ÿWPC÷ ‚€­hÛ–PšàS” ¬g»#ù©õ i1Œ*XÆ=¸¢6ÃÄ¢¯Õ1Ñ sE±Òƒ7“Ù7b«Ñðš >îuâK^>¹L=£+{ß¼ÝzÁ |…lN×Øüön匛”¯0²lµí-üÖùírÂxmKßW¿)— äØ[™2Ü{ÈÖ¢=S ÷T;§ßö-.Q‚k‰˜ïųéAÝzîúFɸ\ƒ¯M°R´²‹Š>Í-4H1o\'n+»U÷˜±À*Ü/Æ ÷WºÕþ6[PÁ²Í.<4-ÐùGƒ“Î÷/»QŸ5Ms¢\”è…닧Á]F;'Áe=_‰Z‡^¢ÇE—¾ý™3ÇsJ·ì"4ß^y m:˜=¿A}ËlWŸñö„ÖÖ.Pñ¢?‰åF›uñ‰|Tž‘Vÿg+{9ðS¹ùmË*úpþÍDÖ2VFàÝ0k*o\!Lè{±p”¡-Á€Ãr›1öM¥’§Á¬˜ n=¶î<ǘwe” f½¯;ð]¥šCtSì`N…-™”áÈ8ãÔ™ŒüëQA,ým@ÞíPœ©Ì >‘bÁ±LfŒ-¼ÉÅäÐnÕGø1Mg²ËrÍR!ö§´¹{3Z±ÑXÁTSÇ;ðCºb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ  ™ Æ9 Æÿ ÆÅÆ‹QQN¢ 0D¤¤Eèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèbêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêê 0ëòòòò BÝÝ 0¤ú D5ž D-Ó 0K ASKÆž 0¤d 0D A«L»»}R1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1FT8.tm3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 SCHULZSlone P.J.T.C.A.BarnhillRoseberry GFLP GLFP COALevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 GÝ ƒRK¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€his€brief,€Husband€argues€he€was€awarded€only€20%€of€the€marital€property.€€However,€as€noted€previouslyÐ ° ÐHusband€relied€on€an€improperly€high€value€for€their€interest€in€GLFP.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2K¿$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá5ò»»Ô d(|3¿Š$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿Š$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼TÝ»»»ÔÑ8€ÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îB´î»¼TÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼TÝ»îîB´ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€11,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÉX»¼TÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼TÝ»XXÉô#ÔMARILYN€JANE€SCHULZ€GORDON€v.€DAVID€LOUIS€GORDONÔ‡XÉX»¼TÝÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ#†¼TÝ»XXÉj#ÔÔ€XÉX»¼TÝÔà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Jefferson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€18,749€„€IV€€€€€€O.€Duane€Slone,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„01659„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€OCTOBER€18,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌMarilyn€Schulz€Gordon€(ð ðWifeðð)€filed€for€divorce€after€thirteen€and€one„half€years€of€marriage€toÐ d´ ÐDavid€Louis€Gordon€(ð ðHusbandðð).€€Wife€works€as€a€physician€and€earns€a€substantial€income.€Ð P  ÐHusband€is€a€photographer€but€was€voluntarily€unemployed€throughout€the€entire€marriage.€€TheÐ <Œ ÐTrial€Court€emphasized€several€factors€when€making€a€distribution€of€the€marital€property.€€InÐ (x Ðparticular,€the€Trial€Court€discussed:€€Husbandððs€minimal€contribution€to€the€acquisition€of€assets;Ð d ÐHusbandððs€minimal€to€nonexistent€contribution€as€a€homemaker,€and;€Husbandððs€significantÐ P Ðdissipation€of€the€marital€assets.€€The€Trial€Court€divided€the€marital€property€in€a€manner€whichÐ ì< Ðresulted€in€Wife€being€awarded€almost€three„fourths€of€the€marital€property€as€valued€by€the€TrialÐ Ø( ÐCourt.€€Husband€appeals€claiming€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€the€marital€property€was€inequitable.€Ð Ä ÐWe€affirm.€€Ð ° ÐÌÌò òà@µ µ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ tÄ Ðà@  ìàCircuit€à@@« « ìàCourt€Affirmed;€Case€RemandedˆÐ `° Ðòòó óÌÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.,€óóandÐ $"t! ÐòòSharon€G.€Lee,€J.,€óójoined.Ð #`" ÐÌÌKevin€W.€Shepherd,€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€David€Louis€Gordon.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌÌC.€Ô_ÔDwaineÔ_Ô€Evans,€Ô_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Marilyn€Jane€Schulz€Gordon.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÐ  „)Ô$)ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€appeal€arises€from€an€acrimonious€divorce€proceeding€which€began€in€SeptemberÐ `° Ðof€2002€when€Wife€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce.€€In€her€complaint,€Wife€claimed€Husband€wasÐ L œ Ðguilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct€or,€in€the€alternative,€that€irreconcilable€differences€had€arisenÐ 8 ˆ Ðbetween€the€parties.€€Husband€answered€the€complaint€and€filed€a€counterclaim€seeking€a€divorceÐ $ t Ðon€the€same€grounds.€€Wife€was€forty„seven€years€of€age€and€Husband€was€forty„eight€when€thisÐ  ` Ðlitigation€began.€€The€parties€had€been€married€for€thirteen€and€one„half€years€and€had€two€minorÐ ü L  Ðchildren,€a€daughter€who€was€twelve€years€old€and€a€son€who€was€eleven.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€a€three€day€trial,€the€Trial€Court€entered€its€Final€Judgment€in€June€of€2003.€Ð À  ÐIn€its€Final€Judgment,€the€Trial€Court€specifically€noted€that€while€Wife€exaggerated€somewhat,€theÐ ¬ü  ÐTrial€Court€found€her€testimony€to€be€ð ðextremely€credibleðð€and€Husbandððs€testimony€to€be€ð ðnon„Ð ˜è  Ðcredible.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€Wife€was€an€established€physician€with€a€substantial€income.€Ð „Ô  ÐHusband,€however,€ð ðis€and€has€been€unemployed€during€the€course€of€the€marriage.ðð€€The€TrialÐ pÀ ÐCourt€also€found€Husband€had€physically€and€emotionally€abused€Wife,€and€was€habituallyÐ \¬ Ðintoxicated€during€the€vast€majority€of€the€marriage.€€Accordingly,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€Wife€aÐ H˜ Ðdivorce€based€on€Husbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€Trial€Court€divided€the€maritalÐ 4„ Ðproperty.€€The€Trial€Court€also€denied€Husbandððs€request€for€alimony.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€sole€issue€on€appeal€involves€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€the€marital€property.€Ð øH ÐIn€dividing€the€marital€property,€the€Trial€Court€began€by€determining€the€monetary€value€of€variousÐ ä4 Ðdisputed€items.€€Prior€to€setting€forth€its€conclusions€on€the€particular€assets€each€party€would€beÐ Ð  Ðawarded,€the€Trial€Court€made€the€following€observations:€Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€dividing€the€marital€property€of€the€parties,€the€CourtÐ ”ä Ðadhered€to€the€factors€regarding€distribution€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.Ð €Ð Ððð36„4„121(c),€òòi.e.óó,€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€age,€the€physical,Ð l¼ Ðmental,€and€emotional€health,€vocational€skills,€employability,Ð X ¨ Ðearning€capacity,€estate,€financial€liabilities€and€needs€of€each€of€theÐ D!” Ðparties.€€Particularly,€the€Court€considered€the€relative€ability€of€eachÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€parties€for€future€acquisition€of€capital€assets€and€income€andÐ #l! Ðfound€that€the€distributions€outlined€hereafter€would€afford€bothÐ $X" Ðparties€(based€upon€[Wifeððs]€income€and€the€cash€distribution€toÐ ô$D # Ð[Husband]),€future€opportunity€of€acquisition€of€capital€assets€andÐ à%0!$ Ðincome.€€The€Court€put€significant€focus€and€weight€on€factor€numberÐ Ì&"% Ðfive,€the€contribution€of€each€party€to€the€acquisition,€preservation,Ð ¸'#& Ðappreciation,€depreciation,€or€dissipation€of€the€marital€or€separateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproperty,€including€the€contribution€of€a€party€to€the€marriage€asÐ )à$( Ðhomemaker€and€wage€earner€or€parent.€€The€Court€specifically€findsÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€[Husband]€has€not€made€any€meaningful€contribution€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðacquisition€of€any€of€the€properties€and€very€minimal€involvementÐ ° Ðother€than€possibly€locating€the€partiesðð€properties.€€The€CourtÐ œì Ðcredited,€to€some€extent,€[Husbandððs]€contributions€but€not€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðextent€that€[Husband]€attempted€to€persuade€the€Court€that€is€should.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWith€regard€to€preservation€and€dissipation€of€the€maritalÐ L œ Ðproperty,€the€Court€finds€that€[Husband]€has€made€minimal€to€noÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontributions€to€the€appreciation€in€value€of€any€of€the€properties€ð8ðÐ $ t Ðand€that€his€contributions€as€a€homemaker€were€nonexistent€toÐ  ` Ðminimal.€€Further,€the€Court€finds€that€with€regard€to€the€GordonÐ ü L  ÐFamily€Limited€Partnership€property€and€the€marital€residence€thatÐ è 8  Ð[Husband]€made€little,€if€any,€contributions€in€that€regard€in€that€heÐ Ô$  Ðhired€lawn€care€personnel,€hired€people€to€maintain€the€inside€of€theÐ À  Ðhome,€and€that€the€wages€of€[Wife]€were€the€sole€method€of€acquiringÐ ¬ü  Ðthose€assets.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€[Husband]€dissipated€theÐ ˜è  Ðpartiesðð€marital€estate€by€his€failure€to€seek€any€meaningfulÐ „Ô  Ðemployment€whatsoever,€that€he€was€wasteful€in€spending€the€moneyÐ pÀ Ðon€alcohol€and€cigarettes€in€the€thousands€of€dollars,€that€he€hiredÐ \¬ Ðpeople€to€do€such€things€as€even€feed€his€pets,€and€that€while€he€hadÐ H˜ Ðno€employment,€he€hired€nannies€to€take€care€of€the€children,€and€didÐ 4„ Ðno€lawn€care.€Ð p` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€then€awarded€Husband€$506,088€in€marital€property,€almost€all€ofÐ øH Ðwhich€was€in€various€bank€accounts€and€was€liquid.€€This€was,€however,€only€a€little€more€than€one„Ð ä4 Ðfourth€of€the€total€marital€estate€as€valued€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Husband€appeals€claiming€the€resultÐ Ð  Ðreached€by€the€Trial€Court€is€inequitable€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€more€of€the€marital€property.€€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionóóó óˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ l¼ Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ X ¨ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ D!” Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ 0"€  Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ #l! ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð $X" Ðò òòòÌóóó óà  àà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-4-121(c)€requires€a€trial€court€to€consider€all€relevant€factorsÐ à%0!$ Ðwhen€making€an€equitable€distribution€of€marital€property,€including:€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ф(ô#'` x` x Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€€The€age,€physical€and€mental€health,€vocational€skills,Ð ° Ðemployability,€earning€capacity,€estate,€financial€liabilities€andÐ œì Ðfinancial€needs€of€each€of€the€parties;ЈØ` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€€The€tangible€or€intangible€contribution€by€one€(1)€party€to€theÐ `° Ðeducation,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€€The€relative€ability€of€each€party€for€future€acquisitions€of€capitalÐ $ t Ðassets€and€income;Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)€€The€contribution€of€each€party€to€the€acquisition,€preservation,Ð è 8  Ðappreciation,€depreciation€or€dissipation€of€the€marital€or€separateÐ Ô$  Ðproperty,€including€the€contribution€of€a€party€to€the€marriage€asÐ À  Ðhomemaker,€wage€earner€or€parent,€with€the€contribution€of€a€partyÐ ¬ü  Ðas€homemaker€or€wage€earner€to€be€given€the€same€weight€if€eachÐ ˜è  Ðparty€has€fulfilled€its€role;Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€€The€value€of€the€separate€property€of€each€party;Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(7)€€The€estate€of€each€party€at€the€time€of€the€marriage;Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(8)€€The€economic€circumstances€of€each€party€at€the€time€theÐ  \ Ðdivision€of€property€is€to€become€effective;ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(9)€€The€tax€consequences€to€each€party,€costs€associated€with€theÐ Ð  Ðreasonably€foreseeable€sale€of€the€asset,€and€other€reasonablyÐ ¼  Ðforeseeable€expenses€associated€with€the€asset;Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(10)€€The€amount€of€social€security€benefits€available€to€each€spouse;€Ð €Ð ÐandÐl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(11)€€Such€other€factors€as€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equitiesÐ D!” Ðbetween€the€parties.Ð0"€ ` x` x Ðà  à€Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àA€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€dividing€the€interest€of€the€parties€in€maritalÐ $X" Ðproperty.€€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€449€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€As€noted€by€this€CourtÐ ô$D # Ðin€òòKing€v.€Kingóó,€when€dividing€marital€property:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  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 ¤(ô#' Ðestate€is€not€rendered€inequitable€simply€because€it€is€notÐ )à$( Ðmathematically€equal,€òòCohen€v.€Cohenóó,€937€S.W.2d€823,€832€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1996);€òòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€1988),€or€becauseÐ h+¸&* Ðeach€party€did€not€receive€a€share€of€every€item€of€marital€property.€Ð ° ÐòòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€[163]€at€168.€.€.€.€In€the€final€analysis,Ð œì Ðthe€justness€of€a€particular€division€of€the€marital€property€andÐ ˆØ Ðallocation€of€marital€debt€depends€on€its€final€results.€òòSee€ThompsonÐ tÄ Ðv.€Thompsonóó,€797€S.W.2d€599,€604€(Tenn.€App.€1990).Ð`°` x` x ÐòòÌKing€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2d€216,€219€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(quoting€òòRoseberry€v.€Roseberryóó,€No.Ð 8 ˆ Ð03A01„9706„CH„00237,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€100,€at€*11„12€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€9,€1998),€òònoÐ $ t Ðappl.€perm.€appeal€filedóó).€€In€the€present€case,€Husband€emphasizes€that€he€is€not€asking€necessarilyÐ  ` Ðfor€an€ð ðequalðð€distribution€of€the€marital€assets.€€Rather,€he€is€asking€to€be€awarded€a€greaterÐ ü L  Ðpercentage€of€the€marital€property€than€that€awarded€to€him€by€the€Trial€Court€in€order€to€make€theÐ è 8  Ðoverall€distribution€equitable.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€accordance€with€Rule€7€of€the€Rules€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€both€parties€attachedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€their€briefs€an€appendix€setting€forth€the€value€of€the€assets€awarded€to€each€party€as€well€as€theirÐ ˜è  Ðrespective€liabilities.€€The€two€appendices€are€virtually€identical€with€the€exception€of€one€entryÐ „Ô  Ðpertaining€to€the€value€of€their€interest€in€the€Gordon€Family€Limited€Partnership€(ð ðGFLPðð).€€TheÐ pÀ ÐGFLPððs€principal€asset€is€a€villa€on€St.€Barthððs€island€in€the€Caribbean.€€There€are€82€total€shares€inÐ \¬ ÐGFLP,€comprised€of€2€general€partnership€shares€and€80€limited€partnership€shares.€€At€trial,€EdgarÐ H˜ ÐH.€Gee,€Jr.,€(ð ðGeeðð)€testified€as€an€expert€witness€on€Wifeððs€behalf.€€Gee€is€a€certified€publicÐ 4„ Ðaccountant€who€specializes€in€several€areas,€including€business€valuation.€€Gee€testified€that€HusbandÐ  p Ðand€Wife€each€owned€30.49%€of€the€total€shares,€and€each€of€the€partiesðð€two€children€ownedÐ  \ Ð19.51%.€€Gee€gave€his€expert€opinion€on€the€current€value€of€this€asset,€and€the€Trial€CourtÐ øH Ðspecifically€stated€it€found€this€testimony€ð ðhelpfulðð€when€ultimately€concluding€that€the€sharesÐ ä4 Ðowned€by€Husband€and€Wife€in€GFLP€had€a€combined€value€of€$1,070,000.€€In€their€briefs,€HusbandÐ Ð  Ðlisted€the€value€of€their€GFLP€shares€at€$2,200,000,€while€Wife€listed€their€value€at€$1,070,000.€€TheÐ ¼  ÐTrial€Court€found€the€value€of€these€shares€to€be€$1,070,000.€€While€Husband€in€his€appendix€doesÐ ¨ø Ðlist€the€value€of€their€interest€in€GFLP€at€$2,200,000,€he€nowhere€in€his€brief€articulates€anyÐ ”ä Ðargument€or€reasons€showing€that€the€Trial€Court€abused€its€discretion€in€valuing€this€asset€atÐ €Ð Ð$1,070,000.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€as€to€the€value€ofÐ l¼ Ðthis€asset.€€For€this€reason€and€also€because€Husband€never€argues€that€the€value€assigned€to€theÐ X ¨ ÐGFLP€shares€by€the€Trial€Court€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€or€otherwise€in€error,€we€will€accept€theÐ D!” Ðvalue€of€this€asset€as€found€by€the€Trial€Court.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€value€of€the€marital€assets€totaled€$2,511,735,€and€there€was€a€total€of€$499,391Ð $X" Ðin€corresponding€marital€debt.€€From€these€totals,€Wife€was€awarded€$2,005,647€in€assets,€but€wasÐ ô$D # Ðheld€responsible€for€the€entire€$499,391€in€marital€debt.€€This€leaves€Wife€with€a€net€property€awardÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âvalued€at€$1,506,256.€€Husband€was€awarded€the€remaining€assets€worth€$506,088€and€was€heldÐ Ì&"% Ðresponsible€for€none€of€the€marital€debt.€€From€a€percentage€standpoint,€Wife€ended€up€with€a€netÐ ° Ðaward€of€74.85%€of€the€marital€property,€and€Husband€was€awarded€the€remaining€25.15%.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€undervalued€his€contributions€to€theÐ tÄ Ðhousehold€and€the€partiesðð€accumulation€of€assets.€€Husband€does€not€dispute€the€fact€that,€duringÐ `° Ðthe€entire€marriage,€he€never€was€gainfully€employed.€€He€also€does€not€dispute€the€fact€that€WifeÐ L œ Ðwas€employed€as€a€physician€and€all€of€their€marital€assets€were€purchased€from€Wifeððs€substantialÐ 8 ˆ Ðearnings.€€Husband€claims€he€contributed€in€other€ways,€such€as€when€he€located€the€marital€home,Ð $ t Ðnegotiated€its€purchase,€and€then€assisted€with€a€few€initial€renovations.€€Unfortunately,€we€cannotÐ  ` Ðtell€from€the€record€whether€Husbandððs€negotiations€resulted€in€a€good€deal€for€these€parties.€€WeÐ ü L  Ðdo€know,€however,€that€once€the€home€was€purchased€Wife€made€all€of€the€house€payments.€Ð è 8  ÐHusband€also€claims€he€ð ðtraveled€through€several€islands€in€the€Caribbeanðð€looking€for€investmentÐ Ô$  Ðproperty.€€While€doing€this,€he€located€the€villa€on€St.€Barthððs€island€and€negotiated€its€purchase.€Ð À  ÐIt€is€undisputed€that€the€value€of€this€property€has€increased€since€it€was€purchased.€€Even€thoughÐ ¬ü  ÐHusbandððs€locating€this€property€may€account€for€something,€it€really€does€not€account€for€muchÐ ˜è  Ðwhen€one€considers€that€Wife€made€the€$600,000€down€payment€and€has€made€all€mortgageÐ „Ô  Ðpayments€since€the€initial€purchase.€€Locating€the€occasional€piece€of€property€which€Wife€then€paidÐ pÀ Ðfor€is€primarily€what€Husband€claims€he€did€to€help€the€parties€accumulate€their€assets€during€theirÐ \¬ Ðmarriage€of€thirteen€and€one„half€years.€€The€Trial€Court€found€Husbandððs€contribution€to€theÐ H˜ Ðacquisition€of€assets€as€ð ðvery€minimalðð€and€not€meaningful.€€We€could€not€agree€more€with€thisÐ 4„ Ðfinding.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€Husband€did€virtually€nothing€to€contribute€to€the€acquisition€of€marital€assets,Ð øH Ðhis€efforts€at€dissipating€them€were€substantially€more€effective.€€According€to€Wife,€for€yearsÐ ä4 ÐHusband€withdrew€$200€from€the€bank€every€couple€of€days€to€buy€beer,€cigarettes,€and€gasoline€forÐ Ð  Ðhis€truck.€€Wife€testified€that€during€the€years€1999€through€2002,€Husband€spent€on€average€nineÐ ¼  Ðto€ten€weeks€per€year€at€their€villa€on€St.€Barthððs€island.€€While€at€the€villa€in€2001,€HusbandÐ ¨ø Ðwithdrew€over€$11,000€in€cash€and€charged€all€of€his€meals€to€credit€cards.€€In€2002,€he€withdrewÐ ”ä Ð$14,643.24€in€cash€in€addition€to€numerous€credit€card€charges.€€While€on€the€island,€HusbandÐ €Ð Ðroutinely€hired€chauffeurs€to€drive€him€around€the€island.€€On€at€least€one€occasion€Husband€rentedÐ l¼ Ða€yacht€to€the€tune€of€$20,000.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€also€claims€he€was€a€stay„at„home€dad€and€that€the€Trial€Court€undervaluedÐ 0"€  Ðhis€efforts€in€this€regard.€€According€to€Husband,€ð ðif€the€roles€[had€been€reversed],€it€is€unlikely€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€Court€would€have€found€a€stay„at„home€mother€to€have€not€contributed€to€the€household.ðð€€It€isÐ $X" Ðundisputed€that€throughout€the€marriage€Wife€was€working€substantial€hours€as€a€physician€andÐ ô$D # ÐHusband€was€not€employed€outside€of€the€home.€€We€agree€with€Husband€that€when€dividing€maritalÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty,€a€party€will€not€be€penalized€because€he€or€she€fulfilled€the€role€of€homemaker€and€was€notÐ Ì&"% Ðemployed€outside€of€the€home.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c)€specifically€states€that€ð ðtheÐ ¸'#& Ðcontribution€of€a€party€as€homemaker€or€wage€earner€[should]€be€given€the€same€weight€if€each€partyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhas€fulfilled€its€role.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€must€examine€Husbandðð€contributions€to€the€household€toÐ ° Ðsee€if€he€ð ðfulfilledðð€his€role.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWhat€we€have€here€is€an€otherwise€healthy€adult€who€was€employed€as€aÐ tÄ Ðphotographer€prior€to€the€marriage.€€Husband€was€thirty„four€years€old€when€the€marriage€began.€Ð `° ÐUpon€marrying€Wife,€Husband€immediately€quit€working€and,€as€he€claims,€assumed€the€role€ofÐ L œ Ðhomemaker.€€What€a€ð ðhomemakerðð€does€is€by€no€means€set€in€stone€and€certainly€will€vary€fromÐ 8 ˆ Ðhousehold€to€household€depending€on€many€factors€such€as€the€health€of€the€homemaker,€whetherÐ $ t Ðthere€are€any€children,€etc.€€With€this€in€mind,€we€will€examine€Husbandððs€contributions€to€theÐ  ` Ðhousehold€as€found€by€the€Trial€Court.€€It€is€undisputed€that€full„time€nannies€were€hired€to€care€forÐ ü L  Ðthe€children.€€Thus,€Husband€cannot€seriously€claim€that€he€stayed€home€to€take€care€of€the€children.€Ð è 8  ÐBecause€Husband€did€not€want€to€drive€the€children€to€school€in€Knoxville€from€their€home€inÐ Ô$  ÐDandridge,€he€hired€someone€to€do€this€for€him.€€In€his€brief,€Husband€states€he€did€this€because€ð ðheÐ À  Ðdid€not€want€to€drive€the€children€to€school,€as€he€thought€it€would€be€more€expensive€in€the€longÐ ¬ü  Ðrun€to€wear€out€his€Land€Cruiser.ðð€€Husband€would€not€do€any€housework€and,€therefore,€maids€wereÐ ˜è  Ðhired€to€clean€the€house.€€Along€this€line,€Wife€testified€that€throughout€their€entire€marriage€sheÐ „Ô  Ðnever€witnessed€Husband€put€a€single€dish€into€the€dishwasher.€€Husband€certainly€did€not€occupyÐ pÀ Ðhis€time€in€the€yard€given€the€fact€that€he€hired€people€to€do€all€of€the€yard€work.€€According€to€Wife:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€hired€someone€to€come€in€on€Wednesday,€garbage€day,€to€removeÐ 4„ Ðthe€garbage,€as€[Husband]€thought€it€was€beneath€him€to€pick€upÐ  p Ðgarbage€and€put€it€outside€the€door.€€Then€he€hired€someoneÐ  \ Ðseparately€to€feed€his€dogs€and€buy€the€dog€food€for€his€dogs.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€though€he€never€performed€any€of€the€services€that€were€hired€out€to€nannies,Ð Ð  Ðmaids,€chauffeurs,€landscapers,€dog€feeders,€etc.,€Husband€claims€that€the€simple€fact€that€he€hiredÐ ¼  Ðthese€people€establishes€his€contribution€to€the€household.€€According€to€Husband,€ð ð[t]he€law€doesÐ ¨ø Ðnot€require€that€the€parent€actually€provide€all€of€the€services€as€a€homemaker.€€The€fact€thatÐ ”ä Ð[Husband]€arranged€for€these€needs€to€be€met€shows€his€contribution.ðð€€We€disagree€with€HusbandÐ €Ð Ðfor€two€primary€reasons.€€First,€the€amount€of€time€actually€invested€in€hiring€these€people€over€theÐ l¼ Ðcourse€of€a€thirteen€and€one„half€year€marriage€would€be€minimal€at€best.€€Second,€this€argumentÐ X ¨ Ðwould€have€some€merit€if€Husband€had€contributed€in€any€way€to€the€funds€used€to€pay€theseÐ D!” Ðworkers.€€Husband€may€have€written€the€checks€to€pay€these€people,€but€the€funds€came€exclusivelyÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€Wifeððs€employment€as€a€physician.€€Husbandððs€contribution€was,€as€found€by€the€Trial€Court,Ð #l! Ðminimal€at€best.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€Court€would€be€hard€pressed€to€find€a€case€from€this€State€involving€a€spouseÐ à%0!$ Ðwho€has€contributed€less€to€maintaining€the€household€and€acquiring€assets,€and€who€has€done€moreÐ Ì&"% Ðto€dissipate€the€marital€estate€than€was€done€by€Husband€in€this€case.€€The€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ¸'#& Ðpresented€to€us€does€not€preponderate€against€any€of€the€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court.€€WeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconclude€that€the€Trial€Court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð )à$( Ðâ âðð€36-4-121(c),€and€given€the€facts€of€this€case,€that€it€was€well€within€its€discretion€when€itÐ |*Ì%) Ðdetermined€that€certain€of€these€factors€were€more€relevant€than€others.€€We€believe€the€overallÐ ° Ðproperty€distribution€was€equitable,€and€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ L œ ÐCourt€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€David€LouisÐ 8 ˆ ÐGordon,€and€his€surety.€€Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE