WPC# # VUNa % 0 (UPw@- 4m  0l 0D @ 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% D3 B 0@U >U6WB)DC AMU*Fpwm &v~v AO!5" 0D" D/?# Bn#HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular DDEDVDӀڃ"J.RxTx3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   !"#$%& ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X++++'dxd d("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd-5C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#2  77   YYY FILED7X November14,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.7AppellateCourtClerk  !#d#2   $       33Thesurgerywasultimatelypaidforbyinsurance. !#d#2   $       33TheotheronefifthalreadybelongedtoHusband.  !#d#2   $       33Ofthisamount,therewasaformalagreementtopay$336permonthtoliquidateacombined1993and1994taxbillof$9,827andaninformalunderstandingtopaya1995taxbillof$22,406attherateof$850permonth.  !#d#2   $       33TheaffidavitofWifescounselreflectsfeesof$5,195andexpensesof$597.55. !#d#2   $       33Therewasnoevidenceofphysicalabuse. !#d#2   $       33ThealimonydoesnotsurviveWifesdeath.  !#d#2   $       33T.C.A.365101(a)(2)(B)provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 Inallcaseswhereapersonisreceivingalimonyinfuturooralimonytheamountofwhichisnotcalculableonthedatethedecreewasentered,andthatpersonremarries,thealimonyinfuturooralimonytheamountofwhichisnotcalculableonthedatethedecreewasentered,willterminateautomaticallyandunconditionallyupontheremarriageoftherecipient.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . 2  ݛ P \RA'\3\RA'\7XXdd7  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R685A1-j|i`  `@RߛJOANEPSTEIN,    )C/ANO.03A019704CV00111      )  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )      )      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      )      )      )      )DAVIDEPSTEIN,    )      )HONORABLEWILLIAML.BROWN,  DefendantAppellant.)JUDGEForAppellant     ForAppelleeMARTINJ.LEVITT    CINDYSENTELLDEERE̜Levitt&Levitt    Chattanooga,TennesseeChattanooga,Tennessee@  OPINION33X̜VACATEDINPARTAFFIRMEDINPART̜REMANDEDWITHINSTRUCTIONS      Susano,J.  Thetrialcourtsjudgmentdissolvedamarriagethathadenduredfor42years.ThecourtgrantedJoanEpstein( Wife)adivorceonthegroundofinappropriatemaritalconduct,notingthatit d[idnt]knowhow[she]putupwithitaslongasshedid.Thetrialcourtmadeanumberofdecreesregardingthepartiespropertyanddebts,andawardedWifealimony,includinganallowanceonherattorneysfeesandexpenses.ThedefendantDavidEpstein( Husband)appealed,arguingthatthedivisionofpropertyanddebtsisnotequitable,thatthecourtsdecreeswithrespecttoalimonyareinerror,thatWifeisnotentitledtoanallowanceonherattorneysfeesandexpenses,andthatthecourterredinorderinganonpartytheestateofHusbandsparentstomakehisalimonypaymentsintheeventhepredeceasesWife.@ I.StandardofReview  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovo;however,therecordoftheproceedingsbelowcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),ϜT.R.A.P.Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id.UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaffordedϜthesamedeference. Campbellv.FloridaSteel ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).  Ourdenovoreviewistemperedbythewellestablishedpropositionthatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchcredibilitydeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).Infact,thiscourthasnotedthat 8 ...onanissuewhichhingesonwitnesscredibility,[thetrialcourt]willnotbereversedunless,otherthantheoraltestimonyofthewitnesses,thereisfoundintherecordclear,concreteandconvincingevidencetothecontrary. TennesseeValleyKaolinv.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).@ II.HusbandsCredibility  ThetrialcourtsfindingsregardingHusbandsϜcredibilitywerecentraltoitsdecreesinthiscase: 8 ...theCourtwantstherecordtobeveryclearthattheCourtdoesnotfindthatMr.Epsteinisacrediblewitness.Hehasaconvenientmemory.Hecanrecallfactsandcircumstancesineventswhenitsbeneficialtohim.Hecannotrecallanyoftheeventsortransactionsthatwouldbedetrimentaltohispositioninthiscase.Notonlythat,hewantstheCourttobelievethathecantremembertransactionsthattookplaceinJulyof96andthisisthe8thdayofOctober,1996.Hecantrememberothertransactionsthatoccurredforwhichcheckswerewritten,andnoexplanationisofferedtotheCourt.SotheCourtfeelsthathehasattemptedatleasttoflimflamtheCourtwithregards[sic]tohisfinancialconditionandexpendituresandhisabilitytomanagehisfinancesandtorunhis[plumbing]business.Wereviewtheevidenceinthiscasewiththissignificantcredibilitydeterminationinmind.@ III.DivisionofPropertyandDebts  Husbandarguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitheldthata$20,000transferoffundsfromHusbandtoWifewasagift.Hecontendsthatthepaymentwasnotagiftandthat,ataminimum,thefundsrepresentedbythetransfershouldbeutilizedtoreducethepartiespastduefederalincometaxliabilityof$32,233.  InNovember,1995,Husbandwasfacingheartsurgery.Becausehedoubtedhisabilitytopayforthesurgery, 9   כhesoldthreeduplexestohisbrother.Herealizedanetof$42,000fromthesale.WifeaskedHusbandtogiveher$20,000outoftheproceedsofthesale.Husbandcomplied.Wifefiledfordivorcethenextmonth.Husbandcontendsthatthispaymentshouldnotbeconsideredagiftbecause,sotheargumentgoes,HusbandmadeitunawareofarelevantfactWifesalreadymadedecisiontofilefordivorce.  ItappearsfromtherecordthatHusbandhadmovedoutofthepartiesresidencewhenthepaymentwasmade.Wifesotestified.Furthermore,itisclearthatthepartieshadhada rockymarriageformanyyearsafactthatwaswellknowntoϜHusband.Thecouplehadparticipatedinmarriagecounseling,andWifehadfrequentlyexpressedherunhappinesswiththeirmarriage.WeagreewiththetrialcourtthattheevidencesupportsafindingthatthepaymentwasvoluntarilymadebyHusband.  Wealsobelievethatthecourtsdecreewithrespecttothe$20,000paymentcanbesustainedonanotherbasis.Husbandtestifiedthatthebulkofthepropertyinterestsoldtohisbrother,alongwiththatofsevenotherduplexes,weregivenbyhissiblings tomeandmywife.Thus,whileitisclearthatthispropertyoriginallybelongedtoHusbandsparents,itislikewiseclearthatHusbandssiblingshad giftedtheirfourfifthsinterestintheseduplexestoHusbandandWife. :   ׀ThemoneyfromtheNovember,1996,saleofthethreeduplexeswasputinabankaccount,inwhichthepartieshadcommingledtheirfundsformanyyears.Wefindthattheawardofthe$20,000toWifecanbejustifiedasanequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty.TherewasnoattemptbyHusbandorhissiblingstosegregatetheseduplexesasHusbandsseparateproperty.Husbandtestifiedthatthefourfifthsinterestwasagifttobothofthem.Wifeexecutedamortgageindebtednessonatleastsomeoftheseduplexesatonepointduringthemarriage.Theproceedsfromthesaletothebrotherwereplacedinanaccountthatwastreatedbythepartiesasjointproperty.Therefore,wefindthatthe$42,000atissuerepresentedmaritalproperty.  WhenthisCourtisreviewingarecorddenovoonappeal,wearecalleduponultimatelytopassuponthecorrectnessoftheresultreachedintheproceedingbelow,notnecessarilythereasoningemployedtoreachtheresult. Kellyv.Kelly ,679S.W.2d458,460(Tenn.App.1984).Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecreewithrespecttothe$20,000payment.  Husbandnextcontendsthatthecourtbelowerredwhenitrequiredhimtopayallofthepastduetaxesof$32,233totheInternalRevenueService(IRS).HealsoarguesthatWifeshouldhavebeenrequiredtopaythedebtdueonthe1994PlymouthMiniVanawardedtoherinthedivorce.ThetrialcourtawardedthevantoWife,butdecreedthatHusbandshouldpaytheremainingϜdebtonthevehicle.  Atrialcourtisvestedwithbroaddiscretionindividingmaritalpropertyanddebts.T.C.A.364121(a)(1); Batsonv.Batson ,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.App.1988).Itistrue,asHusbandargues,thatcourts,individingmaritalproperty,frequentlymatchadebttotheassettowhichitisϜrelated,andassignthatdebttothepartyreceivingtheassetinquestion, Mondelliv.Howard ,780S.W.2d769,773(Tenn.App.1989)( Whenpracticable,thedebtsshouldfollowtheassetstheypurchased.);butthisisnotaninflexiblerule.Therealobligationofthecourtistodividethemaritalpropertyanddebtsinanequitablefashion. Id .Thisisthestatutoryrule,towhichallotherrulesmustbend.SeeT.C.A.364121(a)(1).  Thefederalincometaxesinquestionrelatetocapitalgainsthataroseoutofthesaleofthetenduplexesalludedtoearlierinthisopinion.Thosesales,allofwhichoccurredinthe19931995timeframe,producednetproceedsofapproximately$180,000,mostofwhichwastaxablegainbecauseofthepartieslowbasisineachoftheproperties.WithoutWifesinvolvement,HusbandhadagreedwiththeIRStoliquidatethisindebtednessattherateof$1,186permonth. ;   כ  Husbandwascrossexaminedastowhyhehadnotpaidthetaxeswhendue.Hisexplanationwasthathe justprocrastinatedonthat.Atthesametimehewasnotpayingthetaxes,hewaswritingcheckstocashoveratwoyearperiodforsome$27,000andcontributingtothesupportandneedsofhisadultchildren.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatHusbandshouldpayallofthesetaxesbecausethecourtfoundthathe h[ad]squanderedmoney.ThecourtalsofoundthatthetaxobligationsarerelatedtopropertyoverwhichHusbandexercisedcontrol.ItpointedoutthatWifesincomehadbeensubjecttowithholdingtaxandthatshewasnotresponsibleforthefactthatthetaxeshadnotbeenpaid.  Withrespecttothevandebt,therecordreflectsthat,priortothedivorce,HusbandhadbeenmakingthemonthlypaymentandWifehadbeenpayingforthecarinsurance.Thetrialcourt,ineffect,continuedthepartiesarrangementbyorderingHusbandtopayoffthevandebt.  Wefindandholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdivisionofpropertydecrees,includingitsallocationoftheIRSandvanobligationstoHusband.ThetrialcourtwasnotsatisfiedwithHusbandsexplanationastotheϜdispositionofthe$180,000realizedfromthesaleofthetenduplexes.Wifeacknowledgedreceiving$20,000ofthissum,buttheevidencewasnotclearastothedispositionoftheremainder.ϜHusbandclaimedthatnoneoftheremaining$160,000wasstillavailable.ThecourtgaveWifeadisproportionateshareofwhatappearstobeanegativenetworthbecauseofHusbandslameexplanationsandthecourtsfindingthatHusbandhad squanderedthepartiesproperty.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthesedeterminations.@ IV.Alimony  ThetrialcourtorderedHusbandtopayalimonyof$700permonthuntilthevandebtisfullypaid,atwhichtimehismonthlyalimonyobligationistoincreaseto$1,000.Italsodecreedthatthisobligationistocontinue 8 fortheremainderof[Wifes]lifeunless[Wife]remarries.Intheevent[Wife]remarriesthealimonyobligationshallcontinueforaperiodof5yearsfromthedateofentryofthisdecree.ThetrialcourtalsoorderedHusbandtopay$2,500towardtheattorneysfeesofWifescounsel. <   כHusbandarguesthatfixedalimonyforfiveyearswasnotappropriate;thatWifeisvoluntarilyunderemployedandthereforenotdeservingof permanentalimony;andthatWifeshouldberequiredtopayallofhercounselsfeesandexpenses.  TheissueofalimonywasconsideredintheSupremeCourtcaseof Aaronv.Aaron ,909S.W.2d408(Tenn.1995): 8 Theamountofalimonytobeallowedinanycaseisamatterforthediscretionofthetrialcourtinviewoftheparticularcircumstances. Ingramv.Ingram, 721ϜS.W.2d262,264(Tenn.Ct.App.1986)(citing Newberryv.Newberry ,493S.W.2d99(Tenn.Ct.App.1973)).Whilethereisnoabsoluteformulafordeterminingtheamountofalimony, therealneedofthespouseseekingthesupportisthesinglemostimportantfactor.Inadditiontotheneedofthedisadvantagedspouse,thecourtsmostoftenconsidertheabilityoftheobligorspousetoprovidesupport. Cranfordv.Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(citationsomitted).Further,theamountofalimonyshouldbedeterminedso thatthepartyobtainingthedivorce[isnot]leftinaworsefinancialsituationthanheorshehadbeforetheoppositepartysmisconductbroughtaboutthedivorce. Shacklefordv.ϜShackleford ,611S.W.2d598,601(Tenn.Ct.App.1980)(citationsomitted). Id. at41011.Ontheissueofattorneysfees,itisclearthatthisisalsoasubjectthataddressesitselftothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,andanappellatecourtwillnotinterfereabsentashowingofanabuseofthatdiscretion. Elliotv.Elliot ,825S.W.2d87,92(Tenn.App.1991); Threadgillv.ϜThreadgill ,740S.W.2d419,426(Tenn.App.1987).  Wefindnoerrorinanyofthetrialcourtsalimonydecrees,includingitsawardofattorneysfees.Wifewas63yearsoldatthetimeofthehearingbelow.Shehadbeeninanemotionallyabusive =   ׀marriageforsome42years.Shehadworkedasaregisterednursefor37years,retiringin1992because,accordingtoher,shewasemotionallyandphysicallyunabletocontinuethislineofwork.Atthetimeoftrial,shewasreceivingsocialsecurityof$417permonth,andwasworking20hoursaweekattheTennesseeAquariumfor$5.50perhour.Shewassharinganapartmentwiththepartiesdaughter.  Duringtheentiretimethatthepartieswerelivingtogether,WifegaveherchecktoHusband,whoputitinhisplumbingbusinesscheckingaccount,theonlycheckingaccountusedbythepartiesduringmostoftheirmarriage.Itisclearthathewasincontrolofthatcheckingaccount.Wifetestifiedthatthereweremanytimesthathewouldcometoherplaceofbusinesstopickupherpaycheckinordertocoverhisbusinessobligations.  TherecordisclearthatWifewasalmosttotallyresponsibleforthecareofthepartieschildrenduringtheirminority.ItisalsoclearthatWife,notHusband,attendedtothevarioushouseholdchores.ThereisnoevidencethatHusbandϜcontributedsubstantiallytoanyoftheseendeavors.  TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialϜcourtsjudgmentthatWifeneededandwasentitledtothealimonydecreedbythetrialcourt,pursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.365101(d)(1)(A)(L).  Husbandarguesthathedoesnothavetheresourcestopaythealimonyorderedbythetrialcourt.Wedisagree.AwitnesscalledbyHusbandcalculatedthathisnetincomeperϜmonth,fromhisplumbingbusinessandsocialsecurity,was$2,793.Whiletherecordisnotclear,thisfigureapparentlydoesnotincludethenetrentalsfromhisonefifthinterestin25duplexes.Hisnetrentalincomehadaveraged$712permonth.  ThetrialcourtdidnotbelievethatHusbandsincomewaslimitedtotheamountstestifiedtobytheaccountant: 8 TheCourtfurtherfindsthatMr.Epsteinisverycapableofpayingalimony,andtheCourtbelieveshisearningsaremuchinexcessofwhatheisshowingontaxreturnsandwhatheisshowingbyvirtueofhisincomeandexpensestatementthatwasfiled.Youknow,figuresdontlie.BasedjustuponcanceledchecksthatMr.EpsteinhaswrittentoMrs.Epsteinandthechildreninthelastfiveyears,thattotals$45,202,whichdividedbyfiveoverafiveyearperiodoftime,thatcomesouttobe$9,040.40peryearor$753.37amonth.Thatcouldnothaveexistedbasedupontheincomethatheisreflectinginhistaxreturnsandtheinformationhehasgiventohisaccountant.Aswehavepreviouslyindicated,thetrialcourtsimplydidnotbelieveHusband.Withthiscredibilitydeterminationinmind,weareunabletosaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsholdingthatHusbandshouldpayalimonyintheamountsdecreedandunderthetermssetforthinthejudgment.Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsalimonydecrees.  Husbandsargumentthathisalmostabsolute >   ׀obligationtopayalimonyforfiveyearsrunsafoulofT.C.A.365101(a)(2)(B) ?   ׀iswithoutmerit.Thatstatutedoesnotprohibitacourtfromdecreeinganalimonyobligationforaspecificperiodoftime.Wefindnoviolationofthestatuteinthecourtsdecree.@ V.DecreeastoNonPartysObligation  ThetrialcourtdecreedthatHusbandsalimonyobligationwouldsurvivehisdeath.Inthiscase,webelievethiswasanappropriatedecree.See Bringhurstv.Tual ,598S.W.2d620,621(Tenn.App.1980).However,thecourtwentfurtherandϜopinedasfollows: 8 ...ifMr.EpsteinbecomesdeceasedbeforeMrs.Epstein,thenitistheCourtsintentthathisinterestintheestateofhisparentsshallcontinuetopaythatobligationtillsuchtimeasthosefundsorassetsareexhaustedoruntilsuchtimeasMrs.Epsteinbecomesdeceased.Thisholdingwasincorporatedintothecourtsjudgmentwiththefollowinglanguage,assetforthinparagraph7ofthatdocument: 8 IfDefendantpredeceasesPlaintiff,DefendantsinterestintheestateofhisparentsshallcontinuetopaytheobligationofalimonytoPlaintiffuntilsuchtimeasthosefundsorassetsareexhaustedoruntilsuchtimeasPlaintiffbecomesdeceased.ӜHusbandarguesthatthisprovisionimposesanobligationonanentity theestateof[Husbands]parents𛀄thatwasnotbeforeit.Whilethisprovisionissubjecttothisinterpretation,wedonotbelievethatthisiswhatthecourtintended.Rather,webelievethecourtintendedtoawardWifealienonHusbandsonefifthinterestinthe25duplexestosecurethepaymentofhisalimonyobligationafterhisdeath.SuchalienisauthorizedbyT.C.A.365103( Thecourtmayenforceitsordersanddecrees...by...theimpositionofalienagainsttherealandpersonalpropertyoftheobligor.)Inordertoclarifythismatter,thiscourtwillvacatethepresentlanguageofparagraph7ofthejudgment.Onremand,thetrialcourtwillenteranorderdeletingthislanguageandsubstitutingthefollowinglanguage: 8 IfDefendantpredeceasesPlaintiff,hisalimonyobligationwillsurvivehisdeathandbeachargeagainsthisestate.TosecurePlaintiffsalimonyintheeventDefendantpredeceasesher,sheisherebyawardedalienagainstDefendantsundividedonefifthinterestinthe25duplexes,whichwerepreviouslyownedbyDefendantsparents.DefendantwillexecutesuchdocumentsasmaybenecessarytomemorializethisliensoastopermittheregistrationofsameintheofficeoftheRegisterofDeedsinthecountywherethepropertiesarelocated.Inanyevent,thisalimonyobligationandthelienwillterminateuponPlaintiffsdeath.ӜǛ@ VI.Conclusion  Paragraph7ofthetrialcourtsjudgmentisherebyvacated.Theremainderofthejudgmentisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantandhissurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfortheentryoftheorderdescribedabove;forenforcementofthejudgment,asmodified;andforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________DonT.McMurray,J.