stressful€course€of€the€marriage.€€She€takesÐ à%0!$ Ðexpensive€medications€and€often€cannot€afford€them,€causing€her€to€achieve€little€consistentÐ Ì&"% Ðimprovement€and€relief€of€her€symptoms.€€She€has€made€no€meaningful€attempt€to€find€work.€€SheÐ ¸'#& Ðhas€slept€in€her€car€or€in€a€friendððs€basement,€and€had€no€funds€for€daily€subsistence,€nor€the€fundsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€get€an€apartment€and€utilities.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àà ` àUltimately,€the€Court€found€a€guardian€was€necessary€in€this€case,€but€the€Court€foundÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€wife€had€not€proffered€evidence€that€she€was€insane€at€the€time€the€complaint€or€counter„Ð ° Ðcomplaint€was€filed,€nor€had€she€refuted€husbandððs€More€Specific€Statement€of€Facts€and€RequestsÐ œì Ðto€Admit€graphically€describing€the€wifeððs€extreme€conduct.€€These€were€therefore€deemed€admitted.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€then€ruled€that€the€wife€was€unable€to€work€in€her€present€mental,€physicalÐ `° Ðand€emotional€condition,€and€she€was€not€presently€subject€to€rehabilitation,€although€he€stated€sheÐ L œ Ðmight€be€sometime€in€the€future.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€subject€to€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumptionÐ  ` Ðof€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòLangschmidt€v.€Langschmidtóó,€81Ð ü L  ÐS.W.3d€741,€744€(Tenn.€2002);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€The€standard€applies€to€issues€ofÐ è 8  Ðclassification€and€distribution€of€property.€€òòDunlap€v.€Dunlapóó,€996€S.W.2d€803,€814€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1998).€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€without€a€presumption€of€correctness,€as€are€mixed€questionsÐ À  Ðof€law€and€fact,€but€the€reviewing€court€ð ðhas€great€latitude€to€determine€whether€findings€as€to€mixedÐ ¬ü  Ðquestions€of€fact€and€law€made€by€the€trial€court€are€sustained€by€probative€evidence€on€appeal.ðð€Ð ˜è  ÐòòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1995).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€husband€argues€that€the€marriage€was€of€short€duration,€and€the€Trial€Court€neverÐ \¬ Ðruled€that€the€marriage€was€of€long€or€short€duration.€€However,€the€duration€of€a€marriage€is€but€oneÐ H˜ Ðof€several€statutory€factors€that€the€Court€must€consider.€€The€Trial€Court€meticulously€went€throughÐ 4„ Ðeach€individual€factor€before€making€its€ruling.€Moreover,€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€period€of€sixÐ  p Ðyears€has€been€held€proper€where€the€duration€of€a€marriage€was€as€short€as€six€months.€€òòMcCoy€v.Ð  \ ÐMcCoyóó,€1987€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€2835,€No.€86„249„II.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àSpousal€support€decisions€are€afforded€great€latitude€and€discretion€on€appeal.€€òòSeeÐ Ð  ÐCrawford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3dÐ ¼  Ð356,€360€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€propriety€of€an€award€and€the€appropriate€amount€depend€upon€theÐ ¨ø Ðunique€facts€in€each€case.€€òòLindsay€v.€Lindsayóó,€976€S.W.2d€175€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€AppellateÐ ”ä Ðcourts€are€disinclined€to€alter€such€decisions€unless€they€are€not€supported€by€evidence€or€contraryÐ €Ð Ðto€the€public€policy€embodied€in€the€applicable€statutes.€€òòGilliam€v.€Gilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86Ð l¼ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€legislature€has€expressed€a€preference€for€rehabilitative€alimony€to€assist€anÐ 0"€  Ðeconomically„disadvantaged€spouse€to€become€self„sufficient.€€However,€the€award€is€predicatedÐ #l! Ðupon€a€finding€that€the€recipient€can€be€rehabilitated.€€òòCrabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€at€360.€€To€justify€an€òòinÐ $X" Ðfuturoóó€award€requires€a€finding€that€the€spouse€cannot€be€rehabilitated.€€òòId.;€Kincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€140,€143€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Judge€in€this€case€was€equivocal€regarding€whether€the€wife€might€beÐ ¸'#& Ðrehabilitated€at€some€future€time.€€òòSee€Storey€v.€Storey,€óó835€S.W.2d€593€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€InÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconceding€that€the€wife€might€be€rehabilitated,€the€Court€improperly€shifted€the€burden€to€theÐ )à$( Ðhusband€to€prove€that€alimony€would€not€be€justified€at€some€future€time.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€wife€will€never€be€capable€of€functioningÐ ° Ðand€supporting€herself€at€some€future€time.€The€testimony€of€her€treating€psychiatrist€was€confinedÐ œì Ðto€the€capacity€to€cooperate€effectively€with€counsel€and€the€need€for€a€guardian€òòad€litemóó.€€He€statedÐ ˆØ Ðthat€she€would€have€a€greater€likelihood€of€improvement€if€she€did€not€abuse€drugs€and€alcohol,€andÐ tÄ Ðhe€further€testified€that€he€had€other€patients€with€similar€diagnoses,€who€had€led€successful€andÐ `° Ðproductive€lives.€€There€is€other€evidence€that€the€wife€is€able,€at€times,€to€control€and€direct€herÐ L œ Ðbehavior€to€accomplish€her€objectives.€€òòSee€also,€Sievers€v.€Sieversóó,€1996€WL€480855€at€n.5,€No.Ð 8 ˆ Ð03A01„9603„CV„00082.€€We€believe€that€the€evidence€and€the€law€requires€us€to€reclassify€theÐ $ t Ðalimony€as€rehabilitative€in€nature,€and€the€award€of€alimony€of€$1,250.00€a€month€will€be€continuedÐ  ` Ðfor€a€period€of€five€years.€€Rehabilitative€alimony€is€subject€to€continuing€judicial€review€if€there€areÐ ü L  Ðmaterial€changes€in€circumstances.€€òòSee€Kincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€143€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð è 8  Ð1995).€€T.C.A.€ðð36„5„101(d)(2).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€husband€argues€that€he€should€not€be€required€to€purchase€a€life€insurance€policyÐ ¬ü  Ðto€secure€the€alimony€obligation,€because€no€proof€at€trial€was€offered€on€the€issue.€€Wifeððs€counselÐ ˜è  Ðrequested€the€relief€at€the€close€of€the€trial€while€the€Court€was€announcing€its€ruling.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Order€to€obtain€life€insurance€to€secure€the€obligation€was€a€remedy€available€toÐ \¬ Ðthe€Trial€Court.€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(g),€and€òòsee€Cunningham€v.€Cunninghamóó,€2000€WLÐ H˜ Ð33191364€at€*9.€€òòAccord,€Emison€v.€Emisonóó,€1999€WL€1336054€at€*12,€and€òòDix€v.€Carsonóó,€1998Ð 4„ ÐWL886555€(Dec.€17,€1998).€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€Trial€Courtððs€ruling€on€this€issue.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€the€foregoing€issue,€the€husband€argued€that€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€putÐ øH Ðon€proof€regarding€fault,€and€if€the€Court€had€heard€all€of€his€evidence€it€would€have€denied€the€wifeÐ ä4 Ðalimony.€€If€the€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€limiting€the€proof€on€fault,€it€was€harmless€error,€givenÐ Ð  Ðthe€Judge€meticulously€balanced€the€factors€he€was€required€to€consider€in€making€his€ruling.€€TheÐ ¼  ÐJudge€specifically€referred€to€his€opinion€about€fault€as€it€relates€to€alimony.€€òòSee€Wright€v.€Quillenóó,Ð ¨ø Ð909€S.W.2d€804,€813€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€record€is€clear€that€ð ðboth€of€these€parties€are€guiltyÐ ”ä Ðof€many€acts,€not€one,€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.ðð€€The€Judge,€who€was€eventually€appointedÐ €Ð Ðfor€the€case,€was€familiar€with€the€facts€and€stated€he€was€going€to€consider€ð ðall€of€the€evidence€ofÐ l¼ Ðpast€hearings,€as€well€as€the€current€evidence€without€objection€on€the€part€of€anybody.ðð€€NoÐ X ¨ Ðobjection€was€made€to€this,€and€we€conclude€that€the€issue€is€without€merit.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€the€property€division,€the€wife€does€not€challenge€the€validity€of€the€trust€onÐ #l! Ðappeal.€€However€equity€looks€to€the€substance,€rather€than€the€form€of€such€transactions,€and€theÐ $X" ÐTrial€Court€made€a€factual€determination€as€to€the€value€of€the€improvements/maintenance/repairs,Ð ô$D # Ðand€awarded€the€wife€$11,500.00.€€Where€a€spouse€shows€a€substantial€contribution€to€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpreservation€and€appreciation€of€separate€property,€such€as€real€estate,€the€increase€will€be€subjectÐ Ì&"% Ðto€a€division€as€marital€property€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„4„121(b)(1)(B).€€òòHarrison€v.€Harrisonóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð912€S.W.2d€124,€127€(Tenn.€1995);€òòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€1988).€€Husband€arguesÐ ° Ðthat€the€expenditures€on€the€house€were€not€improvements,€but€maintenance€and€repair.€€This€canÐ œì Ðbe€a€distinction€without€a€difference.€€òòSee€Ellis.€€óó€Husband€additionally€argues€that€the€property€isÐ ˆØ Ðmortgaged€for€more€than€$100,000.00€more€than€its€purchase€price,€but€its€value€has€not€increased.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€Trial€Court€erred€by€calculating€its€award€based€upon€the€cost€of€maintenance€andÐ `° Ðimprovements.€€òòSee€Mondelli€v.€Howardóó,€780€S.W.2d€769€at€774€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€TheÐ L œ Ðpurchase€price€of€the€house€was€undisputed,€but€the€parties€varied€greatly€in€their€opinions€of€itsÐ 8 ˆ Ðpresent€value,€and€the€Court€made€no€finding€of€the€houseððs€value.€€The€husband€did€testify€that€theÐ $ t Ðhouse,€bought€in€1999€for€$227,000.00,€but€it€was€mortgaged€for€$325,000.00.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€overall€fairness€of€a€property€division€is€determined€by€the€final€results.€òòWadeÐ è 8  Ðv.€Wadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€702,€717€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€Failure€of€the€Trial€Court€to€make€completeÐ Ô$  Ðfinding€of€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€will€not€in€all€cases€require€a€reversal.€€òòSee€Bruce€v.€Bruceóó,Ð À  Ð801€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€While€the€Trial€Court€incorrectly€based€the€award€on€repairsÐ ¬ü  Ðand€improvements€to€the€house,€there€is€other€evidence€to€support€the€award.€€The€Judge€was€greatlyÐ ˜è  Ðtroubled€by€the€suspicious€nature€of€putting€the€property€in€an€irrevocable€trust€ð ðbordering€on€aÐ „Ô  Ðshamðð.€€He€specifically€found€it€unfair€to€the€wife€that€the€trust€terminates€upon€the€conclusion€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€divorce.€€As€we€have€noted,€the€trust€was€created€because€the€wife€would€not€release€herÐ \¬ Ðhomestead€rights€in€the€marital€residence.€€The€Court€was€further€concerned€with€the€fact€thatÐ H˜ Ð$50,000.00€of€debt€had€been€incurred€since€January€2001,€and€the€husband€had€take€two€expensiveÐ 4„ Ðtrips€to€Europe€subsequent€to€that€date.€€Finally,€there€was€evidence€that€the€wife€brought€$16,000.00Ð  p Ðcash€inheritance€into€the€marriage€that€was€intended€to€be€contributed€toward€a€down„payment€forÐ  \ Ðthe€house.€€That€fund€was€dissipated,€and€the€Trial€Court€did€not€account€for€it€in€his€ruling.€€TakingÐ øH Ðinto€account€all€the€evidence€and€the€overall€equities€of€the€case,€we€affirm€the€award€made€by€theÐ ä4 ÐTrial€Court.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€husband€insists€the€Court€erred€in€awarding€attorneyððs€fees€and€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðcalculation€of€past€due€support.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€of€$1,000.00€arrearage€in€temporary€support€payments€is€straightforward.€Ð l¼ ÐAn€Order€entered€December€18,€2001,€òònunc€pro€tuncóó€for€June€7,€2001,€ordered€the€payment€ofÐ X ¨ Ðtemporary€support€plus€a€rent€allowance€totaling€$2,000.00€per€month.€€An€additional€$1,000.00€wasÐ D!” Ðordered€for€the€month€of€June€2001€for€a€rent€deposit€on€wifeððs€behalf,€balance€to€be€returned€uponÐ 0"€  Ðvacation€of€the€apartment.€€The€guardian€testified€she€did€not€receive€the€additional€$1,000.00€inÐ #l! ÐJune.€€The€husband€argues€that€he€paid€$1,000.00€in€late€May€which€should€be€applied€to€the€JuneÐ $X" Ðpayment,€and€he€made€two€additional€payments€in€June€of€$1,000.00€each.€€He€argues€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðpayments€were€prospective,€rather€than€retroactive.€€He€did€not€produce€any€evidence,€such€asÐ à%0!$ Ðcancelled€checks,€to€document€what€he€had€paid.€€The€Court€heard€the€testimony€and€exercised€itsÐ Ì&"% Ðdiscretion€as€to€credibility€in€the€wifeððs€favor.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àAttorney€fee€awards€are€within€the€wide€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€if€a€spouseÐ )à$( Ðdoes€not€have€separate€property€in€which€to€adequately€defray€her€legal€expenses,€an€award€isÐ |*Ì%) Ðappropriate.€€òòSee€Fox€v.€Foxóó,€657€S.W.2d€747,€749€(Tenn.€1983);€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€wife€was€in€a€desperate€economic€circumstance.€€She€had€limited€assets,€and€inÐ ˆØ Ðmaking€the€modest€award€of€$2,000.00,€the€Trial€Judge€commended€wifeððs€counsel€for€exemplaryÐ tÄ Ðand€diligent€representation€under€trying€circumstances.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€smallÐ `° Ðaward€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€the€wife.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€as€modified,€as€detailed€herein,€and€theÐ $ t Ðcost€of€the€appeal€is€assessed€one„half€to€William€W.€Davis,€Jr.,€and€one„half€to€Karen€A.€Davis.Ð  ` ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð „Ô  Ðóó