ÿWPC® X’Á¹vJ‹þ÷mÜÿÏ㯙YG¬WIÇEJè£<·ìÁoóÉ»ø…f¼Šj1Aúö× ?ÿ¬$‰¦o­nâÌyL ÕªµÙäNfË/ÇeóÌf„Q5+Ât'|UÆ8-Ž˜«Õÿ3ݹܫÆlKd»ê;„õHŒü)’æŽÉ&_º fmªZ÷bs¦ŽD;y'Üp‡KOS®øýôR¾å.tu‘1æ¼Ûcô¿ƒ¯ÀLÖÓÍu:¢Ü ‚9É˨ÌÃñùù¦Y¢Výù¬Ÿl7ð2ûÁW£Rò…¤î1®Æ¹3°É=Pÿ²È'J}Ñœ ¨LãžâñkÐ\˜±š dJÈeà÷–[©¼<//£’>V»:œT5_›.  Mº˜¼“Šv—xßË‹îe5¨FŠ4¶·I'—Ù 3¸ ôšâÀ¥ÅÏ ¶ËØá©qCçÍ%©lk›’ÕE3»à‰ï*[ÿé…‰3˜Sðd<ÐoO–F¿zY™gœ«kÜœ’rdÍÛéðœòž°˜ µ$¬bô'æÔÙ<µìG2á‚—ˆ§rZQFoŽì™£ ccR]Áµ04ÊÞ,۹–ò’ª°sùç²¥îEe¨—šãïÕç åûkb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ Ð Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©NíZï=IE†áˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆbiiiiiiiiiiiiii 0:qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq 0ë«««« B–– 0¤³ D3W D-Š 0K·· ASÆU 0¤ 0D¿ A«»j•‰-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-b014c13|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Seeley COAJessee Olen U.T.E.T.S.U. T]heLoudonBarnhillAndertonspousalBurlewCrabtreew]hereHerrera Regs Dubet]hereobligor 3Ý ƒR¾r$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Wife€already€had€one€child,€a€daughter,€when€the€parties€were€married.€€This€child€was€adopted€by€HusbandÐ ° Ðand€was€over€the€age€of€eighteen€at€the€time€of€trial. ×Ý ƒR¾r$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€was€substantial€testimony€at€trial€concerning€various€matters€not€raised€on€appeal.- ù-4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó(|G2¾r$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ò»»Ô d(|3¾ï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¾ï$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼…»»»ÔÑ8€PyXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îD…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼…»îîD #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€1,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XPyX»¼…ÔÌò òÔ#†¼…»XXPyô#ÔCARRIE€MILDRED€MAYER€DUBE€v.€Ð úJ ÐMICHAEL€NORMAN€DUBEÔ‡XPyX»¼…Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ#†¼…»XXPy#ÔÔ€XPyX»¼…ÔAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€33043€€€€€€Thomas€J.€Seeley,€Jr.,€Judge,€by€InterchangeÐ ú J ÐÌFILED€Ô_ÔDECEMBERÔ_Ô€9,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ Ò"  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„00413„COA„R3„CVÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌCarrie€Mildred€Mayer€Dube€(ð ðWifeðð)€sued€Michael€Norman€Dube€(ð ðHusbandðð)€for€a€divorce.€€WifeÐ xÈ Ðis€primarily€a€stay„at„home€mother€and€Husband€is€an€emergency€room€physician.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ d´ Ðdivided€the€marital€property€with€65%€of€the€property€going€to€Wife.€€The€Trial€Court€awarded€WifeÐ P  Ðpermanent€alimony€of€$3,200€per€month€after€finding€Wife€could€not€be€sufficiently€rehabilitated.€Ð <Œ ÐChild€support€was€set€based€on€Husbandððs€income€for€2000,€during€which€time€he€claims€to€haveÐ (x Ðworked€approximately€90€hours€per€week.€€Husband€appeals€the€division€of€marital€property,€awardÐ d Ðof€permanent€alimony,€and€amount€of€child€support€which€was€based€on€his€90€hour€work€week.€€WeÐ P Ðaffirm.€Ð ì< ÐÌÌò òà@œ œ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€ˆÐ ° Ðà@¥ ¥ ìàChancery€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remandedó óˆÐ œì ÐÌòòÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ `!°  ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L"œ! ÐÌÌThomas€C.€Jessee,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Michael€Norman€Dube.Ð %` $ ÐÌÌOlen€G.€Haynes,€Jr.,€and€Robert€D.€Arnold,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€CarrieÐ Ô'$#' ÐMildred€Mayer€Dube.€Ð À($( ÐÐ  ¬)ü$)ýà ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€is€a€divorce€case€wherein€Wife€was€granted€a€divorce€based€on€HusbandððsÐ `° Ðadmitted€adultery.€€The€parties€had€four€children,€three€of€whom€were€minors€(ages€13,€7€and€4)Ð L œ Ðwhen€the€complaint€for€divorce€was€filed.€€The€issues€on€appeal€concern€the€Trial€Courtððs€divisionÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€marital€assets,€award€of€alimony,€and€child€support.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€testified€at€length€relevant€to€the€issues€on€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€and€Husband€wereÐ ü L  Ðmarried€in€1984.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Wife€was€45€years€old.€€She€quit€high€school€in€either€ninthÐ è 8  Ðor€tenth€grade€and€later€obtained€a€GED.€€The€only€education€Wife€had€since€then€was€a€unitÐ Ô$  Ðsecretary€course€she€took€when€her€first€child€was€young.€€She€was€working€as€a€unit€secretary€at€aÐ À  Ðhospital€when€the€parties€were€married.€€Early€in€the€marriage€and€while€living€in€Florida,€€HusbandÐ ¬ü  Ðhad€a€drug€problem€and€eventually€began€selling€drugs.€€When€some€of€Husbandððs€friends€startedÐ ˜è  Ðgetting€arrested,€they€decided€to€move€to€a€different€part€of€Florida.€€After€this€move,€Husband€beganÐ „Ô  Ðgrowing€and€selling€marijuana.€€Husband€eventually€was€arrested€and€received€probation.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðparties€moved€to€East€Tennessee€in€1988.€€Wife€€worked€at€U.T.€Hospital€and€Husband€took€classesÐ \¬ Ðat€the€University€of€Tennessee.€€After€completing€his€studies€at€U.T.,€Husband€applied€for€and€wasÐ H˜ Ðaccepted€to€medical€school€at€East€Tennessee€State€University.€€Husband€and€Wife€then€moved€toÐ 4„ ÐJohnson€City€and€Wife€became€employed€at€North€Side€Hospital€and€continued€to€work€until€sheÐ  p Ðdeveloped€complications€with€the€pregnancy€of€the€partiesðð€second€son.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Wife€quit€work€at€that€timeÐ  \ Ðand€never€returned€to€work€outside€of€the€home.€€Wifeððs€work€experience€has€been€limited.€€InÐ øH Ðaddition€to€working€at€hospitals,€she€also€performed€some€work€in€retail€as€a€cash€register€operator.€Ð ä4 ÐWife€testified€Husband€wanted€her€to€stay€home€with€the€children€when€she€ceased€working,€andÐ Ð  Ðthey€never€talked€about€Wife€again€getting€a€job€outside€of€the€home.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€early€1999,€Husband€called€Wife€after€a€three€day€trip€to€Hilton€Head€and€told€herÐ ”ä Ðhe€never€would€be€coming€home.€€Wife€eventually€learned€Husband€was€seeing€another€woman.€Ð €Ð ÐWife€claims€Husband€threatened€to€move€to€the€Cayman€Islands€where,€he€claims,€there€is€noÐ l¼ Ðextradition€law€and€to€return€when€the€youngest€child€is€18€years€of€age.€€Wife€filed€a€statement€ofÐ X ¨ Ðincome€and€expenses€with€the€Trial€Court€showing€total€monthly€expenses€of€$8,473€and€net€incomeÐ D!” Ðof€$0.00.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€testified€he€earned€$253,062€in€1997,€$312,949€in€1998,€and€$350,000€inÐ $X" Ð1999.€€His€gross€income€for€2000€was€$370,000.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Husband€was€40€years€old.€Ð ô$D # ÐHe€works€as€an€emergency€room€physician.€€He€presently€works€three€24€hour€shifts€per€week.€€HeÐ à%0!$ Ðmay€work€longer€than€24€hours€on€a€shift€if€there€is€a€heavy€patient€load.€€According€to€Husband,Ð Ì&"% Ðthere€is€approximately€$14,000€in€credit€card€debt€that€was€incurred€during€the€marriage.€€He€alsoÐ ° Ðowes€approximately€$130,000€in€student€loans.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€testified€the€marriage€was€shaky€from€the€beginning.€€Wife€would€be€angryÐ tÄ Ðand€hateful€unless€she€wanted€something.€€When€he€would€buy€her€what€she€wanted,€she€would€actÐ `° Ðfine€for€a€couple€of€days€and€then€the€cycle€would€start€over€again.€€He€testified€to€constant€moneyÐ L œ Ðproblems€and€stated€Wife€would€hide€money€from€him.€€Husband€denied€ever€selling€drugs.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHusband€admitted€he€began€a€sexual€relationship€with€a€co„worker€after€he€and€Wife€separated.€€HeÐ $ t Ðintends€on€maintaining€this€relationship.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€granted€a€divorce€to€Wife€based€on€Husbandððs€admitted€adultery.€Ð è 8  ÐThe€Trial€Court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$4,148.00€per€month€plusÐ Ô$  Ðan€additional€$1,200€per€month€in€trust€for€the€childrenððs€college€education.€€The€Trial€Court€notedÐ À  Ðthe€total€amount€of€child€support€was€approximately€ð ð$1,200€a€month€less€than€the€full€guidelineÐ ¬ü  Ðamount€ð8ð.ðð€€€With€regard€to€division€of€marital€property,€the€Trial€Court€stated:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[T]he€factors€the€Court€is€to€consider€are€reflected€in€36„4„Ð pÀ Ð121ð8ð.€€The€duration€of€the€marriage€is€indicated,€seventeen€years.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€age,€physical€and€mental€health,€skills,€employability,€earningÐ H˜ Ðcapacity.€€With€respect€to€those€things€Ms.€Dubeððs€forty„five,€Dr.Ð 4„ ÐDubeððs€a€little€bit€younger,€heððs€forty.€€Apparently€both€have€some,€asÐ  p ÐI€understand€it,€relatively€minor€physical€problems.€€Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àCertainly€as€far€as€employability€and€earning€capacity,€thatÐ ä4 Ðgreatly€favors€Dr.€Dube.€€The€tangible€or€intangible€contributions€ofÐ Ð  Ðone€party€to€the€education€and€training€or€increased€earning€power,€itÐ ¼  Ðis€my€understanding€from€testimony€that€Ms.€Dube€did€work€someÐ ¨ø Ðwhile€Dr.€Dube€was€attending€the€University€of€Tennessee€and€for€aÐ ”ä Ðbrief€period€of€time€when€he€started€medical€school€up€here.ð8ðЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€ability€of€each€party€to€acquire€future€acquisitions€ofÐ X ¨ Ðcapital€assets€and€income.€€Of€course,€that€greatly€favors€Dr.€Dube.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€contribution€of€each€party€to€theÐ #l! Ðacquisition€and€preservation,€appreciation€of€marital€assets.€€Again,Ð $X" ÐDr.€Dube€as€far€as€who€made€the€actual€financial€resources€availableÐ ô$D # Ðfor€acquisition€and€appreciation€of€property,€that€was€what€he€did€andÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€what€Ms.€Dube€did.€€She€did€contribute€to€the€marriage€as€aÐ Ì&"% Ðhomemaker€and€parent€and€mother€of€these€children.ð8ðи'#&` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€considering€the€above€factors,€the€Trial€Court€ordered€the€marital€property€splitÐ )à$( Ð65%€to€Wife€and€35%€to€Husband€after€giving€Husband€credit€for€any€capital€gain€taxes€realized€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€sale€of€real€property.€€The€marital€debt€and€any€losses€from€the€sale€of€real€estate€was€dividedÐ h+¸&* Ðwith€Husband€being€responsible€for€65%€of€the€debt€and€Wife€35%.€€Each€party€was€awarded€theÐ ° Ðhousehold€furnishings€in€their€respective€homes.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€regard€to€alimony,€the€Trial€Court€noted€the€statutory€preference€forÐ tÄ Ðrehabilitative€alimony€over€permanent€alimony.€€The€Trial€Court€discussed€the€factors€to€beÐ `° Ðconsidered€when€awarding€alimony,€many€of€which€were€the€same€factors€discussed€above€when€itÐ L œ Ðconsidered€the€division€of€marital€property.€€The€Trial€Court€observed€many€of€the€factors,€such€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðearning€capacity,€obligation€needs,€and€the€financial€resources€of€the€parties,€the€relative€educationÐ $ t Ðand€training€of€the€partiesðð€substantially€favored€Husband.€€Another€factor€was€the€desirability€forÐ  ` Ðone€party€to€stay€at€home€to€care€for€the€young€children.€€The€Trial€Court€observed€Wife€was€45Ð ü L  Ðyears€old€and€had€a€GED.€€Nevertheless,€the€Trial€Court€concluded€Wife€could€be€rehabilitated€andÐ è 8  Ðattend€college€to€obtain€a€degree.€€As€such,€the€Trial€Court€ordered€rehabilitative€alimony€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðamount€of€$5,000€per€month€for€six€years.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€rendering€the€above€opinion,€the€Trial€Court€apparently€rethought€its€decisionÐ ˜è  Ðand€amended€its€opinion.€€In€so€doing,€the€Trial€Court€stated€it€did€not€believe€Wife€could€rehabilitateÐ „Ô  Ðherself€to€a€standard€of€living€even€approaching€what€she€enjoyed€for€the€past€few€years€and€ð ðoneÐ pÀ Ðwhich€[Husband],€a€medical€doctor€with€a€present€monthly€income€of€approximately€$30,000,€willÐ \¬ Ðcontinue€to€enjoy€after€this€divorce.ðð€€After€pointing€out€alimony€payments€would€be€tax€deductible,Ð H˜ Ðthe€Trial€Court€ordered€permanent€alimony€in€the€amount€of€$5,000€per€month€for€five€years,€thenÐ 4„ Ð$2,500€per€month€thereafter,€noting€the€larger€sum€for€the€five€year€period€was€to€provide€Wife€theÐ  p Ðopportunity€to€further€her€education€or€otherwise€train€herself€for€the€labor€market.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€filed€various€motions€and€further€arguments€were€undertaken€concerningÐ ä4 Ðthe€award€of€alimony€and€other€matters.€€After€further€hearings,€the€Trial€Court€issued€yet€anotherÐ Ð  ÐOrder,€this€time€concluding€Wife€was€entitled€to€permanent€alimony€in€the€amount€of€$3,200€perÐ ¼  Ðmonth€until€death€or€remarriage.€€In€so€doing,€the€Court€stated:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIððm€going€to€award€permanent€alimony€ð8ð.€€There€is€no€wayÐ €Ð Ðthis€lady€can€be€rehabilitated.€€Rehabilitated€to€what?€ð8ð€A€unitÐ l¼ Ðsecretary?€€She€has€absolutely€no€skills€other€than€some€limitedÐ X ¨ Ðsecretarial€skills.ð8ð€€She€is€going€to€have€to€retrain€herself€hopefully,Ð D!” Ðor€get€educated.€€And€thatððs€the€reason€I€order€the€five€thousandÐ 0"€  Ð($5,000.00)€dollars€for€five€yearsð8ð€to€provide€her€some€kind€of€extraÐ #l! Ðalimony€so€that€she€could€try€to€do€that.€€But€the€practical€matter,Ð $X" Ðthere€is€no€rehabilitation€or€restoration€of€skills€for€Ms.€Dube.€€SheÐ ô$D # Ðnever€had€any.€€Itððs€as€simple€as€that.€€Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€again€discussed€the€various€factors€to€consider€when€awardingÐ ¸'#& Ðalimony,€noting,€òòinter€aliaóó,€Husbandððs€greater€earning€capacity,€younger€age,€Wifeððs€limited€earningÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpotential€and€education.€€The€Trial€Court€reviewed€other€factors€and€also€noted€Husband€simplyÐ )à$( Ðfound€himself€another€ð ðromantic€interestðð€and€in€so€doing,€ð ðheððs€pretty€much€changed€what€wouldÐ |*Ì%) Ðbe€[Wifeððs]€and€the€childrenððs€standard€of€living€that€they€would€have€enjoyed€had€[Husband]€stayedÐ h+¸&* Ðin€this€marriage€relationship.ðð€€After€discussing€the€relevant€factors,€the€Trial€Court€concluded€theyÐ ° Ðweighed€heavily€in€favor€of€Wife,€and€even€if€Wife€obtained€additional€training€or€education,€sheÐ œì Ðwould€ð ðnever€approach€the€income€levelðð€that€Husband€enjoys.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€Trial€Court€made€the€above€ruling,€Husband€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amendÐ `° Ðthe€judgment.€€In€this€motion,€Husband€sought,€among€other€things,€€clarification€of€the€number€ofÐ L œ Ðhours€he€was€required€to€work€per€week€in€order€to€compute€child€support€payments.€€The€reasonÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€this€was€a€potential€decrease€in€the€number€of€hours€Husband€would€be€working€due€to€severalÐ $ t Ðdifferent€factors,€some€of€which€were€outside€his€control.€€The€Trial€Court€refused€this€request.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€raises€three€issues€on€appeal,€which€we€quote€as€follows:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.à ¸ àDid€the€trial€court€err€as€a€matter€of€law€by€concurrentlyÐ À  Ðawarding€rehabilitative€alimony€and€alimony€in€futuro?Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.à ¸ àDid€the€trial€court€err€as€a€matter€of€law€in€awarding€the€wifeÐ „Ô  Ða€disproportionate€distribution€of€the€marital€property€based€solely€onÐ pÀ Ðthe€appellant€husbandððs€past€income€when€the€income€is€based€on€aÐ \¬ Ð90€hour€work€week?ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.à ¸ àDoes€the€amount€of€child€support€awarded€constitute€an€abuseÐ  p Ðof€discretion€by€the€trial€court€when€the€trial€court€refused€to€makeÐ  \ Ðspecific€findings€of€fact€concerning€the€required€number€of€hours€theÐ øH Ðappellant€husband€must€work€in€relation€to€the€90€hours€per€week€heÐ ä4 Ðwas€working€at€the€time€of€the€divorce?ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ €Ð Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ l¼ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ X ¨ Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ D!” Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ 0"€  ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€regard€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€the€marital€assets,€the€many€factors€to€beÐ ô$D # Ðconsidered€by€a€trial€court€in€making€an€equitable€distribution€of€property€are€set€forth€in€Tenn.€CodeÐ à%0!$ ÐAnn.€ðð€36„4„121(c),€and€include€age,€physical€and€mental€health,€employability,€the€contribution€ofÐ Ì&"% Ða€party€to€the€marriage€as€homemaker,€tax€consequences,€etc.€€A€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€inÐ ¸'#& Ðdividing€the€interest€of€the€parties€in€marital€property.€€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€449Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€As€noted€by€this€Court€in€òòKing€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2d€216,€219€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð )à$( ÐApp.€1998),€when€dividing€marital€property:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€trial€courtððs€goal€in€every€divorce€case€is€to€divide€the€partiesððÐ ° Ðmarital€estate€in€a€just€and€equitable€manner.€€The€division€of€theÐ œì Ðestate€is€not€rendered€inequitable€simply€because€it€is€notÐ ˆØ Ðmathematically€equal,€òòCohen€v.€Cohenóó,€937€S.W.2d€823,€832€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1996);€òòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€1988),€or€becauseÐ `° Ðeach€party€did€not€receive€a€share€of€every€item€of€marital€property.€Ð L œ ÐòòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€[163]€at€168.€.€.€.€In€the€final€analysis,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€justness€of€a€particular€division€of€the€marital€property€andÐ $ t Ðallocation€of€marital€debt€depends€on€its€final€results.€òòSee€ThompsonÐ  ` Ðv.€Thompsonóó,€797€S.W.2d€599,€604€(Tenn.€App.€1990).Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€carefully€considered€the€relevant€factors€when€determining€how€toÐ Ô$  Ðdivide€the€marital€assets€and€debt.€€Most,€if€not€all,€of€the€factors€weigh€in€favor€or€Wife.€€ForÐ À  Ðexample,€Husbandððs€greater€earning€potential€is€apparent,€as€is€his€greater€ability€to€acquire€assetsÐ ¬ü  Ðin€the€future.€€Husband€is€approximately€five€years€younger€than€Wife€and€he€has€a€significantÐ ˜è  Ðeducational€background,€obtained€during€the€marriage,€which€Wife€is€lacking.€€While€the€divisionÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€assets€certainly€was€not€equal,€this€does€not€mean€it€is€inequitable.€€From€the€record€before€us,Ð pÀ Ðwe€cannot€conclude€the€Trial€Court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€divided€the€marital€property€or€thatÐ \¬ Ðthis€division€was€not€just€and€equitable.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€Trial€Court€on€this€issue.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€Husbandððs€challenge€to€the€alimony€award.€€DeterminationsÐ  p Ðconcerning€the€amount€and€duration€of€alimony€are€factually€driven€and€require€a€balancing€of€theÐ  \ Ðvarious€factors€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€òòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,€944€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð379,€387„88€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€These€factors€include:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(A)€€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financialÐ ¼  Ðresources€of€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,€profitÐ ¨ø Ðsharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;Дä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(B)€€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€andÐ l¼ Ðopportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€andÐ X ¨ Ðthe€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€and€training€toÐ D!” Ðimprove€such€partyððs€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(C)€€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(D)€€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(E)€€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limitedÐ ¸'#& Ðto,€physical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitatingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdisease;Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(F)€€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seekÐ ° Ðâ âemployment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€be€custodianÐ œì Ðof€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(G)€€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangibleÐ `° Ðand€intangible;ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(H)€€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€asÐ $ t Ðdefined€in€ðð€36„4„121;Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(I)€€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€theÐ è 8  Ðmarriage;ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€andÐ ¬ü  Ðintangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€and€homemakerÐ ˜è  Ðcontributions,€and€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€toÐ „Ô  Ðthe€education,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(K)€€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€itsÐ H˜ Ðdiscretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€andÐ4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(L)€€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,Ð  \ Ðas€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€is€correct€in€his€assertion€that€under€Tennessee€law,€it€is€inconsistent€toÐ Ð  Ðaward€both€rehabilitative€alimony€and€permanent€alimony.€€òòCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€Ð ¼  Ð360€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€the€present€case,€the€Trial€Court€apparently€struggled€with€both€the€type€andÐ ¨ø Ðamount€of€alimony€to€award€to€Wife,€as€shown€by€the€fact€that€the€initial€award€was€changed€severalÐ ”ä Ðtimes.€€In€the€end,€however,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€only€permanent€alimony€after€it€determinedÐ €Ð ÐWife€could€not€be€rehabilitated€sufficiently.€€We€disagree€with€Husbandððs€characterization€of€theÐ l¼ Ðfinal€award€of€alimony€as€both€rehabilitative€and€permanent.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€also€argues€Wife€should€not€have€received€permanent€alimony.€€This€CourtÐ 0"€  Ðobserved€in€òòAnderton€v.€AndertonóóÓÓ,€988€S.W.2d€675€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998):Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€to€determine€whether€spousalÐ ô$D # Ðsupport€is€needed€and,€if€so,€its€nature,€amount,€and€duration.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAppellate€courts€are€generally€disinclined€to€second„guess€a€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt's€spousal€support€decision€unless€it€is€not€supported€by€theÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€or€is€contrary€to€the€public€policies€reflected€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðapplicable€statutes.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐòòId.óóÓÓ€at€682€(citations€omitted).€€A€trial€court's€determination€regarding€spousal€support€generally€willÐ ° Ðâ ânot€be€altered€by€this€Court€unless€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.òò€€See€Robertson€v.€Robertsonóó,Ð œì Ð76€S.W.3d€337,€342€(Tenn.€2002).€€It€is€the€roll€of€this€Court€to€correct€errors€below€and€not€to€fineÐ ˆØ Ðtune€a€trial€courtððs€decision.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€all€relevant€factors€must€be€considered€when€setting€the€amount€of€an€alimonyÐ L œ Ðaward,€need€and€the€ability€to€pay€are€the€critical€factors.€€òòRobertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€at€342.€€DiscussingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€intent€behind€alimony,€our€Supreme€Court€has€held:€"the€purpose€of€spousal€support€is€to€aid€theÐ $ t Ðdisadvantaged€spouse€to€become€and€remain€self„sufficient€and,€when€economic€rehabilitation€is€notÐ  ` Ðfeasible,€to€mitigate€the€harsh€economic€realities€of€divorce."€€òòBurlew€v.€óóBurlew,€40€S.W.3d€465,Ð ü L  Ð470„71€(Tenn.€2001)€(quoting€òòAndertonóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€682).€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€"the€legislature€has€demonstrated€a€preference€for€an€award€of€rehabilitativeÐ À  Ðalimony[,]"€òòCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€358€(Tenn.€2000),€the€relevant€alimony€statute,Ð ¬ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),€does€contemplate,€under€the€appropriate€circumstances,€a€long„Ð ˜è  Ðterm€award€of€alimony,€or€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€providing:€ð ð[w]here€there€is€such€relative€economicÐ „Ô  Ðdisadvantage€and€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€.€.€.€then€theÐ pÀ Ðcourt€may€grant€an€order€for€payment€of€support€and€maintenance€on€a€long„term€basis€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.Ð \¬ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€"[T]he€purpose€of€[alimony€òòin€futuroóó]€is€to€provide€financial€supportÐ H˜ Ðto€a€spouse€who€cannot€be€rehabilitated."€€òòBurlewóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€471.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€the€legislature€has€expressed€a€preference€for€rehabilitative€alimony€in€Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),€the€record€on€appeal€shows,€as€found€by€the€Trial€Court,€that€Wife'sÐ øH Ðpossibilities€to€rehabilitate€herself€are€extremely€limited.€€Ý‚<ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝSeeÝ‚<ÿÿÿAkd,€iÝóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€Ð ä4 ÐThe€evidence€contained€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding€by€the€Trial€CourtÐ Ð  Ðor€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€specific€finding€that€ð ð[t]here€is€no€way€this€lady€can€be€rehabilitated.ðð€Ð ¼  ÐAccordingly,€after€applying€all€relevant€statutory€factors€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€shown€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðrecord,€we€hold€the€Trial€Court's€award€of€permanent€alimony,€as€opposed€to€rehabilitative€alimony,Ð ”ä Ðwas€not€an€abuse€of€discretion,€and€we€affirm€on€this€issue.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àHusbandððs€final€issue€on€appeal€concerns€the€Trial€Courtððs€award€of€child€support€andÐ X ¨ Ðits€refusal€to€ð ðmake€specific€findings€of€fact€concerning€the€required€number€of€hours€the€appellantÐ D!” Ðhusband€must€work€in€relation€to€the€90€hours€per€week€he€was€working€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.ðð€Ð 0"€  ÐHusband€apparently€anticipates€having€to€work€a€reduced€number€of€hours€in€the€future€(i.e.€less€thanÐ #l! Ðthe€90€hours€per€week€he€claims€to€be€working€presently).€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€child€support€guidelines€(ð ðGuidelinesðð)€provide€for€a€fixed€percentage€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðobligorððs€net€income€to€be€paid€based€on€the€number€of€children€for€whom€support€is€owed,€in€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðcase€41%€for€three€children.€€The€Guidelines€define€what€is€to€be€included€in€gross€income€and€thenÐ ¸'#& Ðwhat€is€to€be€subtracted€to€arrive€at€the€obligorððs€net€income,€upon€which€the€percentage€of€childÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsupport€is€based.€€Specifically,€the€Guidelines€defines€gross€income€to€include,€with€certainÐ )à$( Ðexceptions€not€relevant€here,€ð ðall€income€from€any€source€ð8ð€whether€earned€or€unearned,€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðincludes€but€is€not€limited€to,€the€following:€wages,€salaries,€commissions,€bonuses,€overtimeÐ h+¸&* Ðpayments,ðð€etc.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(a).€€The€Trial€Court€set€the€child€supportÐ ° Ðpayments€based€on€Husbandððs€income€for€2000.€€If€that€income€level€changes€in€the€future,€then€theÐ œì Ðchild€support€payments€can€be€increased€or€decreased€as€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€36„5„Ð ˆØ Ð101(a)(1).€€It€would€not€be€appropriate€for€the€Trial€Court,€or€this€Court,€to€set€future€supportÐ tÄ Ðpayments€based€on€a€potentially€reduced€work€schedule€for€Husband€when€that€reduced€scheduleÐ `° Ðmay€never€happen€or€may€not€occur€for€several€years.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ L œ Ðdetermination€with€regard€to€child€support€payments€as€well€as€its€refusal€to€make€some€holdingÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcerning€the€number€of€hours€Husband€must€work.€€This€issue€can€be€addressed€in€the€future€ifÐ $ t Ðcircumstances,€including€Husbandððs€income,€warrant€a€change€under€the€Guidelines.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionóóó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ À  ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion€and€forÐ ¬ü  Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€MichaelÐ ˜è  ÐNorman€Dube,€and€his€surety.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ ä4 Ð