ÿWPCq   zí„–º;v½ûh5Ô-’l­îšÙ,—oŸ§wÄvþµý6D²Ž¦¡õb¤†úFü«­Œôœ?£ôdc>[HòšŽgè‘O^(Q¸o®DTwƒ~öÐZÀò9>.6?~Ÿöþô5'2pãIÁ¬wÊ='”J¤ãžÀiµ¨d@æJµ‹Úw?/ŒˆùX_Á»¸f§Ô h™î¨j™J6•~VTÈi…]q­2"&‹B~|)íë Ðh%ǃ˜ä#ÅÙÙÔ“Çt“N³éX6ôÃ)…ïöo.JÕýÙãˆP"b~§M²ËÒ1ÔŽfÔó焟¸J¼ÀI~ t§¥ÿ‡3§N5²å)†‘Ö¦–‰¶¤Æ“à/ŠWV{ö)þV‰˜¶ûíøÜÙÚfq±¨+òÈM­È gÙ“)î=úØÜ6ÌÔP) p6,Ù³D´Î¯ÔxÊ£ ðÔ)]ì‘ö³“éYýR»uÚFÀä<ûÎf¿R<žlÐgDó>±ÂE²T\DÏUqã­1æd*(©"ã£óåtzT'Àx_ÝÊ ÿoŒo&ô™I®ú²’âB6nΠÛHK¾šÒ£€ÀR££>¯ä› µ9XÕW ÓïQ¢¼Ã×)# >UNI %— 0(w@Å4 AQ( 0ly 0Då))U:RUNŒ)ÚU:   þ= = = = = = = = ; ; ; ; ; BC Æ` 0D& 0Dj 0D® ® D/ò ò B! D3> ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ fVVVVVÓ€&) n~<$3|x) !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XK%XXXÔÔ€ ”MX XK%ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XK%X ”MÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€21,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô›ûôX XK%ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XK%XXXÔÔ€”MXXK%ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XK%X”MÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€17,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô›ûôXXK%ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ôÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Wife€purchased€the€home€with€separate€assets€in€contemplation€of€divorce€and€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€does€not€appear€to€consider€this€marital€property. dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑò òÔ‡ X‰aXXXÔññññrenderññññññ›ñññ&ñññßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßñññ&ññ)ññ&ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßñ&ññ)ññ)ññ)ññ)ñññ›ñññ)ññ)ññ)ññ)ñ›ñ)ññ)ññ)ññ)ñ›ñ)ññ)ññ)ññ)ñ›ñ)ññ)ñ›ñ)ñà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òñ)ñœßt€(>.*jx<}` `€€@E` ttx$<œð Q tß›ñ)ñà@kk%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌóóÌGENEVIEVE€M.€DIX,€€€€€€€€€à h à€€€à À à)à  àÐ L œ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àPlaintiff/Counter„Defendantò òà h àà À à)à  àó óShelby€Circuit€No.€142710€R.D.Ð $ t Ðà  àAppellant,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ  d Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ  T  Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð ð @  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Ü,  ÐJAMES€A.€CARSON,€€€€€€€€à  àà h à€à À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9704„CV„00093ò òÐ È  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffò òà h àà À à)Ð ¤ô  Ðà  àó óAppellee.ò òà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð ”ä  ЀÌÌà@  ìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTY€€€ˆÐ \¬ Ðà@óóìàAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEE€€ˆÌÌÌà@ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€JOE€C.€MORRIS,€CHANCELLORˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendantà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Counter„PlaintiffóóÐ ¼  ÐòòAppellantóó:òòà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAppelleeóó:òòÐ ¨ø ÐóóÌGenevieve€M.€Dix€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJerry€F.€Taylor€€€€€€€€€€Ð €Ð ÐAttorney€Pro€Seà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Deborah€L.€Pagan€€Ð l ¼ ÐMemphis,€Tennesseeà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àArch€B.€BoydÐ X!¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àIN€PART,€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð ¤)ô$( ÐÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð ,/|*. ÐÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÔ#†XìÕXX X‰a~#Ôò òÐ  Ü2,.2 ÐØØÓÓÑ7€ìÕXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@55'ìàOPINIONˆÐ ° Ðó óà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€After€a€lengthy€trial,€the€trial€court,€among€other€things,€divided€theÐ à Ðmarital€estate,€declined€to€award€child€support€and€awarded€the€parties€joint€custody€of€their€minorÏchild.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€modify€and€remand.Ìà  àFollowing€a€six„year€courtship,€Plaintiff/Appellant€Genevieve€M.€Dix€(ð ðWifeðð),€an€attorney,Ïand€Defendant/Appellee€James€A.€Carson€(ð ðHusbandðð),€a€mediator€and€constructionÏcontractor/consultant,€married€in€1986.€€The€partiesðð€only€child,€a€daughter,€McKenzie€Carson,€wasÏborn€in€1988.€€Wife€filed€for€divorce€in€1993.Ìà  àThe€litigation€in€this€divorce€eventually€escalated€into€an€unduly€mammoth€proceeding.€ÏHusband€changed€attorneys€several€times€and€Wife,€after€retaining€counsel€for€a€time,€eventuallyÏrepresented€herself.€€For€various€reasons,€the€identity€of€the€trial€judge€changed€several€times.€€TheÏrecord€is€replete€with€allegations€by€both€parties€of€threats,€adultery,€use€of€illegal€narcotics,Ïconcealment€of€assets,€harassment,€kidnapping,€mental€illness,€physical€violence€and€perjury.€€PriorÏto€trial€there€were€numerous€proceedings€on€petitions€and€motions,€primarily€filed€by€Wife,€toÏcompel€discovery,€for€injunctive€relief,€accountings€and€for€contempt€of€court.€€Husband€filed€aÏbankruptcy€petition.€€Wife€allegedly€deposed€Husband€for€over€œfifty›€hours.€€Three€years€after€theÏpetition€for€divorce€was€filed,€the€trial€was€held.€€The€nine„day€trial€resulted€in€œseventeen›€volumesÏof€transcript€œand€one€hundred€twenty„five€exhibits.›€€Husbandððs€testimony,€including€cross„¼examination€by€Wife,€is€approximately€œfive€volumes›€of€transcript.€€Wifeððs€testimony€isÏapproximately€œsix€and€one„half€volumes›€of€transcript.Ìà  àAt€the€time€they€married,€Wife€was€37€years€old€and€Husband€was€œ48€›years€old.€€Both€hadÏbeen€married€previously,€and€went€into€the€marriage€with€assets.€€During€the€marriage,€the€partiesÏowned€several€parcels€of€real€property.€€Husband€asserts€that€he€owned€substantial€equity€in€mostÏof€these€prior€to€the€marriage.€€Husband€contends€that,€prior€to€the€marriage,€he€owned€the€partiesððÏmarital€home€at€3984€Tutwiler€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€several€rental€properties€in€ShelbyÏCounty,€Tennessee:€5657€Raleigh„LaGrange€Road,€2851€Shelby€Street,€and€5530€Summer€Avenue.€ÏHusband€also€maintains€that,€prior€to€the€marriage,€he€owned€the€real€property€located€at€1701ÏPatricia€Street€in€Key€West,€Florida.€€Prior€to€the€marriage,€Wife€owned€a€œhome€at›€334€Buena€VistaÏin€Memphis.€€During€the€marriage€the€parties€also€owned€the€property€at€which€Wifeððs€law€officeÏwas€located,€at€230€Adams€Avenue€in€Memphis,€as€well€as€a€partial€interest€in€an€apartment€complexÐ ;`6: Ðin€Memphis.€€During€the€marriage,€Husband€and€Wife€executed€deeds€so€that€all€of€the€real€propertyÏwould€be€owned€by€both€as€tenants€by€the€entireties.Ìà  àAfter€the€partiesðð€daughter€McKenzie€was€born€in€1988,€both€Husband€and€Wife€wereÏinvolved€in€child„rearing,€although€the€parties€disagree€as€to€which€of€them€was€the€primaryÏcaretaker.€€They€agreed€to€enroll€McKenzie€in€a€private,€all„girls€school€in€Memphis,€St.€MaryððsÏEpiscopal€School.€€It€is€undisputed€that€McKenzie€has€done€well€at€St.€Maryððs.Ìà  àAfter€the€parties€separated,€Wife€filed€for€divorce€and€sought€sole€custody€of€McKenzie.€ÏDuring€the€pendency€of€the€litigation,€McKenzie€has€alternated€weeks€with€each€parent.€€The€partiesÏentered€into€a€consent€order€for€Husband€to€pay€child€support€to€Wife€during€the€pendency€of€theÏlitigation.€€Husband€paid€no€child€support€to€Wife,€but€argued€that€his€arrearage€was€offset€by€otherÏmonies€spent€on€McKenzie.Ìà  àIn€the€divorce€proceedings,€both€parties€sought€sole€custody€of€McKenzie.€€The€trial€courtÏappointed€a€guardian€ad€litem€to€report€on€the€issue€of€custody.€€The€guardian€ad€litem€reviewedÏnumerous€documents,€including€psychological€evaluations€of€Husband€and€Wife,€and€interviewedÏHusband,€Wife,€McKenzieððs€teacher€and€other€witnesses.€€Based€on€her€investigation,€the€guardianÏad€litem€recommended€that€sole€custody€be€awarded€to€Wife,€but€retain€the€same€allocation€ofÏparenting€time€between€the€parents,€that€is,€alternating€weeks€with€each€parent.€€The€guardian€adÏlitem€also€recommended€that€McKenzie€continue€attending€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€School.Ìà  àAs€noted€above,€the€trial€in€this€cause€was€unduly€lengthy,€lasting€nine€days.€€Most€of€theÏevidence€consisted€of€Wifeððs€testimony€and€Wifeððs€examination€of€Husband€and€other€witnesses.€ÏOn€the€real€property€at€issue,€Wife€testified€that€she€had€contributed€substantially€to€the€propertiesÏin€which€Husband€had€owned€an€interest€prior€to€the€marriage.€€She€contended€that€mutual€affectionÏmotivated€the€deeds€conveying€Husbandððs€interest€in€the€real€property€to€Husband€and€Wife€asÏtenants€by€the€entireties.€€Wife€asserted€that€Husband€had€engaged€in€a€pattern€of€dissipating€assetsÏand€hiding€income.€€She€argued€that€Husband€owed€rent€to€the€ð ðmarital€estateðð€for€his€use€of€jointlyÏowned€property€after€the€partiesðð€separation.€€She€maintained€that€Husband€had€committed€adulteryÏbefore€and€after€the€partiesðð€separation€and€was€at€fault€for€the€demise€of€the€marriage.€Ìà  àWife€also€sought€sole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€daughter€McKenzie.€€She€asserted€that€she€hadÏbeen€McKenzieððs€primary€caretaker,€both€before€and€after€the€partiesðð€separation.€€Wife€testifiedÐ 09€48 Ðabout€numerous€incidents€in€which€Husband€had€been€verbally€abusive€to€Wife€and€even€physicallyÏthreatening.€€She€said€that€she€acquiesced€in€the€arrangement€of€McKenzie€spending€alternatingÏweeks€with€each€parent€only€because€Husband€had€ð ðkidnappedðð€McKenzie€from€school€withoutÏWifeððs€knowledge€and€not€told€Wife€where€he€and€McKenzie€were,€or€even€that€she€was€with€him.€ÏShe€said€she€agreed€to€the€arrangement€only€to€prevent€further€stress€to€McKenzie.Ìà  àWife€testified€that€Husband€frequently€left€town€unexpectedly€during€times€in€whichÏMcKenzie€was€scheduled€to€be€with€him.€€Wife€said€that€this€resulted€in€Wife€being€forced€to€quicklyÏchange€her€plans€in€order€to€care€for€McKenzie€and€created€uncertainty€and€insecurity€in€the€child.€ÏWife€testified€that€Husband€refused€to€talk€with€her€about€any€topic,€including€McKenzie,€and€hadÏeven€installed€call€blocking€on€his€telephone€to€block€Wifeððs€telephone€calls€for€a€substantial€periodÏof€time.€€Wife€accused€Husband€of€using€illegal€drugs€and€consorting€with€a€convicted€felon€andÏdrug€user.Ìà  àWife€also€argued€that€McKenzie€should€be€kept€in€the€same€private€school,€St.€MaryððsÏEpiscopal€School,€and€that€Husband€should€be€required€to€pay€his€fair€share€of€the€tuition.€€SheÏcontended,€based€on€her€evidence,€that€Husband€was€hiding€income€and€dissipating€œassets,€and›€thatÏHusband€should€be€required€to€pay€her€child€support€in€the€future,€as€well€as€the€arrearage€in€childÏsupport€from€the€consent€pendente€lite€order.Ìà  àIn€his€testimony,€Husband€maintained€that€Wife€is€mentally€ill.€€In€support€of€this€assertion,€Ïhe€cited€Wifeððs€excessive€behavior€representing€herself€in€the€divorce€proceedings,€includingÏnumerous€petitions€and€motions,€excessive€discovery,€harassment€of€witnesses,€and€deposingÏHusband€for€over€œfifty›€hours.€€He€also€contended€that€Wife€had€stalked€him€and€had€harassed€theÏcourt„appointed€certified€public€accountant.€€He€asserted€that€Wifeððs€repeated€harassing€telephoneÏcalls€to€Husbandððs€home€forced€him€to€get€call€blocking€to€block€calls€from€Wife.€€He€maintainedÏthat€McKenzie€could€reach€him€by€using€his€pager.€€He€calculated€that€he€had€cared€for€McKenzieÏat€least€sixty„one€percent€of€the€time€since€the€parties€separated.€€Husband€testified€that€he€had€beenÏan€involved€parent€since€McKenzie€was€born.€€He€testified€that€he€had€taken€McKenzie€to€numerousÏactivities€and€classes,€and€that€he€enrolled€her€at€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€School€as€an€infant,€severalÏyears€before€she€was€to€start€school.Ìœ›œññÐ  09€48 Ðññ›à  àOn€the€property€division,€Husband€testified€that€both€parties€came€into€the€marriage€withÏproperty.€€He€testified€that,€prior€to€the€marriage,€Wife€owned€the€house€on€Buena€Vista,€her€savingsÏand€her€pension.€€Husband€stated€that,€prior€to€the€marriage,€he€owned€the€marital€home€on€Tutwiler,Ïthe€house€in€Key€West,€Florida,€and€the€rental€property€in€Shelby€County€on€Shelby€Street,€SummerÏAvenue€and€Raleigh„LaGrange€Road.€€Husband€testified€that€the€properties€in€his€name€were€placedÏin€both€partiesðð€names€because€Wife€fraudulently€advised€him€to€do€so,€purportedly€to€protect€theÏproperty€from€creditors.€€He€asserted€that€Wifeððs€income€from€her€law€practice€had€increased€greatlyÏduring€the€marriage,€to€over€$100,000€per€year,€while€his€income€has€decreased€to€less€than€$25,000Ïper€year€because€of€the€divorce€litigation.€€Husband€acknowledged€not€having€paid€to€Wife€the€childÏsupport€set€forth€in€œthe€consent›€pendente€œlite€order,›€but€maintained€that€this€was€offset€by€his€otherÏexpenditures€for€McKenzie,€such€as€etiquette€classes,€swimming€lessons,€piano€lessons,€tutors,Ïentertainment€and€clothing.€Ìà  àAfter€the€trial,€the€trial€court€declared€the€parties€divorced€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€36„4„129,€without€attributing€fault€to€either€party.€€The€trial€court€found€both€parentsÏto€be€fit,€and€found€that€the€custody€arrangement€pending€trial€had€been€ð ðsuccessful.ðð€€Both€partiesÏwere€awarded€joint€custody€with€Wife€being€awarded€physical€custody.€€The€trial€court€awardedÏHusband€the€ð ðsame€liberal€visitation€as€he€has€had€in€the€past€three€years,ðð€holding€€that€each€partyÏshould€continue€to€keep€œMcKenzie€on€alternating€weeks.€€The€trial€court€did€not€hold€either€partyÏresponsible€for€child€support€and€declined€to€require€Husband€to€pay€expenses€for€McKenzieððsÏtuition€at€a€private€school.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€Wife€had€paid€for€health€insurance€forÏMcKenzie,€and€ordered€Husband€to€pay€for€half€the€premium€and€half€of€any€medical€expenses€notÏcovered€by€insurance.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€any€balance€Husband€owed€for€child€supportÏwas€offset€by€his€expenditures€on€McKenzie.€€Ìà  àThe€trial€court€also€divided€the€marital€estate.€€The€trial€court€divided€the€real€property€ownedÏby€the€parties.€€Noting€that€Husband€had€occupied€the€marital€home€on€Tutwiler€for€many€years€priorÏto€the€partiesðð€marriage,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€marital€home€to€Husband.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏawarded€Husband€the€Key€West€property,€although€it€found€that€ð ðboth€parties€contributed€toÏimprovements,€maintenance€and€upkeepðð€of€the€Florida€property.€€The€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€theÏproperty€on€Adams€Avenue€were€awarded€to€Wife,€and€Wife€was€awarded€the€home€at€266Ð 09€48 ÐHawthorne€in€which€she€lived€at€the€time€of€trial.€€The€remaining€properties€were€ordered€sold€andÏthe€proceeds€divided€equally€between€the€parties.€€The€personal€property€was€divided€by€awardingÏit€to€the€party€in€possession€of€the€property€at€the€time€of€the€final€decree.€€The€trial€court€orderedÏthat€each€party€pay€his€or€her€own€attorneyððs€fees€and€held€that€costs€should€be€divided€equally.€ÏFrom€this€decree,€Wife€now€appeals.Ìà  àOn€appeal€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awarded€her€sole€custody€ofÏMcKenzie.€Wife€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€required€Husband€to€pay€child€support,Ïboth€arrearages€and€in€the€future,€and€maintain€a€life€insurance€policy€for€the€benefit€of€the€child.€ÏWife€also€asserts€that€Husband€should€be€required€to€contribute€to€the€cost€of€McKenzieððs€privateÏschool€tuition€and€expenses.Ìà  àIn€addition,€Wife€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€the€divorce€to€her€on€theÏgrounds€of€adultery€and/or€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€Wife€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€divisionÏof€the€marital€estate€and€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€render€and€consider€an€accounting€of€theÏmarital€property.€€Finally,€Wife€seeks€her€attorneyððs€fees€and€court€costs€at€the€trial€level€and€onÏappeal.Ìà  àOur€review€of€this€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÐ Ð  Ðfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€Ð °"  ÐNo›€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€ò òòòSee€Carvell€v.Ð $à" ÐBottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ð p&À!$ Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Wife€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€declaring€the€parties€divorced€pursuantÏto€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„129.€€She€argues€that€the€court€should€have€awarded€theÏdivorce€to€her€on€the€grounds€of€adultery€or€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€trial€court€noted€thatÏHusband€admitted€committing€adultery€ð ðbeginning€some€three€years€after€the€separation,ðð€but€foundÏinsufficient€proof€of€prior€acts€of€infidelity€by€Husband.€€Wife€maintains€that€there€is€no€evidenceÏin€the€record€of€fault€on€behalf€of€Wife€and€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€supportÏthe€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Wife€has€failed€to€prove€other€acts€of€Husbandððs€infidelity.€ÏHusband€points€to€his€testimony€of€numerous€incidents€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct€by€Wife,Ïincluding€testimony€that€Wife€threatened€Husband,€and€engaged€in€inappropriate€conduct€towardsÏthird€parties€such€as€tenants€and€the€partiesðð€accountant.Ð 09€48 Ðà  àThe€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€the€evidence€on€fault€necessarily€involves€a€determination€ofÏthe€partiesðð€credibility:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àIn€[a]€nonjury€case,€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact€ha[s]€the€opportunity€toÏobserve€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€all€of€the€witnesses€as€they€testif[y]€from€theÏwitness€stand.€€The€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€given€the€witnessesðð€testimony€liesÏin€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact,€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€be€givenÏgreat€weight€by€the€appellate€court.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓò òòòWhitaker€v.€Whitakeró óóó,€957€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€€The€record€includes€evidence€ofÐ `  Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct€by€both€parties.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€errÏin€declaring€the€parties€divorced€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„129.Ìà  àWife€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€marital€estate.€€The€trial€court€awardedÏHusband€the€marital€home,€as€well€as€the€real€estate€in€Key€West,€Florida.€€The€net€equity€of€theÏmarital€home€was€$92,500€and€the€net€equity€of€the€Key€West€property€was€$252,000.€€The€trialÏcourt€awarded€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€Wifeððs€law€office€on€Adams€Avenue€to€Wife.€€Wife€wasÏalso€awarded€a€home€at€266€Hawthorne€that€she€acquired€during€the€marriage€and€in€which€she€livedÏat€the€time€of€trial.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€a€finding€on€the€net€equity€of€propertyÐ ` Ðawarded€to€Wife,€her€undisputed€evidence€indicates€that€the€Adams€Avenue€property€was€sold€forÏ$128,662.67.€€Three€other€parcels€of€real€estate€located€on€Summer€Avenue,€Raleigh€La„GrangeÏRoad,€and€Shelby€Street,€with€a€combined€net€equity€of€approximately€$322,400,€were€sold€and€theÏequity€equally€divided€between€the€parties.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€ð ð[t]he€parties€are€awardedÏthe€personal€property€which€they€now€possess,€including€automobiles,€guns€and€jewelry,€and€bankÏaccounts,€stocks,€IRAððs,€or€other€holdings.ððÌà  àWife€asserts€œthat€the›€trial€court€ultimately€awarded€her€14.08%€of€the€estate,€Husband€25.47%Ïof€the€estate,€and€omitted€consideration€of€60.45%€of€the€estate.€€Wife€maintains€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€designating€the€Adams€Avenue€property€as€marital€property.€€She€argues€that€the€trial€courtððsÏdivision€of€the€marital€estate€is€inequitable€particularly€in€light€of€her€contribution€to€propertyÏallocated€to€Husband.€€For€instance,€Wife€states€that€she€sold€her€previous€home€before€the€marriageÏand€that€the€proceeds€helped€to€pay€the€mortgage€on€the€Key€West€property€that€Husband€hadÏpurchased€before€the€marriage.€Ð p5À04 Ðà  àIn€addition,€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€allocate€numerous€other€items€of€tangibleÏand€intangible€personal€property.€€Wife€contends€that€the€de€facto€result€of€the€trial€courtððs€failureÏto€make€a€determination€regarding€this€property€benefits€Husband.€€She€further€claims€that€HusbandÏowes€her€rent€on€the€real€property€on€Summer€Avenue€occupied€by€Husbandððs€business€during€theÏpendency€of€the€divorce.€€Wife€states€that€her€business€paid€the€marital€estate€rent€for€its€use€of€theÏAdams€Avenue€property,€but€that€Husbandððs€corporation€failed€to€pay€the€estate€for€its€use€of€theÏSummer€Avenue€property.€€Wife€also€asserts€that€she€is€entitled€to€the€reasonable€rental€value€of€theÏmarital€home€because€she€was€ð ðconstructively€evictedðð€by€Husband€due€to€his€ð ðconduct,€threats,Ïassaults€and€his€refusal€to€leave.ððÌà  àÔ‡ X FXXX¬æÔThe€trial€courtððs€property€division€is€reviewed€òòde€novoò ò€ó óóówith€a€presumption€that€the€trialÐ à Ðcourtððs€factual€findings€are€correct.€€ò òòòSee€Watters€v.€Wattersó óóó,€959€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€App.Ð h¸ Ð1997);€œTenn.›€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€An€appellate€court€may€alter€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€propertyÏonly€if€the€trial€court€misapplies€the€law€or€if€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfactual€findings.€€ò òòòSee€Wade€v.€Wade,€ó óóó897€S.W.2d€702,€715€(Tenn.€App.€1994).Ð ð@ Ðà  àUnder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„121,€the€court€is€directed€to€consider€many€factorsÏin€the€division€of€marital€property,€including€the€length€of€the€marriage,€the€age,€employability,€andÏearning€capacity€of€the€parties,€and€the€contributions€of€each€party€to€the€marriage.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€CodeÐ x"È  ÐAnn.€ðð€36„4„121€(1996).Ô#†X¬æXX X F6Q#ÔÐ P$ " ÐÔ‡ X FXXX¬æÔà  àIn€ò òòòHarrington€v.€Harrington,€ó óóó798€S.W.2d€244,€245€(Tenn.€App.€1990),€this€Court€stated€thatÐ (&x!$ Ðthe€ð ðownership€of€the€marital€estate€should€be€presumed€to€be€equal€until€proven€otherwise.ðð€€InÏò òòòBarnhill€v.€Barnhill,€ó óóó826€S.W.2d€443€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€the€Court€held:Ð Ø)(%( ÐÓÓà8  à[M]arital€property€should€be€equitably€divided€without€regard€to€fault.€€An€equitableÏdivision,€however,€is€not€necessarily€an€equal€one.€€Trial€courts€are€afforded€wideÏdiscretion€in€dividing€the€interests€of€the€parties€in€jointly„owned€property.Ð Ð Ð  Ðò òòòÌÓÓId.€ó óóóat€449.Ô#†X¬æXX X F:U#ÔÐ \/¬*. Ðà  àWe€first€examine€the€trial€courtððs€allocation€of€the€real€property€in€the€marital€estate.€€TheÏtrial€court€allocated€the€Key€West€property€and€the€marital€home€on€Tutwiler€to€Husband€and€Ïallocated€the€Adams€Avenue€property€to€Wife.€€The€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€properties€onÏRaleigh€La„Grange,€Summer€Avenue,€and€Shelby€Street€were€to€be€divided€equally.€€This€resultedÏin€an€effective€distribution€of€63.3%€of€the€marital€real€property€to€Husband€and€36.7%€to€Wife.€Ð ´848 ÐWife€argues€that€this€distribution€is€inequitable,€particularly€since€the€Buena€Vista€property,€soldÏduring€the€marriage,€was€owned€separately€by€Wife€and€since€she€invested€the€sale€proceeds€inÏproperty€allocated€to€Husband.€€Wife€also€states€that€she€made€other€substantial€contributions€toÏproperty€awarded€to€Husband.€€Finally,€Wife€notes€that€Husband€signed€the€deed€to€the€AdamsÏproperty€over€to€her€after€the€parties€separated€in€an€effort€to€save€it€from€foreclosure.€€Wife€thenÏrefinanced€the€property€and€paid€the€mortgage€until€she€sold€the€property.€Ìà  àAt€the€time€the€parties€married,€Wife€sold€her€home€on€Buena€Vista€and€moved€into€theÏmarital€home€on€Tutwiler.€€The€marital€home€on€Tutwiler,€as€well€as€the€property€in€Key€West,€onÏRaleigh€La„Grange€Road,€Summer€Avenue,€and€Shelby€Street,€were€all€owned€by€Husband€prior€toÏthe€marriage.€€Evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€ð ð[t]he€Buena€Vista€sale€netted€$97,000Ïto€Ms.€Dix,€which€was€invested€in€the€Key€West€property.ðð€€Following€the€marriage,€the€partiesÏchanged€the€deeds€to€all€the€property€so€that€they€jointly€owned€the€property€as€tenants€by€theÏentirety.€€Wife,€an€attorney,€proposed€the€idea.€€The€trial€court€stated€that:€ÌÓÓà8  à[t]he€reason€for€these€transactions€is€not€completely€clear.€€Ms.€Dix€contends€it€wasÏdone€for€love€and€affection€as€a€consideration,€and€Mr.€Carson€contends€it€was€doneÏto€cloud€the€titles,€due€to€possible€exposure€in€a€pending€lawsuit.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓWife€testified€that€she€made€further€contributions€to€the€properties,€financial€contributions€as€wellÏas€other€contributions€such€as€repair,€improvements,€upkeep,€and€caring€for€tenants.€€During€theÏmarriage,€the€parties€also€purchased€the€Adams€Avenue€property€for€Wifeððs€law€practice.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€ð ð[b]oth€parties€contributed€to€the€money€and€improvements€that€went€toðð€thisÏproperty.Ìà  àThe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€distribution€of€the€marital€realÏœproperty.€€The›€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Husband€made€substantialÏcontributions€to€the€Adams€Avenue€property,€€and€also€supports€the€trial€courtððs€designation€of€thisÏrealty€as€marital€property.€€The€trial€courtððs€equitable€division€of€the€real€property€is€consistent€withÏthe€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„121(c).€€The€factors€favoring€the€trialÏcourtððs€allocation€include€the€relatively€short€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€fact€that€Wife€is€youngerÏand€likely€has€the€higher€earning€capacity€and€has€greater€ability€to€acquire€capital€assets€in€theÏfuture,€and€the€fact€that€most€of€the€real€property€was€owned€by€Husband€before€the€marriage.€€ò òòòId.Ð P7 26 Мó óóó›œññÐ  09€48 Ðññ›à  àIn€addition,€the€trial€court€noted€that€Wife€owned€more€valuable€separate€property.€€ò òòòSee€id.Ð ° Ðó óóóðð€36„4„121(c)(6).€€The€trial€court€stated:Ð à ÐÓÓà8  àMs.€Dix€testified€that€she€had€substantial€assets€before€the€marriage€and€presently€hasÏsubstantial€holdings,€including€IRAððs,€and€a€lucrative€law€practice.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€Mr.€Carson€owned€as€his€separate€property€all€of€the€real€estate€involved€in€thisÏlitigation,€except€for€Buena€Vista,€before€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€He€has€no€pensionÏor€retirement,€and€now€owns€nothing€but€the€property€awarded€in€this€case.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓIt€is€unclear€whether€the€trial€court€was€influenced€by€Wifeððs€recommendation€that€Husband€convertÏthe€deeds€of€his€property€so€that€they€shared€an€ownership€interest€as€tenants€by€the€entirety.€ÏRegardless,€under€all€of€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€ð ðwide€discretionðð€inÏallocating€the€real€property€in€the€marital€estate.€€ò òòòBarnhilló óóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€449.€€The€decision€of€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.Ìà  àWife€alleges€that€a€substantial€portion€of€the€personal€property€in€the€estate€was€not€addressedÏby€the€trial€court.€However,€the€trial€court€expressly€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€parties€are€awarded€theÏpersonal€property€which€they€now€possess,€including€automobiles,€guns€and€jewelry,€and€bankÏaccounts,€stocks,€IRAððs,€or€other€holdings.ðð€€This€holding€appears€to€include€the€following€personalÏproperty€that€Wife€claims€has€not€been€addressed€in€Wifeððs€Rule€15€listing€of€the€martial€assets:Ïtools,€equipment,€various€furnishings€and€household€items,€a€car,€a€boat€and€a€trailer.€€All€of€theseÏitems€are€located€at€the€Key€West€property€that€was€awarded€to€Husband.€€The€items€are€in€hisÏpossession€and€were€covered€by€the€trial€courtððs€holding€œabove.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€weÏcannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€Therefore,€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€to€these€items€of€personal€property.›Ìà  àWife€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€address€a€number€of€intangible€marital€assets.€ÏRestraining€orders€in€the€record€prohibited€Husband€ð ðfrom€disposing€of,€causing€harm€to,€secreting,Ïdamaging€or€destroying€any€item€of€marital€property€.€.€.ðð€and€ð ðfrom€disposing€of€the€proceeds€fromÏthe€sale€of€the€partiesðð€Rolls€Royce€automobile.ðð€€Furthermore,€Husband€was€ordered€to€deposit€anyÏrental€income€into€an€account€managed€by€an€œagreed„upon›€certified€public€accountant.€€BankÏaccounts€containing€marital€funds€would€be€included€in€the€trial€courtððs€restraining€orders.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€Husband€may€have€violated€the€provisions€in€the€restraining€orders€throughoutÏthe€pendency€of€the€divorce.€€The€trial€court,€however,€found€that€ð ð[a]ny€money€that€was€spent€inÏviolation€of€the€various€Restraining€Orders€was€to€preserve€the€marital€assets€of€the€parties€and€wasÐ 09€48 Ðaccounted€for,€except€for€the€balance€of€the€attorneyððs€fees€awarded€to€the€Guardian€òòAd€Litemóó.ðð€Ð ° ÐTherefore,€the€use€of€marital€funds€by€Husband€in€violation€of€the€above€restraining€orders€wouldÏbe€covered€by€the€trial€courtððs€œruling›€that€the€funds€were€used€to€preserve€the€marital€estate.€€œThe›Ïfollowing€intangible€assets€in€Wifeððs€Rule€15€listing€of€marital€property€would€be€included€in€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding:€the€Rolls€Royce€account,€rental€income€from€the€partiesðð€rental€properties,€loansÏfrom€marital€funds€for€Husbandððs€construction€business€and€taxes€on€that€business,€œHusbandððsÏalleged€diversion›€of€joint€marital€rental€funds€and€Wifeððs€marital€œwages,›€loans€to€Husband€from€theÏpartiesðð€rental€income€account,€condemnation€proceeds€for€the€Summer€Avenue€property,€insuranceÏchecks€received€for€damage€to€Tutwiler€property,€various€investments€made€by€Husband€with€maritalÏfunds,€the€purchase€of€a€car€with€marital€funds,€and€a€loan€to€Husband€from€marital€funds€to€bringÏthe€note€on€the€Adams€property€current.€€Upon€review€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€holding.€€Consequently,€the€decision€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed€as€to€these€items.Ìà  àWife€asserts€that€the€trial€court€also€failed€to€make€a€disposition€of€over€$12,000€in€a€MorganÏKeegan€account,€over€$30,000€in€the€Napolean€Enterprises€account,€and€$200,000€that€HusbandÏloaned€to€third€parties€at€twenty„five€percent€interest.€€Husband€admitted€that€in€1986,€the€year€theÏparties€married,€the€Napolean€Enterprises€account€contained€over€$30,000€from€his€constructionÏcompany.€€He€claims€that€he€subsequently€lost€this€money.€€Husband€also€maintains€that€the€moneyÏin€the€Morgan€Keegan€account€was€money€earned€from€his€construction€company.€€The€record€isÏunclear€whether€the€trial€court€found€these€funds€to€be€marital€or€separate€property.€€In€addition,€theÏdistribution€of€these€items€is€not€covered€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€discussed€above.€€We€remandÏthese€issues€to€the€trial€court€to€determine€whether€the€funds€in€these€accounts€and€the€cash€loanedÏout€are€marital€property€or€separate€property€and€distribute€them€accordingly.€€Ìà  àWife€also€claims€that€Husband€owes€her€over€$100,000€for€623€hours€of€legal€work€sheÏperformed€for€his€business€during€their€marriage€and€over€$14,000€for€a€loan€to€Husband€from€herÏseparate€funds€used€to€pay€off€Husbandððs€car€note.€€Wife€stated€that€Husband€agreed€to€pay€her€forÏthese€legal€fees€and€reimburse€her€for€the€money€she€used€to€pay€off€his€œcar,›€although€she€agreed€toÏdefer€payment.€€These€two€items€were€not€covered€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€discussed€above.€€œññÐ  P7 26 ÐññBecause›€the€issues€involve€credibility€of€witnesses,€we€must€remand€for€the€trial€court€to€make€aÏdetermination€of€whether€Husband€owes€Wife€these€amounts.€€Ìà  àWife€also€seeks€to€have€Husband€reimburse€her€for€expenses€on€the€Adams€Avenue€propertyÏthat€exceeded€the€rental€income.€€The€trial€courtððs€order€does€not€address€this€issue.€€However,€theÏrecord€contains€no€evidence€that€would€support€an€award€to€Wife€of€these€expenses.€€Therefore,ÏWifeððs€petition€for€these€expenses€is€denied.€€Ìà  àWife€also€asserted€on€appeal€that€Husband€owed€rent€to€the€marital€estate€for€his€use€of€theÏSummer€Avenue€property€for€his€business€and€that€Husband€owes€her€rent€due€to€her€ð ðconstructiveÏevictionðð€from€the€marital€home.€€The€trial€court€specifically€denied€these€requests€in€its€findings€byÏdenying€Wifeððs€petition€to€have€Husband€and€his€corporation€pay€rent.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏconsidered€Husbandððs€claims.€€For€example,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€Husband€was€not€entitled€toÏrecover€his€claim€for€œ$102,000€for›€reimbursement€for€repairs€and€management€fees€for€the€realÏproperty.€€After€reviewing€the€record€in€this€œcase,›€we€affirm€the€trial€court€on€these€issues.€€Ìà  àWife€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ð ðfailing€to€equitably€consider€and€equitablyÏrender€an€accounting€in€complianceðð€with€a€March€1994€Consent€Order,€thus€resulting€in€an€inabilityÏto€ð ðproperly€adjust€the€equities€in€the€marital€estate.ðð€€The€order€entered€on€March€31,€1994,€states:ÌÓÓà8  àthe€parties€shall€be€ordered€to€complete€an€accounting€with€regard€to€the€issues€raisedÏin€the€Petition€[filed€by€Wife],€specifically€an€accounting€of€rents€and€profits€due€onÏcertain€real€property€jointly€owned€by€the€parties.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓIn€the€order,€the€parties€agreed€that€the€accounting€should€be€conducted€by€Certified€PublicÏAccountant€(C.P.A.)€Steve€Walls€(ð ðWallsðð).€€Wife€notes€that€although€she€completed€her€accountingÏpursuant€to€the€order,€Husband€failed€to€comply€with€the€order.€€As€a€result,€Wife€argues€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€distribution€of€the€marital€estate€was€skewed.€€Husband€responds€that€he€provided€all€theÏdocumentation€that€he€could€under€the€circumstances.€€Walls€testified€that€both€parties€ð ðsupplied€allÏthe€information€[Walls]€asked€for.ððÌà  àAfter€full€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€by€which€the€trialÏcourt€could€divide€the€marital€estate.€€During€the€course€of€the€nine„day€trial,€there€was€ampleÏtestimony€for€the€trial€court€to€render€its€decision.€€The€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€inÏmaking€its€decision€without€a€formal€accounting€by€Husband.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€is€affirmedÏon€this€issue.€€Ð 09€48 Ðà  àWife€also€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decision€regarding€custody€of€McKenzie,€her€schoolingÏand€past€and€future€child€support.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€parties€ð ðjoint€custody€of€McKenzie,Ïwith€Ms.€Dix€being€awarded€physical€custody.ðð€€However,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€McKenzieÏcontinue€spending€alternating€weeks€with€each€parent,€finding€that€this€arrangement€had€provenÏð ðsatisfactory€in€the€development€of€the€child.ðð€€The€trial€court€refused€to€order€Husband€to€pay€forÏany€portion€of€McKenzieððs€tuition€at€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€School,€and€declined€to€order€paymentÏof€child€support.€€It€found€that€Husbandððs€arrearages€in€child€support€were€offset€by€his€payment€ofÏother€items€for€McKenzie,€such€as€etiquette€classes€and€piano€lessons.Ìà  àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€awarding€the€parties€joint€custody€ofÏMcKenzie,€contending€that€acrimony€between€the€parties€does€not€per€se€require€reversal€of€an€awardÏof€joint€custody.€€He€notes€that€the€trial€court€found€that€the€arrangement€of€alternating€weeks€hadÏproven€ð ðsatisfactory€in€the€development€of€the€childðð€and€that€the€guardian€ad€litem,€whileÏrecommending€Wife€have€sole€custody,€also€recommended€continuing€alternating€weeks€with€eachÏparent.€€Husband€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€declining€to€require€him€to€pay€aÏportion€of€the€St.€Maryððs€tuition€or€to€pay€child€support,€claiming€that€he€now€earns€less€thanÏ$30,000€per€year,€considerably€less€than€Wifeððs€income€from€her€law€practice.€€Husband€also€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€found€that€his€child€support€arrearages€were€offset€by€his€otherÏexpenditures€for€McKenzie.Ìà  àWe€consider€first€the€issue€of€custody.€€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€awardingÏjoint€custody,€and€maintains€that€the€arrangement€of€alternating€weeks€has€not€been€in€the€childððsÏbest€interest.€€Wife€insists€that,€in€fact,€McKenzie€has€not€been€living€with€each€parent€on€alternatingÏweeks.€€Instead,€Wife€asserts€that€she€has€spent€more€time€in€Wifeððs€care,€because€Husband€oftenÏhas€been€out€of€town,€sometimes€for€extended€periods€of€time.€€On€these€occasions,€Wife€says€thatÏHusband€would€simply€tell€Wife€that€she€was€responsible€for€taking€care€of€the€child€during€hisÏabsence.€€Wife€alleges€that€many€times€Husband€leaves€town€without€telling€Wife€where€he€is€goingÏand€where€he€can€be€reached.€€She€contends€that€her€efforts€to€contact€Husband€concerning€theirÏchild€have€been€rebuffed€and€that€Husband€refuses€to€speak€with€her€about€any€topic,€includingÏMcKenzie.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Husband€has€for€significant€periods€blocked€his€telephone€line€fromÏreceiving€any€calls€from€Wifeððs€residence.Ð 09€48 Ðà  àWife€asserts€that€she€is€the€more€fit€parent€and€should€be€awarded€sole€custody€of€the€child.€ÏShe€maintains€that€she€was€McKenzieððs€primary€caretaker€during€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€Wife€allegesÏthat€Husband€has€lied€to€McKenzie,€has€used€illegal€drugs,€has€a€propensity€for€violence,€and€has€hadÏa€tenant€who€is€a€drug€user€and€convicted€perjurer.€€Wife€notes€that€the€guardian€ad€litemÏrecommended€that€she€be€awarded€sole€custody,€and€asks€this€Court€to€do€so,€with€liberal€visitationÏfor€Husband.€Ìò òó óà  àHusband€asks€this€Court€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€holding€on€custody€and€the€allocation€ofÐ ð@  Ðparenting€time.€€He€argues€that€both€parents€have€been€involved€in€McKenzieððs€care€and€that€jointÏcustody€is€therefore€appropriate,€despite€the€parentsðð€inability€to€communicate.€€He€maintains€thatÏthe€arrangement€of€alternating€weeks€has€been€in€McKenzieððs€best€interest,€noting€that€the€guardianÏad€litem€recommended€continuing€this€allocation€of€parenting€time.€€Husband€does€not€in€hisÏtestimony€dispute€Wifeððs€allegation€that€he€has€on€occasion€left€town€abruptly,€sometimes€forÏextended€periods,€leaving€McKenzie€in€Wifeððs€care.€€Nevertheless,€he€maintains€that€he€has€caredÏfor€McKenzie€approximately€sixty€per€cent€of€the€time€since€the€partiesðð€separation.€He€does€notÏdispute€Wifeððs€contention€that€he€refuses€to€communicate€with€her€on€any€issue,€includingÏMcKenzie,€and€installed€call€blocking€to€block€telephone€calls€from€Wifeððs€residence€for€aÏsubstantial€period€of€time.€€However,€he€maintains€that€this€is€a€result€of€Wifeððs€harassing€andÏexcessive€behavior,€and€argues€that€Wife€is€mentally€ill.€€Ìà  àIn€child€custody€cases,€of€course,€the€childððs€best€interest€is€the€primary€consideration.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Ð p&À!$ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ36„6„106›€(1996);€ò òòòBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€665€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€TheÐ P( #& ÐCourt€has€€ð ðthe€widest€discretionðð€to€fashion€ð ða€custody€arrangement€that€is€in€the€best€interest€of€theÏchild.ðð€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€œ36„6„101(a)(2).›€€By€statute,€there€is€ð ðneither€a€preference€nor€aÏpresumption€for€or€against€joint€legal€custody,€joint€physical€custody€or€sole€custody€.€.€.€.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€Ð ð-@), ÐNevertheless,€the€practical€problems€of€joint€custody€have€been€repeatedly€acknowledged€by€thisÏCourt,€particularly€ð ðwhere€there€is€hostility€and€ill€will€between€the€parents.ðð€€ò òòòJones€v.€Jonesó óóó,€No.Ð °1-0 Ð01„A„01„9601„CV00038,€1996€WL€512030,€*4€(Tenn.€App.€Sept.€11,€1996);€ò òòòsee€also€WinchesterÐ 3à.2 Ðv.€Winchesteró óóó,€No.€02A01„9604„CH„00092,€1997€WL€61508,€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€14,€1997);Ð p5À04 Мò òòòMalone›€v.€Maloneó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€621,€623€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€ò òòòDodd€v.€Doddó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€286,€289„Ð P7 26 Ð90€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€Joint€custody€arrangements€ð ðdepend€for€their€œsuccess€on›€a€high€degree€ofÐ 09€48 Ðcooperation€between€the€parents,€so€it€is€perhaps€not€surprising€that€they€should€frequently€fail.ðð€Ïò òòòJonesó óóó,€1996€WL€512030,€at€*5;€œò òòòsee€also€Winchesteró óóó,›€1997€WL€61502,€at€*3.Ð à Ðà  àThe€record€in€this€case€is€replete€with€evidence€of€hostility€and€animosity€between€the€parties.€ÏThis€has€resulted€in€a€total€absence€of€communication€regarding€McKenzieððs€well„being.€€While€bothÏparties€are€loving€and€involved€parents,€their€enmity€has€created€in€essence€a€ð ðparallelðð€parentingÏarrangement,€in€which€each€parent€acts€autonomously,€with€no€joint€cooperation,€decisions,€orÏplanning€for€McKenzieððs€future.€€This€is€an€unhealthy€arrangement€for€the€child,€difficult€withÏrespect€to€day„to„day€issues€such€as€homework€assignments€and€unworkable€in€the€face€of€majorÏdecisions€and€plans€for€the€childððs€future.€Ìà  àHusband€rightly€notes€that,€on€rare€œoccasions,›€this€Court€has€affirmed€an€award€of€jointÏcustody€in€a€situation€in€which€hostility€existed€between€the€parents.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€DeVault€v.€DeVaultó óóó,Ð pÀ Ð1996€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€536€(Tenn.€App.€œAugust€28,›€1996).€€In€ò òòòDeVaultó óóó,€the€father€becameÐ P  Ðinvolved€with€a€ð ðparamourðð€and€moved€out€of€the€marital€home.€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€at€1.€€The€trial€courtÐ 0€ Ðawarded€the€parties€joint€custody,€with€primary€physical€custody€with€the€mother.€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€at€*2.€€OnÐ ` Ðappeal,€the€mother€opposed€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€joint€custody,€arguing€that€joint€custody€wasÏinappropriate€in€a€case€in€which€the€parties€ð ðcannot€get€along.ðð€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€€The€appellate€court€declinedÐ Ð  Ðto€reverse€the€order€of€joint€custody,€noting€that€the€mother,€who€sought€sole€custody,€was€the€sourceÏof€most€of€the€problems,€because€of€her€ð ðfeelings€of€being€spurned€byðð€the€father.€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€at€3„4.€Ð $à" ÐThe€Court€also€felt€it€likely€that:ÌÓÓà8  àœan›€award€of€sole€custody€to€[the€mother]€would€restrict€[the€fatherððs]€role€in€hisÏchildrenððs€lives.€€Such€a€restriction€would€be€highly€disruptive€to€the€childrenÏbecause€[the€father]€has€been€extraordinarily€involved€in€his€sonsðð€lives€in€the€past.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€4.€€Thus,€the€Court€found€that€the€mother€should€not€be€permitted€to,€by€her€behavior,€makeÐ ,`'* Ðjoint€custody€unworkable€and€then€be€awarded€sole€custody.Ìà  àThis€case€is€in€some€ways€the€converse€of€ò òòòDeVaultó óóó.€€While€both€parties€have€contributed€toÐ Ð/ +. Ðthe€acrimony€between€them,€Husbandððs€conduct€most€directly€affects€the€custody€arrangement.€ÏWhile€Husband€maintains€Wifeððs€behavior€forced€him€to€do€so,€it€is€undisputed€that€HusbandÏadamantly€refuses€to€communicate€with€Wife,€regarding€McKenzie€or€any€other€topic.€€It€isÏundisputed€that€Husband€put€call€blocking€on€his€telephone€to€block€telephone€calls€from€Wife.€€ItÏis€undisputed€that€Husband€has€repeatedly€left€town€abruptly€and€simply€expected€Wife€to€quicklyÐ 09€48 Ðmake€arrangements€to€care€for€McKenzie.€€Thus,€unlike€ò òòòDeVaultó óóó,€theòòò ò€óóó óparty€most€responsible€forÐ ° Ðmaking€joint€custody€unworkable€seeks€to€have€it€affirmed€by€this€Court.€€It€is€clear€in€this€case€thatÏjoint€custody€is€not€feasible,€and€we€therefore€vacate€the€trial€courtððs€order€on€this€issue.Ìà  àWe€must€therefore€determine€the€party€to€whom€sole€custody€should€be€granted.€€AÏcomparative€fitness€analysis€is€used€to€determine€which€parent€should€be€awarded€custody.€€ò òòòRuyleÐ 0 € Ðv.€Ruyleó óóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€At€the€trial€level,€both€parties€sought€soleÐ `  Ðcustody.òò€€óóOn€appeal,€Wife€seeks€sole€custody€and€Husband€seeks€to€have€the€award€of€joint€custodyÐ ð@  Ðaffirmed.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€both€parties€to€be€fit€parents.Ìà  àIn€this€case,€as€in€many€cases,€both€parties€are€loving€and€involved€parents€with€significantÏdrawbacks.€€Wife€testified€extensively€regarding€Husbandððs€outbursts€and€volatile€temper,€his€refusalÏto€communicate€with€her,€and€that€he€had€repeatedly€left€town€with€no€notice€and€without€informingÏWife€where€he€could€be€contacted.€€Husband€does€not€dispute€these€claims,€but€maintains€adamantlyÏthat€Wifeððs€harassment€and€excessive€behavior€forced€such€a€response.Ìà  àHusband€also€testified€extensively€regarding€Wifeððs€behavior,€accusing€her€of€mental€illness,Ïharassment,€threats€to€him€and€to€third€parties.€€After€Husband€had€call€blocking€installed€on€hisÏtelephone€to€block€Wifeððs€calls,€he€asserts€that€she€called€his€pager€over€eighty€times€in€a€single€day.€ÏWife€disputes€these€accounts,€asserting€that€she€has€behaved€reasonably€throughout€the€litigation.€ÏHowever,€this€is€belied€by€the€record€in€this€cause.€€Review€of€the€record€makes€it€clear€that€Wife,Ïin€representing€herself,€engaged€in€excessive€and,€at€times,€oppressive€behavior€and€is€primarilyÏresponsible€for€expanding€this€litigation€œinto€seventeen›€volumes€of€transcript€as€well€as€innumerableÏexhibits€and€pleadings.€€This€fact€must€be€taken€into€account€as€well.€€Ìà  àOn€the€whole,€while€both€parties€have€significant€virtues€and€vices,€we€must€conclude€thatÏMcKenzieððs€best€interest€would€be€served€by€awarding€custody€to€Wife€rather€than€Husband.€€To€beÏcertain,€Wifeððs€behavior€makes€the€relationship€between€Husband€and€Wife€difficult.€€However,€itÏdoes€not€appear€to€directly€affect€her€ability€to€parent€McKenzie€or€to€cooperate€with€HusbandÏregarding€McKenzie.€€On€the€other€hand,€Husbandððs€refusal€to€communicate€with€Wife,€his€volatileÏoutbursts,€and€his€sudden€decisions€to€leave€town€and€assume€Wife€will€care€for€McKenzie€in€hisÏabsence€all€directly€affect€his€parenting€and€his€ability€to€work€cooperatively€with€Wife€regarding€œññÐ  P7 26 ÐññMcKenzie›€and€keep€both€parents€involved.€€Consequently,€we€find€that€sole€custody€of€McKenzieÏshould€be€awarded€to€Wife.Ìà  àWe€must€now€address€the€allocation€of€parenting€time€between€the€parties.€€Wife€argues€thatÏHusband€does€not€communicate€with€her€regarding€McKenzieððs€school€assignments€orÏextracurricular€activities,€and€that€Husband€regularly€left€town€suddenly€without€makingÏarrangements€in€advance€for€Wife€to€care€for€McKenzie.€€Wife€testified€that€Husbandððs€behaviorÏmakes€it€difficult€for€her€to€monitor€continuing€homework€assignments€and€plan€for€school€activitiesÏat€which€parents€are€to€be€available€and€that€it€causes€McKenzie€to€be€insecure€and€stressed.€€SheÏalso€disputes€Husbandððs€fitness€as€a€parent,€alleging€that€he€has€a€propensity€for€violence,€uses€illegalÏdrugs€and€consorts€with€felons€and€other€undesirable€persons.€€The€trial€court€found€both€parents€toÏbe€fit,€and€found€that€the€arrangement€of€alternating€weeks€with€each€parent€had€ð ðproven€to€beÏsatisfactory€in€the€development€of€the€child.ðð€€The€guardian€ad€litem€recommended€Wife€be€awardedÏsole€custody,€but€also€recommended€McKenzie€continue€spending€alternate€weeks€with€each€parent.Ìà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€Husband€has€refused€to€communicate€with€Wife€regarding€McKenzieððsÏschoolwork€or€any€other€topic,€and€that€this€has€created€difficulties.€€It€is€also€undisputed€thatÏHusband€has€often€taken€unexpected€trips€out€of€town,€causing€McKenzie€to€be€insecure€and€leavingÏWife€to€care€for€her.€€However,€it€is€also€undisputed€that€Husband€has€been€a€loving€parent€and€quiteÏinvolved€in€McKenzieððs€activities.€€Ìà  àThe€record€indicates€that€the€parties€have€been€alternating€weeks,€with€ð ðchangeover€dayðð€onÏMonday€afternoons€after€school.€€On€balance,€it€appears€necessary€to€modify€this€arrangement€duringÏthe€school€year€to€permit€Wife€to€better€monitor€McKenzieððs€schoolwork€and€cope€with€HusbandððsÏrefusal€to€communicate€with€her€regarding€McKenzieððs€activities.€€Visitation€is€modified€so€that,Ïduring€the€school€year,€Husbandððs€visitation€on€alternate€weeks€shall€begin€on€WednesdayÏafternoons€after€school€and€end€upon€bringing€McKenzie€to€school€the€following€Monday€morning.€ÏIn€all€other€respects€the€visitation€arrangement€shall€remain€as€ordered€by€the€trial€court,€in€Ïparticular€regarding€holidays,€vacations€and€maintaining€the€arrangement€of€alternating€weeks€withÏeach€parent€during€the€summer€months.Ìà  àOn€appeal,€Wife€also€seeks€child€support.€€The€trial€court€made€no€specific€findings€regardingÏthe€partiesðð€income€level,€but€in€light€of€the€order€of€joint€custody€and€alternating€weeks,€ordered€noÐ 09€48 Ðpayment€of€child€support.€€The€issue€of€child€support€must€be€remanded€in€light€of€this€CourtððsÏmodification€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€on€custody€and€visitation.Ìò òà  àó óWife€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€require€Husband€to€pay€a€portionÐ pÀ Ðof€McKenzieððs€€private€school€tuition€and€expenses€at€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€School.€€At€the€time€ofÏtrial,€tuition€for€the€school€was€$7,245€per€year.€€Although€the€trial€court€found€that€McKenzie€ð ðhasÏattended€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€School€since€she€was€old€enough€to€enroll,ðð€it€€ð ðdecline[d]€to€orderÏthat€the€child€attend€St.€Maryððs.ðð€€Wife€argues€that€McKenzie€is€doing€well€at€St.€Maryððs€and€thatÏit€is€in€her€best€interest€to€continue€at€St.€Maryððs€in€order€to€retain€continuity€with€friends€andÏteachers.Ìò òà  àó óHusband€has€objected€to€œMcKenzieððs€continued›€enrollment€in€the€private€school,€claimingÐ à Ðan€inability€to€pay€and€indicating€some€preference€that€she€attend€a€co„educational€school.€€HusbandÏasserts€that€McKenzie€should€attend€Grahamwood€School,€a€public€school€with€excellent€credentialsÏlocated€close€to€Husbandððs€residence.€€Wife€notes€that€Husband€enrolled€McKenzie€at€St.€Maryððs€andÏnever€voiced€his€disapproval€of€the€school€until€after€the€parties€separated€and€he€was€asked€to€payÏa€portion€of€the€tuition.€€McKenzie€has€continued€attending€St.€Maryððs,€with€Wife€paying€all€of€theÏtuition.€€Ìà  àThe€evidence€in€the€record€indicates€that€McKenzie€has€been€excelling€at€St.€Maryððs,€whereÏshe€is€accustomed€to€small,€all„girl€classrooms.€€The€guardian€ad€litem€recommended€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  à[I]t€is€in€McKenzieððs€best€interest€that€she€continue€at€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€SchoolÏas€long€as€possible,€it€being€in€McKenzieððs€best€interest€that€she€continue€in€aÏfamiliar,€stable€setting€with€familiar€friends€and€teachers€with€the€extremely€highÏquality€and€diversity€of€the€education€that€she€is€now€getting,€which€will€provide€herÏwith€a€strong€foundation€for€her€future€development.Ð Ð Ð  Ѐ€ÌÓÓAlthough€Husband€now€claims€a€preference€that€McKenzie€attend€a€public,€co„educational€school,Ïit€is€undisputed€that,€well€prior€to€their€separation,€both€parties€believed€it€was€in€McKenzieððs€bestÏinterest€to€attend€St.€Maryððs.€€Indeed,€Husband€notes€that€he€enrolled€McKenzie€at€St.€Maryððs€inÏ1992,€years€before€she€would€begin€attending.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Husband€has€acquiesced€inÏMcKenzie€continuing€to€attend€St.€Maryððs,€so€long€as€Wife€pays€the€tuition.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€Husband€not€beÏrequired€to€contribute€toward€the€St.€Maryððs€tuition€and€expenses.€€We€reverse€the€decision€of€theÏœññÐ  Ð/ +. Ðññtrial›€court€on€this€issue€and€œremand€the€issue€to€the€trial€court,€to€determine€the€portion€ofÐ 09€48 ÐMcKenzieððs€St.€Maryððs€tuition€and€school€expenses€to€be€paid€by€Husband,€along€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€consideration€of€the€overall€issue€of€child€support.Ìà  àWife€contends€on€appeal€that€she€is€entitled€to€child€support€arrearages€pursuant€to€theÏconsent›€œpendente›€œlite›€œorder›€entered€on€February€2,€1994.€€The€order€states€that€Wife€shall€beÏreimbursed€ð ðfor€one€half€of€all€health€insurance,€medical€expenses,€day€care€.€.€.€expenses,€schoolÏactivity€and€other€school€related€expenses;€clothing€expenses;€piano€lessons,€etc.€for€the€minor€childÏof€the€parties.ðð€€The€order€also€states€that€Husband€may€ð ðoffset€against€any€such€amounts€for€one„¼half€of€such€expenses€that€he€incurs€and€documents€for€the€minor€child.ðð€€At€trial,€Wife€maintainedÏthat€Husband€owed€her€$14,502.66€for€these€expenses.€€The€trial€court€found€that€any€arrearagesÏowed€by€Husband€were€€ð ðset€off€by€his€expenditures€on€the€child.ððÌà  àWife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€off€these€amounts.€€Wife€contends€thatÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(5)€bars€Husband€from€setting€off€his€child€supportÏobligation€since€he€filed€no€petition€for€modification€or€relief€from€the€1994€order.€€Wife€alsoÏmaintains€that€Husband€has€not€proven€any€offsets€in€accordance€with€the€order.€€She€notes€thatÏHusband€admitted€that€he€used€marital€funds€for€some€of€the€items€claimed€œas€expenditures€forÏMcKenzie,›€and€that€he€did€not€provide€documentation€of€his€claimed€offsetting€expenses.Ìà  àHusband€argues€that€during€the€pendency€of€the€divorce,€€he€kept€œMcKenzie›€over€sixtyÏœpercent›€of€the€time€and€that€he€should€be€entitled€to€offset€his€expenditures€on€her€behalf.€€HusbandÏtestified€that€his€expenditures€for€McKenzie€included€etiquette€classes,€swimming€lessons,€pianoÏlessons,€tutors,€entertainment,€clothing,€and€other€expenditures.€€Husband€maintains€that€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(5)€does€not€require€a€petition€to€be€filed€if€the€offsetting€expenses€areÏfor€necessities.Ìà  àWhile€a€child€support€obligation€cannot€be€modified€retroactively,€a€petition€for€reliefÏpursuant€to€ðð€36„5„101(a)(5)€need€not€be€filed€in€order€to€offset€expenditures€against€child€supportÏarrearages.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Benson€v.€Bensonó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9601„CV00043,€1996€WL€284731,€at€*2Ð °1-0 Ð(Tenn.€App.€May€31,€1996);òòò ò€Netherton€v.€Nethertonó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9208„PB00323,€1993€WL€49556,Ð 3à.2 Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€26,€1993).€€œSince›€execution€of€the€1994€order,€the€record€contains€onlyÏlimited€documentation€of€Husbandððs€child„related€expenditures.€€Husband€has€submitted€a€list€of€hisÏexpenses€but€has€documentation€of€only€a€few.€€Although€the€consent€order€notes€that€Husband€mayÐ 09€48 Ðoffset€expenses€he€incurs€ð ðand€documents,ðð€the€trial€court€was€within€its€discretion€to€find€that€theÏexpenses€were€actually€incurred€even€in€the€absence€of€documentation.€€Husband€asserted€that€heÏpaid€many€of€the€expenses€specified€by€the€consent€order,€such€as€clothing€expenses,€piano€lessonsÏand€the€like.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€The€trial€courtÏis€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà  àWife€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€requiring€Husband€to€obtain€a€$400,000€lifeÏinsurance€policy€on€himself.€€Life€insurance€is€necessary,€Wife€maintains,€to€secure€any€child€supportÏobligations€that€Husband€may€be€assessed.€€Husband€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€basically€in€goodÏhealth€except€for€ð ðcertain€aches€and€pains€as€any€sixty€year€old€man,ðð€œbut›€later€testified€that€he€wasÏunable€to€obtain€life€insurance€on€himself.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36-5-101€provides€thatÌÓÓÒ°ÒÒ°Òà ` àThe€court€may€direct€either€or€both€parties€to€designate€the€other€party€and€theÏchildren€of€the€marriage€as€beneficiaries€under€any€existing€policies€insuring€the€lifeÏof€either€party€and€maintenance€of€existing€policies€insuring€the€life€of€either€party,Ïor€the€purchase€and€maintenance€of€life€insurance€and€designation€of€beneficiaries.ÌÒ°çÚÒÒ°ÙÚÒÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(g)€(Supp.€1997).€€œThus,›€the€statute€explicitly€authorizes€a€trial€judgeÏto€order€a€parent€to€obtain€life€insurance€to€secure€child€support€obligations.€€ð ðThe€legislatureÏspecifically€left€the€determination€of€whether€to€order€a€party€to€procure€insurance€for€the€benefit€ofÏthe€other€party€and€children€of€the€marriage€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòò òYoung€v.€Youngóóó ó,Ð À! ÐNo.€01A01„9610„CH„00473,€1997€WL€910249,€at€*287€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€€The€trial€court€did€notÏaddress€whether€life€insurance€is€appropriate€in€this€case.€€We€remand€for€a€determination€on€thisÏissue,€in€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€an€award€of€child€support€on€remand.Ì€€€€€ò ò€ó ó€€€Finally,€Wife€seeks€compensation€for€her€attorneyððs€fees€and€for€the€costs€of€this€litigation.Ð @)$' ÐÔ‡ X FXXX¬æÔð ðThe€decision€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€to€a€party€in€a€divorce€proceeding€is€within€the€soundÐ  +p&) Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€upon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€such€a€decision.ðð€€ò òòòStorey€v.€Storeyóóó ó,€835€S.W.2d€593,€597€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ô#†X¬æXX X Fèß#Ô€€In€ò òòòFox€v.€Foxó óóó,Ð Ð. *- Ð657€S.W.2d€747,€749€(Tenn.€1983),€the€Court€held:ÌÓÓà8  àThe€right€to€an€allowance€of€legal€expenses€is€not€absolute.€€It€is€conditioned€uponÏa€lack€of€resources€to€prosecute€or€defend€a€suit€in€good€faith.€€This€rule€is€to€enableÏthe€wife,€when€destitute€of€means€of€her€own,€to€obtain€justice€and€to€prevent€itsÏdenial.€€If€a€spouse€does€not€have€separate€property€of€her€own€which€is€adequate€toÏdefray€the€expenses€of€suit,€certainly€she€should€not€be€denied€access€to€the€courtsÏbecause€she€is€unable€to€procure€counsel.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóóat€749€(citation€omitted).€€The€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€order€either€party€toÐ @948 Ðpay€attorneyððs€fees€or€court€costs.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.€Ìà  àIn€sum,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€declare€the€parties€divorced€without€grantingÏa€divorce€to€œeither.€€The›€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€real€property€is€œaffirmed.€€Likewise,›€we€affirmÏthe€trial€courtððs€holding€that€personal€property€is€awarded€to€the€party€œwho›€possesses€it.€€WifeððsÏrequest€for€reimbursement€of€expenses€on€the€Adams€property€is€denied.€€The€cause€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€a€determination€regarding€the€Morgan€Keegan€and€Napolean€Enterprises€accounts,Ïthe€$200,000€loan,€Wifeððs€legal€fees€œfor€representing›€Husbandððs€corporation,€and€Wifeððs€loan€toÏHusband€for€his€car€note.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€trial€courtððs€property€division€is€affirmed.€€WeÏfind€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€divide€the€marital€estate€in€the€absence€of€a€formalÏaccounting€by€Husband.€€In€view€of€the€hostile€relationship€between€the€parties€and€HusbandððsÏrefusal€to€communicate€with€Wife€regarding€their€daughter,€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€joint€custodyÏis€reversed€and€sole€custody€is€awarded€to€Wife.€€In€order€to€enable€Wife€to€adequately€monitor€theÏpartiesðð€daughterððs€school€work,€the€visitation€arrangement€is€modified€during€the€school€year.€ÏDuring€the€school€year,€Husbandððs€visitation€on€alternate€weeks€shall€begin€on€Wednesdays€afterÏschool€and€end€Monday€when€he€brings€McKenzie€to€school.€€In€all€other€respects,€such€as€holidays,Ïvacations€and€alternating€weeks€during€the€summer€months,€the€visitation€arrangement€is€affirmed.€ÏThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€regarding€child€support€in€light€of€theÏmodification€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€regarding€custody€and€œvisitation.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€notÏto€require€Husband€to€contribute€toward€the€partiesðð€daughterððs€private€school€expenses€is€reversed,Ïand€the€cause€is€remanded€to€determine€the€appropriate€portion€of€the€childððs€tuition€and€expensesÏfor€St.€Maryððs€Episcopal€School€to€be€paid€by€Husband.€€ññ›ññFurthermore,›€the€cause€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€a€determination€of€whether€life€insurance€on€Husbandððs€life€is€appropriate€based€onÏthe€facts€of€this€case€and€this€Courtððs€modification€of€the€visitation€œarrangement.€€The›€trial€courtððsÏorder€on€Husbandððs€arrearage€in€child€support,€permitting€him€to€offset€the€arrearage€with€otherÏchild„related€expenditures,€is€affirmed.€€The€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€require€either€party€to€pay€theÏotherððs€attorneyððs€fees€or€court€costs€is€affirmed.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€decision€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed.€€œññ̛Р ð-@), ÐññññÌññ›œññÐ  P7 26 Ðññ›à  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€modified€and€remandedÏas€set€forth€above.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€both€parties.ÌÌÌÓÓÔ‡ X FXXX¬æÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 0 € Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð  l  Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¸  ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð ¤ô  ÐÌó óÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð h¸ Ðóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÔ#†X¬æXX X Fð#Ô€€