ÿWPC# 4# èUNó %A 04G 0Í{w@H4ˆœr«bj%N‘ m“ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡ AQë Æ< 0D 0@F 0D† D/Ê Bù B D33U >fB)¤DCÍ AMU*]K‡v~ÒvÓP˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó(}(2ÒÌ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝѰ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X¾§X¼¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó v Hew Ex Uy Uz b{ U| D} ~ Ó€ˆ ê‚_#3|xˆ DemontbreunBatsonCranfordCrainBarnhill- ù-demontbreun v. demontbreun - opinion Í  '  0 .    ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌDecember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(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€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ „ ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ_ÔÑ7€Vù¼¼ddÈ7ÑÔ€,„ÔÑ€ ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÙ€!ÙÔ€,¼Ôó óœßR€/1.A1-j|fÿ0` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€B.€Ô_ÔDEMONTBREUNÔ_Ô,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSumner€General€SessionsÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€2496„GÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌKATHY€JO€MITCHELL€Ô_ÔDEMONTBREUNÔ_Ô,à à)à à01A01„9703„GS„00129Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€GENERAL€SESSIONS€COURTÌà@ àFOR€SUMNER€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€Ô_ÔGALLATINÔ_Ô,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€BARRY€BROWN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌNicholas€D.€Hareà àà àà àà àà àà àWayne€Ô_ÔDetringÔ_ÔÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àÔ_ÔHendersonvilleÔ_Ô,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€,„ÔAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIED€IN€PARTÌà@ àAND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€,¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÑ  ÑÓ€ÓÔ€,„Ôò òòòœÌ›à@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€,¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€focuses€on€the€financial€aspects€of€the€dissolution€of€a€short„term€marriage.€€After€approximately€four€years€of€marriage,€the€husband€filedÏfor€divorce€in€the€Sumner€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€Less€than€one€weekÏlater,€the€wife€filed€for€divorce€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sumner€County.€€TheÏparties€agreed€to€consolidate€the€cases€in€the€general€sessions€court,€and€followingÏa€bench€trial,€the€court€declared€the€parties€divorced,€divided€the€maritalÏproperty€and€debts,€awarded€the€wife€$1,500€in€alimony,€and€directed€theÏhusband€to€pay€the€wife€$2,500€for€her€legal€expenses.€€Both€parties€take€issueÏwith€the€judgment.€€The€husband€asserts€that€the€general€sessions€courtððsÏcalculation€of€his€debts€to€the€wife€is€incorrect.€€The€wife€takes€issue€with€theÏresolution€of€marital€fault,€the€division€of€marital€property,€and€the€amount€ofÏthe€rehabilitative€alimony€award.€€While€the€calculation€of€the€husbandððs€debt€toÏthe€wife€must€be€modified,€we€affirm€the€remainder€of€the€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àKathy€Jo€Mitchell€first€met€William€B.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€prior€to€1991€whenÏshe€retained€him€to€prepare€her€federal€income€taxes.€€Ms.€Mitchell€had€recentlyÏleft€her€employment€with€a€stockbroker€and€had€received€distributions€of€herÏpension€and€profit„sharing€accounts.€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€was€a€self„employedÏaccountant.€€Ms.€Mitchell€went€to€work€for€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€in€January€1991,Ïand€they€were€married€on€May€10,€1991.€€Ms.€Mitchell€was€then€thirty„six€yearsÏold€and€had€been€married€once.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€was€fifty€years€old€and€hadÏbeen€married€twice.ÌÌà àThe€marriage€was€apparently€troubled€from€the€beginning.€€The€partiesÏhad€financial€and€religious€disagreements.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€believed€that€Ms.ÏMitchell€was€controlling,€sexually€distant,€and€intemperate€with€money.€For€herÏpart,€Ms.€Mitchell€believed€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€was€verbally€and€physicallyÏabusive.€€She€also€discovered€after€the€marriage€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€wasÏexperiencing€serious€financial€problems.€€As€a€result,€Ms.€Mitchell€made€periodicÏloans€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€from€the€funds€that€had€been€in€her€retirement€andÏprofit€sharing€accounts€prior€to€the€marriage.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€agreed€to€repayÏthese€loans€as€he€obtained€funds.€ÌÌà àThe€parties€separated€in€August€1995€following€a€dispute€over€one€of€theirÏautomobiles.€€On€November€16,€1995,€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€filed€suit€in€the€SumnerÏCounty€General€Sessions€Court€seeking€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilableÏdifferences€and€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€Six€days€later,€Ms.€Mitchell€filedÏa€divorce€action€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sumner€County€seeking€a€divorce€onÏthe€same€grounds.€€Following€a€bench€trial€on€July€29,€1996,€the€general€sessionsÏcourt€filed€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€and€final€decree€on€AugustÏ19,€1996.€€The€court€declared€the€parties€divorced€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„4„129(b)€(1996).€€It€also€directed€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€to€pay€Ms.ÏMitchell€$6,200€for€her€loans€during€the€marriage,€as€well€as€$1,500€for€herÏeducational€expenses,€and€$2,500€for€her€legal€expenses.€€In€addition,€the€courtÏawarded€each€party€their€separate€property,€divided€the€marital€property,€andÏallocated€the€marital€debts.€€Both€parties€take€issue€with€the€judgmentÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Award€of€the€Divorce€to€Both€PartiesÌóóó óÌà àMs.€Mitchell€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€declare€bothÏparties€divorced€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b)€rather€thanÏto€grant€her€the€divorce.€€She€claims€in€a€rather€perfunctory€way€that€she€provedÏmore€serious€marital€fault€than€did€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€and,€therefore,€that€she€wasÏentitled€to€the€divorce.€€We€find€little€merit€in€this€argument.ÌÌà àAppellate€courts€review€decisions€awarding€a€divorce€to€either€or€bothÏparties€using€the€familiar€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€standard.€€Accordingly,€weÏpresume€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€correct,€and€we€will€not€overturn€themÏunless€they€are€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€or€areÏinconsistent€with€the€applicable€divorce€statutes.€€òòSee€Hazard€v.€Hazardóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€911,€913€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).ÌWhile€Ms.€Mitchell€presented€evidence€of€at€least€two€incidents€of€physical€abuseÏby€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€and€of€their€disputes€over€religious€and€financial€matters,ÏMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€presented€evidence€of€Ms.€Mitchellððs€controlling€conduct,€herÏreluctance€to€associate€with€his€family,€and€the€coupleððs€sexual€dysfunction.€€TheÏevidence€presented€by€both€parties€supports€the€general€sessions€courtððs€decisionÏto€declare€the€parties€divorced.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àò òòòThe€Division€of€the€Marital€Estateóóó óÌÌà àMs.€Mitchell€also€asserts€that€the€general€sessions€court€erred€by€failing€toÏaward€her€one€half€of€the€$14,000€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€allegedly€had€in€a€lock€boxÏat€home€at€the€time€of€the€separation.€€While€the€court€did€not€mention€theseÏfunds€in€its€findings€of€fact,€the€omission€is€not€necessarily€error€in€light€of€theÏconflicting€proof€concerning€these€funds.ÌÌà àMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€parties€customarily€kept€between€twoÏand€three€thousand€dollars€in€cash€in€a€lock€box€in€their€apartment€and€that€Ms.ÏMitchell€frequently€took€funds€from€the€box€for€spending€money.€€He€stated€heÏremoved€the€money€from€the€box€prior€to€the€separation.€€Contrary€to€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ôððs€testimony€concerning€the€amount€of€money€in€the€box,€Ms.ÏMitchell€testified€that€there€was€$14,000€in€the€lock€box€when€the€partiesÏseparated.€€There€is€no€clear€proof€about€what€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€did€with€thisÏmoney€or€whether€any€of€it€was€still€in€his€possession€at€the€time€of€the€divorceÏhearing.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€wide€discretion€when€determining€how€to€divide€aÏmarital€estate€in€an€equitable€manner.€€òòSee€Fisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244,€246Ï(Tenn.€1983);€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€ÏTheir€discretion€is€guided€by€the€factors€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c)Ï(Supp.€1997)€and€by€other€factors€made€relevant€by€the€facts€of€the€particularÏcase.€€òòSee€Ellis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€1988);€òòDenton€v.€Dentonóó,Ï902€S.W.2d€930,€932€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Reviewing€courts€give€great€weightÏto€a€trial€courtððs€distribution€of€marital€property€and€will€not€disturb€its€decisionÏunless€it€is€contrary€to€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Wilson€v.€Mooreóó,Ï929€S.W.2d€367,€372€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòWade€v.€Wadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€702,Ï715€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àMarital€property€should€be€divided€in€a€just€and€equitable€manner.€€TheÏdivision€need€not€be€mathematically€equal€to€be€equitable,€òòsee€Cohen€v.€Cohenóó,Ï937€S.W.2d€823,€832€(Tenn.€1996),€and€each€party€need€not€receive€a€share€ofÏevery€item€of€marital€property.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€168.€€WhenÏa€marriage€has€been€short,€the€trial€court€may€distribute€the€marital€property€in€aÏway€that,€as€nearly€as€possible,€restores€the€parties€to€their€pre„divorce€economicÍcircumstances.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔBatsonÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔBatsonÔ_Ôóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1988).ÌÌà àThe€fact€that€the€general€sessions€court€did€not€mention€the€money€in€theÏpartiesðð€lock€box€supports€one€of€three€possible€conclusions.€€First,€the€courtÏcould€have€determined€that€the€funds€had€long€since€been€spent.€€Second,€theÏcourt€could€have€concluded€that€it€would€be€equitable€to€award€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_ÔÏthese€funds.€€Third,€the€court€could€have€overlooked€the€existence€of€these€funds.€ÏWe€do€not€choose€to€adopt€the€third€possibility€because€of€the€lack€of€proofÏcorroborating€Ms.€Mitchellððs€statement€that€the€lock€box€contained€$14,000.€€WeÏchoose€instead€to€presume€that€the€trial€court€performed€its€duty€in€a€responsibleÏmanner.€€In€light€of€the€proof€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ôððs€economic€difficulties,€weÏhave€concluded€that€the€weight€of€the€circumstantial€evidence€is€that€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€spent€these€funds€between€the€separation€and€the€divorce€hearingÏand,€thus,€that€they€were€not€available€for€distribution€as€part€of€the€maritalÏestate.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Award€for€Rehabilitative€Ô_ÔSpousalÔ_Ô€Supportó óóóÌÌà àMs.€Mitchell€contends€that€she€should€have€received€more€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support.€ÏThe€general€sessions€court€awarded€her€$1,500€to€enable€her€to€become€aÏcertified€office€manager.€€Ms.€Mitchell€now€insists€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏalso€awarded€her€$138€per€month€for€two€years€to€enable€her€to€pay€her€medicalÏinsurance€premiums.ÌÌà àTennesseeððs€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€statute€expresses€a€strong€preference€forÏrehabilitative€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€(Supp.Í1997).€€The€purpose€of€this€support€is€to€enable€the€recipient€spouse€to€acquireÏjob€skills,€education,€or€training€that€will€enable€him€or€her€to€be€more€self„supporting.€€òòSee€Smith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,€160€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);ÏòòÔ_ÔCranfordÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCranfordÔ_Ôóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€51€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€The€needs€ofÏthe€recipient€spouse€and€the€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€spouseððs€ability€to€pay€are€generally€the€mostÏimportant€considerations€when€setting€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support,€òòsee€Ô_ÔCrainÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCrainÔ_Ôóó,€925ÏS.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòÔ_ÔBarnhillÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔBarnhillÔ_Ôóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,Ï455€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€however,€rehabilitative€support€issues€focus€more€onÏthe€need€of€the€recipient€spouse.€€òòSee€Wade€v.€Wadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€719.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€wide€discretion€to€fashion€support€awards,€and€thusÏappellate€courts€give€great€weight€to€their€decisions.€€òòSee€Wilson€v.€Mooreóó,€929ÏS.W.2d€at€375.€€While€the€courts€may€weigh€fault€into€the€equation,€òòseeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)(K),€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€awards€should€not€be€punitive.€ÏòòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà àMs.€Mitchell€is€currently€forty„three€years€old€and€is€in€good€health.€€SheÏwas€economically€self„sufficient€before€the€marriage.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorceÏshe€worked€part„time€at€a€department€store;€however,€she€is€capable€of€moreÏgainful€employment€in€light€of€her€premarital€work€history€and€her€plans€toÏrehabilitate€herself€by€improving€her€job€skills.€€On€the€other€hand,€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€is€now€sixty„six€years€old.€€He€has€suffered€a€number€of€financialÏreversals,€and€it€is€unlikely€that€his€Ô_ÔabilityÔ_Ô€to€earn€income€or€to€accumulate€capitalÏassets€will€improve€during€the€remaining€years€that€he€will€be€able€to€work.€€InÏlight€of€the€partiesðð€personal€circumstances,€the€duration€of€their€marriage,€andÏthe€division€of€their€marital€property,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€courtððs€denial€of€Ms.€Mitchellððs€request€that€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€pay€her€medical€insurance€premiums€for€two€years.€€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Unpaid€Loansó óóóÌÌà àMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€asserts€that€the€general€sessions€court€erred€by€orderingÏhim€to€pay€Ms.€Mitchell€$6,200€representing€repayment€of€the€loans€she€made€toÏhim€during€the€marriage.€€He€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€taken€intoÏconsideration€one€payment€he€made€before€the€marriage,€the€money€Ms.€MitchellÏreceived€between€the€separation€and€the€divorce€trial,€the€partiesðð€honeymoonÏexpenses,€and€a€calculation€error€by€Ms.€Mitchell.€€Not€surprisingly,€the€total€ofÏMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ôððs€claimed€adjustments€more€than€off„sets€the€amount€of€moneyÏhe€owed€to€Ms.€Mitchell€when€the€parties€separated.€€We€have€determined€that€theÏ$6,200€award€should€be€modified.ÌÌà àMs.€Mitchell€insists€at€the€outset€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€should€not€beÏpermitted€to€take€issue€with€the€general€sessions€courtððs€calculation€of€hisÏindebtedness€because€he€testified€at€trial€that€she€had€given€him€credit€for€all€theÏpayments€he€had€made.€€While€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€did€make€this€concession€at€oneÏpoint€during€his€cross„examination,€he€took€issue€with€several€aspects€of€Ms.ÏMitchellððs€evidence€at€other€points.€€Since€we€are€reviewing€the€evidence€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ôððs€statements€are€notÏconclusive€if€the€record€contains€credible€evidence€of€other€facts€contrary€to€hisÏconcessions.òò€€See€Osborne€v.€Hartford€Accident€&€Ô_ÔIndemnÔ_Ô.€Co.óó,€63€Tenn.€App.Ï518,€530„31,€476€S.W.2d€256,€261€(1971);€òòsee€also€Johnson€v.€Steeleóó,€541€S.W.2dÏ795,€799€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976);€òòHarvey€v.€Wheeleróó,€57€Tenn.€App.€642,€648,Ï423€S.W.2d€283,€285„86€(1967).€€ÌÌà àBoth€parties€agreed€that€Ms.€Mitchell€routinely€loaned€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_ÔÏmoney€during€the€marriage€with€the€expectation€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€wouldÏrepay€her€when€he€was€able.€€The€partiesðð€record€keeping€concerning€these€loansÏand€repayments€was€extremely€haphazard.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Mitchellððs€testimony€thatÏMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€still€owed€her€$6,775€was€based€solely€on€her€bank€statementsÏand€canceled€checks€during€the€marriage.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€likewise€kept€noÏrunning€tabulation€of€these€loans€and€contradicted€Ms.€Mitchellððs€calculations€withÏhis€own€canceled€checks.€€With€the€evidence€in€such€a€confusing€condition,€itÏwould€be€difficult€for€any€finder„of„fact€to€avoid€calculation€errors.ÌÌà àPart€of€the€loans€claimed€by€Ms.€Mitchell€included€$2,000€loaned€to€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€in€January€1991€to€help€him€pay€some€legal€expenses€related€to€hisÏbankruptcy€proceeding.€€Ms.€Mitchell€substantiated€this€loan€by€producing€aÏ$2,000€check€dated€January€30,€1991€made€payable€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô.€€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€asserted€that€he€repaid€this€loan€one€week€later€and€produced€aÏ$2,000€check€dated€February€5,€1991€made€payable€to€Ms.€Mitchell.€€Ms.ÏMitchell€did€not€contradict€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€on€this€point.€€Accordingly,€weÏfind€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€should€have€received€credit€for€this€payment€and€thatÏthe€amount€of€his€debt€to€Ms.€Mitchell€should€be€reduced€by€$2,000.̛̜à àMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€also€asserts€that€the€general€sessions€court€did€notÏapportion€all€the€partiesðð€wedding€and€honeymoon€expenses€and€that€he€shouldÏhave€received€a€$1,200.96€credit€rather€than€a€$500€credit€against€his€debt€to€Ms.ÏMitchell.€€Although€the€proof€shows€that€the€partiesðð€wedding€and€honeymoonÏcost€$2,276.96,€Ms.€Mitchell€testified€without€contradiction€that€the€wedding€costÏapproximately€$1,000€and€that€the€remainder€of€the€expenses€were€for€theÏhoneymoon.€She€also€testified€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€had€agreed€to€pay€for€theÏwedding€and€honeymoon€and,€therefore,€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiringÍthe€parties€to€be€jointly€responsible€for€these€expenses.€€Since€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_ÔÏdoes€not€contradict€Ms.€Mitchellððs€assertion€that€he€agreed€to€pay€for€the€weddingÏand€honeymoon,€it€appears€that€Ms.€Mitchell€loaned€him€the€money€for€bothÏevents€and€that€she€was€entitled€to€be€repaid€for€these€expenses.€€Accordingly,€heÏwas€not€entitled€to€a€credit€for€any€of€the€expenses€related€to€the€wedding€andÏhoneymoon.ÌÌà àMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€claims€that€he€should€also€receive€credit€for€theÏ$5,870.64€Ms.€Mitchell€received€after€the€partiesðð€separation.€€As€best€as€thisÏrecord€reveals,€these€funds€were€used€for€car€payments,€insurance€premiums,€andÏother€expenses€related€to€Ms.€Mitchellððs€support.€€Thus,€they€were€in€the€natureÏof€voluntary€Ô_ÔpendenteÔ_Ô€lite€support€rather€than€loan€repayments.€€Since€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€was€obliged€to€support€Ms.€Mitchell€prior€to€the€divorce,€theÏgeneral€sessions€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€give€him€credit€for€the€theseÏpayments€against€his€debt€to€Ô_ÔMs.€MitchellÔ_Ô.ÌÌà àMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ôððs€final€claimed€adjustment€stems€from€a€miscalculationÏof€the€loans€Ms.€Mitchell€made€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€in€1993.€€Ms.€MitchellÏasserted€that€she€loaned€him€$16,271€in€1993;€however,€the€bank€statements€andÏchecks€she€produced€at€trial€showed€withdrawals€and€payments€amounting€to€onlyÏ$15,300.€€Because€Ms.€Mitchell€could€not€substantiate€the€full€amount€of€the€1993Ïloans,€Mr.€Demontbreun€should€have€received€a€$971€deduction€from€the€amountÏclaimed€by€Ms.€Mitchell.ÌÌà àIn€summary,€we€have€determined€that€the€general€sessions€courtððs€awardÏreflecting€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ôððs€indebtedness€to€Ms.€Mitchell€must€be€modified.€ÏMr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€is€entitled€to€credit€for€his€$2,000€payment€to€Ms.€Mitchell€inÏFebruary€1991€and€to€a€$971€credit€based€on€Ms.€Mitchellððs€miscalculation€of€theÍtotal€of€loans€made€in€1993.€€However,€he€is€not€entitled€to€a€$500€offset€for€aÏportion€of€the€wedding€expenses.€€Therefore,€based€on€Ms.€Mitchellððs€testimonyÏthat€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€owed€her€$6,775,€we€have€determined€that€the€recordÏsupports€awarding€her€$4,304.€€Accordingly,€we€reduce€the€general€sessionsÏcourtððs€$6,200€award€to€$4,304.ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÓ  Óò òòòMs.€Mitchellððs€Legal€Expenses€on€Appealóóà àó óÓ  ÓÌà àThe€general€sessions€court€awarded€Ms.€Mitchell€$2,500€to€defray€her€legalÏexpenses€at€trial.€€Now€she€asserts€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€should€be€required€toÏpay€her€legal€expenses€for€this€appeal.€€Awards€of€this€sort€are€treated€asÏadditional€support,€òòsee€Smith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€161;€òòÔ_ÔGilliamÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ôóó,Ï776€S.W.2d€81,€86€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988),€to€be€awarded€when€the€spouseÏseeking€them€lacks€sufficient€funds€to€pay€his€or€her€legal€expenses€or€would€beÏrequired€to€deplete€resources€in€order€to€do€so.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913ÏS.W.2d€at€170;€òòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Ìà àÌà àThere€is€nothing€in€the€record€showing€that€Ms.€Mitchell€is€unable€to€payÏher€legal€expenses.€€She€is€currently€employed€and€testified€that€she€will€be€ableÏto€increase€her€earnings€once€she€receives€her€office€management€certificate.€ÏWhen€Mr.€Demontbreun€repays€his€debt€to€her€in€full,€her€assets€will€be€restoredÏto€their€amount€prior€to€the€marriage.€€We€find€no€economic€disparity€justifyingÏthe€imposition€of€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.ÌœÌÌ›ÌÓ  Óò òVII.€ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€as€modified€herein€and€remand€the€case€to€theÏÔ_ÔgeneralÔ_Ô€sessions€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€WeÏtax€the€costs€in€equal€proportions€to€William€B.€Ô_ÔDemontbreunÔ_Ô€and€his€surety€andÏto€Kathy€Jo€Mitchell€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.,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWALTER€W.€Ô_ÔBUSSARTÔ_Ô,€JUDGE€œ›