WPCI C-Px %?r~-l LGyͶQc0{AnLi~Cwٍ1qI3+-b.O~`4yr0m1rʻTj^' Vc}9s]]/EAb!3ob<5 Oz7d?ɧ֥jcR &3]֪LW/; m"Bf܉hW <9؏-rV!I؂.)9eM>d'qÎ y6o&jJz~a]@{/t;eaV8*v8 Na?)&[L@v ʻ~@>鿳:™'J䝌^866 ag!9&+9URf2D=WA=QN`mnmlzU> 0< 0& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0M 0. 0  0 0 0 0f 05 0#OUN %^Md(hN^ w4 m[ !!!&"" 0% 0& 0' 0( 0_) 05* 0+ 0D+ 0., 0, 0- 00. 0<. 0/ 0>/ 0v/ 0`s0 0`0 0`31 0`1 0`1 08S2 02 02]3 03 0:4 0Y4 0_5 0 }5 0j6 07 B*u9 D/9 09 D/R; 0; 06O< 0< 0:= 0^= 0<%>U6a>U*>>y@@ 1B B+C 72HC 1uzC 72C 0c!D-D 0DUNwEUNEEEF FFFFU@GGGGGGG D-GGGGGGGGG A$HH\  `&Times New Roman<:Default Para2M+M 0_level1  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level2   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level3   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level4  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2A+M 0_level5   ) DL!)23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2>+M 0_level6   &DL!&23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2;+M 0_level7  h #DDDL!#23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  28+M 0_level8    L! 23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  25+M 0_level9   L!23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl1  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl2   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl3   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl4  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2AM 0_levnl5   ) DL!)23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2>M 0_levnl6   &DL!&23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2;M 0_levnl7  h #DDDL!#23   5+ 4 <DL!5  28M 0_levnl8    L! 23   5+ 4 <DL!5  25M 0_levnl9   L!23   5+ 4 <DL!5  ' Dudely 8Tennessee Supreme Court 0 .   #|x(vտ$..  XXHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXQy<) ;)k1/ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 equitability  0 M$..   XX   4   1    _ԀHusbandsStatementofEvidencecontainedthefollowingparagraph:  8 4 FromthebestoftheDefendant/Appellantsrecollection,hewouldsubmitthattheproof .~ atthefinalhearingalsoshowedthatthiswasamarriageofnine(9)years;thathe = contributedtothismarriageasawageearner,husband,andparent;thathecontributedto  thepreservationandappreciationinvalueofthepropertybypaymentofmortgage k payments,homemaking,cleaning,andyardwork.2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ((3 M$ տ!..   XX     4   0  (#$  0  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7J(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7o(X7  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dI)1dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7o(X7  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanSI)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial  0 M$..   XX   4   3    _Thecourtalsoheldthatthefuturebenefitscouldbeconsideredincometothedisabledspousefor  purposesofcomputingsupportobligations.See_Gragg_,12S.W.3dat419.     0 M$..   XX   4   4    _Inhisbrief,Husbandassertsthesettlementwasforaninjuryoccurringthreeyearsbeforethe  marriage.However,therecordincludesabsolutelynoevidenceregardingHusbandsinjuryorthenatureof o thesettlement(suchasthedurationofperiodicpaymentsitcovered).(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) dX(A)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)[i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   ##Cd#(3^$ տ!..   XX     d (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8  0 M$..   XX   4   2    _ԀInthefinaldecree,thetrialcourtreferredtoHusbands dissipationofmaritalpropertyand  notedthathehadspentmuchofhisworkerscompensationsettlement.(mK Z(Times New Roman )!dxdxyo&Draw Object =8C HKKKKLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 տ!..   XX    _       XX ^  VOaBXXINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATNASHVILLE   July1999Session#XXBR#  @ BXXSANDRAELIZABETHDUDLEYv.BOBBYG.DUDLEY,II#XXB/#     NAppealfromtheChanceryCourtofMontgomeryCounty 2  No.97060128CarolA.Catalano,Chancellor  h aXXXX@@*AYc) ` dE<V` A W  @@TTNo.% d M199800982_COA_ԄR3CV%d&ԀFiledSeptember28,_2000_ L  AYc) ` dE<` A h  #XXXaX# u',4XX'!,4X!  Inthisdivorcecase,thetrialcourtawardedthedivorcetotheWifeanddividedtheproperty.   HusbandappealstheawardofthemaritalresidenceanditscontentstoWife.Weaffirm. f  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourt 2 AffirmedandRemanded h    PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J., 4 M.S.,andWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,joined.    RobertToddJackson,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,BobbyG.Dudley,II.  TimothyK.Barnes,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,SandraE.Dudley. b   OPINION  .~   ̀Thiscaseinvolvesanappealfromthetrialcourtspropertydistributiondecisioninadivorce J! whichendedanineyearmarriage.BobbyG.Dudley,II( Husband)appealstheawardofthe  0" maritalresidenceanditscontentstoSandraElizabethDudley( Wife).Healsoappealsthe !# courtsdecisionnottoprovidehimwithanypartofWifesretirementplan.Forthefollowing "$ reasons,weaffirm. #%    4@#I.Background ^% '   Thepartiesweremarriedin1989andseparatedin1997.Theyhavetwochildren,agirl, *'z") bornin1989andaboy,bornin1996. (`#*   Thepartiespurchasedthemaritalresidencein1990.Theirhomecontainedapartments, ),%, andWifeassumedtheresponsibilityofrentingoutthoseapartmentsduringthemarriage.Wife *&- andthechildrenmovedoutin1997,leavingHusbandinthehome.Forsevenoreightmonths +&. duringtheseparation,Husbanddidnotrenttheapartments,and,accordingtohistestimony,he ,'/ onlymadeonemortgagepayment.Wifetestifiedthatshemadeallthemortgagepaymentson t-(0 ^ ^8 dd8 ^  themaritalresidenceduringthemarriage.Themaritalresidencehadequityofapproximately  $47,000atthetimeofthetrial.    Wifeworkedforthesameemployerthroughoutthemarriage.Husbandwasemployedat b thetimeofthemarriage,butstoppedworkingregularlyin1991.Hereceivedaworker's H compensationsettlementof$35,000earlyinthemarriageandbythetimeofthetrialhehad . ~ $15,000to$16,000remaining.Therecorddoesnotrevealthereasonforthesettlement.Thus,  d althoughwecanassumeHusbandsustainedaworkrelatedinjuryatsomepoint,wedonotknow  J theextentoftheinjury,norwhetherHusbandfullyrecovered.EvidenceshowedthatHusband  0 wentfishingandpatronizeda"lounge"wherehebetonfootballgameswhileunemployed.    AlthoughHusbandwasnotworking,hismothercaredforthechildrenwhileWifeworked,anda    neighbormettheolderchildwhenshegotofftheschoolbus.     ThetrialcourtfoundthatHusbandphysicallyabusedhiswifeandchokedanother ^  woman.ThecourtalsofoundthatHusbandwasarrestedformarijuanauseandthathewas D  arrestedtwiceforassaultingotherpeople.ThecourtfoundthatHusbandunderwentcounseling, *z  butrefusedtotakehisprescribedmedication. `   ThetrialcourtawardedWifeadivorceongroundsofHusband'sinappropriatemarital , conduct.WifewasawardedcustodyofthechildrenandHusbandwasorderedtopay$60per  weekinchildsupport.Thecourtawardedthemaritalresidence,includingallhousehold  furniture,utensils,andappliancestoWife,alongwiththecorrespondingdebtontheresidence.  Eachpartyretainedhisorherownvehicle,andHusbandwasawardedtheSkeeterboat;eachof t thoseitemswasawardedsubjecttoanydebtonit.Husbandwasawardedthecertificatesof Z depositwhichrepresentedthebalanceofhisworker'scompensationsettlement.Wifewas @ orderedtopaycertaincreditcarddebts,andHusbandwasorderedtopayonecreditcarddebt &v andanydebtowedtohisparents.  \   Husbandappealstheawardsoftheequityinthemaritalresidence,allhousehold ( contents,andWife'sretirementplantoWife,claimingthedivisionofmaritalpropertywasnot  equitable.      II.StandardofReview p!  `XXXX! ,XX4!  Wereviewthefindingsoffactbythetrialcourtdenovoupontherecordofthetrial <#" court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindings,unlessthe "$r# preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.SeeTenn.R.App.P.13(d).Becausethetrial %X $ judgeisinabetterpositiontoweighandevaluatethecredibilityofthewitnesseswhotestify %>!% orally,wegivegreatweighttothetrialjudge'sfindingsonissuesinvolvingcredibilityof &$"& witnesses.SeeGillockv.BoardofProflResponsibility,656S.W.2d365,367(Tenn.1983).#XXX`X+#Ԁ ' #'   Incasessuchasthisone,involvingissuesofclassificationanddistributionofproperty,a )$) trialcourtsdecisionsonthesemattersisentitledtogreatweightonappeal.SeeBatsonv. l*%*  Batson,769S.W.2d849,856(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Accordingly,atrialcourtsdivisionofthe R+&+ maritalestateshouldbepresumedproperunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.See  Lancasterv.Lancaster,671S.W.2d501,502(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).     Thus,Husbandsburdeninthisappealistodemonstratethattheevidencepreponderates b againstthetrialcourtsdecisions.Notranscriptofthehearingisincludedintherecord. H HusbandfiledaTenn.R.App.P.24(c)StatementoftheEvidence.Thatstatement,objectedto . ~ byWife,wasnotapprovedbythetrialcourt.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(e)and(f).TheStatement  d doesnot,however,provideanyspecificstatementsoffactorevidencewhichdirectlyaddress  J someoftheissuesraisedbyHusband.) 1#  1      ׀Intheabsenceofatranscriptorstatementofthe  0 evidence,thetrialcourtsfindingsoffactarepresumedcorrect.aXXXXԀSeeKingv.King,986S.W.2d    216,220(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).#XXXaX"#      III.ClassificationofProperty x  #  AlthoughHusbandsprimarycomplaintisthedistributionofmaritalproperty,wenote D  thatheclaimsthatsomeofthepropertyawardedtohim,presumablyasmaritalproperty,was *z  actuallyhisseparateproperty.InTennessee,courtsaretoclassifythepartiespropertyas ` separateormaritalpropertybeforedividingthemaritalproperty.See_Batson_,769S.W.2dat F 856.Generally, separatepropertyisthatwhichwasownedbyonepartybeforethemarriageor , giventoonepartyduringthemarriage.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(2)(1996). Marital  propertyis,generally,thatwhichwasacquiredbyeitherorbothpartiesduringthemarriage.See  Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1).    Husbandarguesthathisworkerscompensationsettlement,whichwasplacedinto Z certificatesofdeposit,shouldhavebeenclassifiedasseparateproperty,andthus,wasnotsubject @ todivision.Noevidenceregardingthecertificates(suchaswhethertheywerejointlyheld)or &v thenatureofHusbandssettlementorinjuryappearsintherecordotherthaninthetrialcourts  \ findings.Thetrialcourtdidnotexplicitlyclassifythecertificatesofdepositasseparateor B maritalproperty,butdidawardthemtoHusband.Weinterprettheaward,inthecontextofthe ( entiredecree,g 1#  2      ׀asadistributionofmaritalproperty,meaningthatthetrialcourtdeterminedthat  thecertificatesofdepositweremaritalproperty.    Thereappeartobenoappellatedecisionsregardingthecorrectclassificationofworkers p!  compensationlumpsumpayments.SeeMillerv.Miller,No.M199900226COAR3CV,2000 V"! WL546391at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.May5,2000)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled) <#" ( whetherthe[workerscompensation]fundswere,infact,separatepropertyappearstobean  openquestioninthisstate).However,inotherrelatedcontexts,ourcourtshaveadoptedan  analyticalapproachfocusingonthepurposeofthepayment.See_Gragg_Ԁv._Gragg_,12S.W.3d | 412,41718(Tenn.2000)(adoptingan analyticalapproachtopaymentsunderaprivate b disabilityinsurancepolicy,suchthatfuturedisabilitybenefitswhichreplaceincomearenot H classifiedasmaritalproperty becausetheyarepersonaltothespousewhoreceivesthemand . ~ compensateforlossofgoodhealthandreplacelostearningcapacity,butanyportionofsuch  d benefitswhichconstitutea retirementcomponentwillbeclassifiedasmaritalproperty);  J _Hunley_Ԁv._Hunley_,No.88206II,1988WL123956at*45(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.23,1988)(no  0 Tenn.R.App.P.applicationfiled)(personalinjurysettlementshouldbeclassifiedbylookingat    thepurposeofthesettlement,i.e.,theportionattributabletocompensationtoinjuredspousefor    injuriespersonaltohimvs.compensationformaritalexpenses).     Thepurposeofworkerscompensationpaymentsistoprovideinsuredworkerswith ^  periodicpayments,whichareasubstituteforregularwages.SeeBaileyv.ColonialFreight_Sys_., D  Inc.,836S.W.2d554,557(Tenn.1992);Burrisv.CrossMountainCoalCo.,798S.W.2d746, *z  750(Tenn.1990).InGraggv.Gragg,theSupremeCourtheldthat disabilitybenefitsand ` incomeshouldbetreatedinthesamemannersincedisabilitybenefitsareincomereplacement.U 1#  3       F _Gragg_,12S.W.3dat418.Becauseworkerscompensationpayments,whetherlumpsumor , periodic,arealsoincomereplacement,theyshouldalsobetreatedasincome.Ifconsideredasan  incomesubstitute,theworkerscompensationsettlementfundsaremaritalpropertytotheextent  thattheyreplacedwagesthathXXXXԀMr.Dudleywouldhaveearnedduringthemarriagehaditnotbeen  forhisworkrelatedinjury. t   Inthecasebeforeus,theonlyinformationregardingthesourceofthemoneyclaimedas &v separatepropertybyHusbandisthetrialcourtsfindingthat, duringtheearlypartofthe  \ marriageMr.DudleyreceivedaWorkersCompensationsettlementintheamountof$35,000.00 B andthatofthat$35,000.00only$15,000.00to$16,000.00remains.Thus,thefundswere ( receivedduringthemarriageand,therefore,presumptivelymeetthestatutorydefinitionof  maritalproperty.Husbandhasprovideduswithnoevidenceintherecordfromwhichwecould  concludethatthefunds,oranyportionofthem,shouldnotbeclassifiedasmaritalproperty.W 1#  4           Absentanyevidenceintherecordbeforeusregardingthecertificatesofdeposit,wemust V"! presumethatthetrialcourtheardsufficientevidenceregardingthecertificatestodeterminethat <#" theyweremaritalproperty.Husbandisunabletopointtoanyevidencetoovercomethat "$r# presumption.Wealsonotethattheawardofthecertificates,whetherasseparateormarital %X $ property,doesnotnecessarilyaffecttheequitabledistributionofmaritalproperty,becausethe %>!% amountofseparatepropertyawardedtoapartyisoneofthefactorsforacourttoconsiderin  makingitsdivisionofmaritalproperty.  SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(6).    IV.DistributionofMaritalProperty b u>  Trialcourtsaretomakeanequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. . ~  364121(a)(1).Anequitabledistributionisnotnecessarilyanequalone,however.See  d Batson,769S.W.2dat859.Thecourtistoconsiderseveralfactorsinitsdistribution.  SeeTenn.  J CodeAnn.364121(c).Thecourtsdistributionofproperty isnotachievedbyamechanical  0 applicationofthestatutoryfactors,butratherbyconsideringandweighingthemostrelevant    factorsinlightoftheuniquefactsofthecase.Batson,769S.W.2dat859.      Atrialcourthasagreatdealofdiscretionconcerningthemannerinwhichitdivides x  maritalproperty.SeeSmithv.Smith,984S.W.2d606,609(Tenn.Ct.App.1997);seealso ^  Wallacev.Wallace,733S.W.2d102,106(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Tenn.CodeAnn.364 D  121(c)states: *z  8  XXXhXInmakingequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty,thecourtshallconsiderall F relevantfactorsincluding:,   8   ` (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;   8   ` (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills,employability,  earningcapacity,estate,financialliabilitiesandfinancialneedsofeachofthe  parties;t   8   ` (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyone(1)partytothe Z education,trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;@   8   ` (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionsofcapital &v assetsandincome; \   8   ` (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation, B appreciationordissipationofthemaritalorseparateproperty,includingthe ( contributionofapartytothemarriageashomemaker,wageearnerorparent,with  thecontributionofapartyashomemakerorwageearnertobegiventhesame  weightifeachpartyhasfulfilleditsrole;    8   ` (6)Thevalueoftheseparatepropertyofeachparty;p!    8   ` (7)Theestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthemarriage;V"!   8   ` (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivisionof <#" propertyistobecomeeffective;"$r#   8   ` (9)Thetaxconsequencestoeachparty;and%X $   8   ` (10)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetween %>!% theparties#hXXXX>C#.&$"&     Husbandarguesthatthedistributionofpropertywasinequitable.Heargues,correctly, (#( thatthetrialcourtistomakethedistributionofmaritalpropertywithoutregardtofault.See )$) Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(a)(1)(thecourtshalldivide  XXXhXthemaritalpropertybetweenthe l*%* partieswithoutregardtomaritalfaultinproportionsasthecourtdeemsjust#hXXXXL#).Heclaimsthat,in R+&+ thecasebeforeus,thetrialcourtallowedhisfaultinthebreakdownofthemarriagetoinfluence 8,', VOa V V  itsdecisionregardingthemaritalproperty.Asnotedabove,thetrialcourtawardedHusbandthe  certificatesofdepositwhichrepresentedtheremainderofhisworkerscompensationsettlement,  hisvehicle,andtheSkeeterboat.Husbandwasorderedtopaysomeofthepartiesdebts.Wife | wasawardedhervehicle,themaritalresidence,andallofitscontents.Wifewasalsoorderedto b paysomeofthepartiesdebts. H   Thetrialcourtmadespecificfindingsregardingitsdecisionondistribution:  d XXXhX8  TheCourt,inmakinganequitabledistributionofthemaritalassets,particularly  0 themaritalhome,considersthefollowingfactorsembodiedwithinT.C.A.364    121:     8  (a)Contributionoftheparties:TheCourtfindsthatMrs.Dudley,throughout x  courseofthemarriagehasmadethemortgagepaymentsonthemaritalhome,and ^  thatMr.Dudleyhasnothadsteadyemploymentsince1991.D    8  (b)Preservationofmaritalassets:TheCourtfindsthatthroughoutthemarriage ` Mrs.Dudleywasresponsibleforrentingouttheapartmentscontainedwithinthe F maritalresidence,anddidrentsaidapartmentsthroughoutthecourseofthe , marriage,withtheexceptionofoneortwomonths.TheCourtfurtherfindsthat  afterthedateofseparation,whenMr.Dudleywasresponsibleforthemarital  residence,Mr.Dudleydidnotrentsaidapartmentsduringthesevenoreight  monthseparation,andhasonlymade,accordingtohistestimony,onemortgage t payment.Z   8  (c)Dissipationofmaritalproperty:TheCourtfindsthatduringtheearlypartof &v themarriageMr.DudleyreceivedaWorkersCompensationsettlementinthe  \ amountof$35,000.00,andthatofthat$35,000.00only$15,000.00to$16,000.00 B remains.TheCourtfurtherfindsthatMr.DudleyadmitsthathepatronizedJPs ( loungewherehegambled,bettingonfootballgames.TheCourt,thereforefinds  thatMr.Dudleyhasdifficultykeepingmoney.#hXXXXP#     Wesee,asthetrialcourtdid,thatWifehadsinglehandedlymaintainedthehousehold p!  financially.Inaddition,Wifehadtakenthebulkoftheresponsibilityofprovidingandcaringfor V"! thechildrenofthemarriage.Husbandhadmadelittlecontributiontothehouseholdfinancially <#" orotherwise.Furthermore,thetrialcourtwasrequiredto givespecialconsiderationtoaspouse "$r# havingphysicalcustodyofachildorchildrenofamarriagewhenawarding thefamilyhome %X $ andhouseholdeffects.Tenn.CodeAnn.h XhX#hXXh [#364121(d). %>!%   Husbandwasawarded$15,000to$16,000incertificatesofdeposit.Wifereceivedno ' #' correspondingliquidasset.Thetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthat,despiteheryearsofwork, (#( Wifehadnotbeenabletosetasideanymoneyforherselforforherfamily.Wifenowhasthe )$) responsibilitytoraisethetwochildren,whileHusbandwasorderedtopayonlyasmallamount l*%* ofchildsupport.Wefindthetrialcourtdidnoterrinawardingthehomeanditscontentsto R+&+ Wife.Husbandfailedtosupporthiscontentionthatthetrialcourtincludedfaultasadeciding 8,', factorinitsruling.Ratherthanperceivingthisasacaseinwhich faultwasconsidered,wesee  thisasacaseinwhichthetrialcourtrelieduponthepartiescontributionstothemarriagewhen  makingthedivisionofmaritalproperty.Underthefactsofthiscase,wefindnoerrorin | awardingthebulkofthemaritalestatetothespousewhohassupportedthefamily. b   Inadditiontohisspecificandmostsignificantcomplaintwiththecourtsproperty . ~ distribution,i.e.theawardofthemaritalhometoWife,Husbandalsoclaimsthatthetrialcourt  d erredintwootherwayswhichaffectthecomparativeawardstotheparties.First,without  J supportfromtherecord,Husbandclaimsthattheboatawardedtohimwasnolongerownedby  0 thepartiesatthetimeofthetrial.Thetrialcourt,byawardingtheboattoHusband,implicitly    foundthattheboatwasstillownedatthetimeofthetrial.Becausewehavenobasisonwhich    todisagreewiththetrialcourt,wemustassumethattheboatwasindeedownedbythepartiesat   thetimeoftrialandwasawardedtoHusband. x    c  HusbandalsoarguesthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveawardedhimaninterestinWifes D  pensionplan.Itisgenerallytruethattheaccumulationorincreaseofapensionduringa *z  marriageismaritalproperty.SeeCohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2d823,828(Tenn.1996). ` However,thereisnothingintherecordbeforeustoindicatethatsuchapensionplanexists.The F trialcourtmadenoawardandnomentionofapensionplanforeitherparty.Becausetherecord , failstodemonstratetheexistenceofafund,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourterredinnot  awardingaportionofittoHusband. Thecourtmaydistributeonlythoseassetsactuallyowned.  SeeBrockv.Brock,941S.W.2d896,900(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)("acourtcannotdivideand/or  distributewhatis'notthere'"). t   Husbandhasfailedtodemonstratethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrial @ courtsdistributionofthemaritalestate.Therefore,weaffirmthetrialcourtsaward. &v   V.Conclusion B zh  Forthereasonsstatedabove,weaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourt.Thiscaseisremanded  tothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.CostsaretaxedtoHusband,  BobbyG.Dudley,II,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      `     h      p ____________________________ "$r#    `     h      p PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE