ÿWPCë  4IndþŠFˆìS:¥0‰è= Ùór)cR†©= )»ã÷5îäŒßz\¬šðÉÆ‘Ÿù¡Ë/Ž9ÃA.pû p޾XÉ0r_MÔ‡œ[åXQu ´º?³)ìÒÖïa û|ê‹)N] §¼ýoGP_r<¹‰Âós J6)×8Ý›MtØ Ö߯ñ'‡.¦¼¦Ü™ŸÜØD1=GœÎîþ)Ö"]?“N,nùŒ,ÕùbgYö}óޝ"d ÇÆ¯ #üS®f·áÖ¨Þ­‡\|$EcœFhÄù!.*‡¤¥L] L†96Ñ’N—žúX6Åɸ'j(›Åv*b3ì§Å-µ0uâ2DöÎÊwån¬"44ϵö<r¯ð Ä ç†ð[éx…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™  Ù UNâ U:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UBj %¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ B² ² ² ² ² D3Ï Ï Ï 0D                                                                                  AOF Æ• • 0D[ D/Ÿ BÎ f|œ$ÔøÔô3|xC($¡¡ /D01D23D4567D8Ó€ ÿÔ€XaXXXÔÔ€@XXaÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XaX@ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€9,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô…ôXXaÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ8ñ›ñ8ñѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€š9XXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€XPyXXXÔÔ€ŠääŠXXPyÔñ8ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@EÈ ` ttx$ð Õrß›ñ8ñ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌÌPHYLLIS€ANN€FRAZIER€HAMBY,à ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9708„CV„00346Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à < àà ” àà ì à)€POLK€CIRCUITÐ  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,€Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÌJOSEPH€DEWIGHT€HAMBY€andà ì à)Ð   ÐANTHONY€HAMBY,à < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AND›Ìà 4 àDefendants„Appellees.à ” àà ì àœ)€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌGRACE€E.€DANIELL,€STARR€&€DANIELL,€Chattanooga,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌCHARLES€B.€BURNS,€JR.,€VARNELL,€BURNS€&€SHARP,€P.C.,€Cleveland,€forÏDefendant„Appellee€Anthony€Hamby.ÌÌROGER€E.€JENNE,€JENNE,€SCOTT€&€JENNE,€Cleveland,€for€Defendant„AppelleeÏJoseph€Dewight€Hamby.ÌÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ & ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€divorce€action,€the€wife€appeals€from€the€Trial€Courtððs€Order€ofÏchild€œsupport›€œand€the€evaluation›€of€the€marital€estate€and€its€distribution.Ìà 4 àà Œ àHusband€and€wife€were€married€in€1976€and€have€two€minor€children.€ÏThey€separated€in€August€1994,€and€at€the€time€of€trial€the€husband€was€43€and€theÏwife€was€age€40.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband€holds€an€associate€degree€in€respiratory€therapy,€while€theÏwife€has€an€associate€degree€in€nursing.€€The€wife€worked€full€time€until€the€birth€ofÏtheir€first€child.€€After€terminating€her€employment€in€1987,€she€began€working€part„Ð :þ23ý Ðtime€in€1988.€€The€husband€works€as€a€respiratory€therapist€at€Copper€Basin€MedicalÏCenter€in€Cleveland.€€He€also€owned€a€one„half€interest€in€Cleveland€HomeÏRespiratory€Care€Inc.,€which€he€co„owned€with€his€brother,€defendant€AnthonyÏHamby.€€This€business€provides€and€services€respiratory€care€equipment€for€patientsððÏuse€in€their€own€homes.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€filed€this€action€on€September€16,€1994,€and€on€November€16,Ï1994,€effective€as€of€October€31,€1994,€the€husband€sold€his€50%€interest€in€ClevelandÏHome€Respiratory€Care,€Inc.,€to€his€brother€for€$100,000.00.€€The€wife€then€amendedÏher€complaint€to€add€the€brother€as€a€defendant.Ìà 4 àà Œ àAfter€trial,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€custody€of€the€two€minor€children€toÏthe€wife€and€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€$600.00€per€month€child€support.€€The€CourtÏalso€held€that€the€husband€was€to€serve€as€custodian€for€investment€accounts€for€theÏchildren.€€The€Court€also€valued€husbandððs€interest€in€Cleveland€Home€Respiratory€atÏthe€amount€he€was€paid€for€his€stock.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€setting€the€child€supportÏat€$600.00€per€month.€€First,€she€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€should€have€basedÏpayments€on€œan€annual›€income€in€excess€of€$200,000.00,€rather€than€the€$32,914.00Ïthat€the€husband€earned€as€a€respiratory€therapist,€and€further,€even€if€the€husbandððsÏincome€was€only€the€amount€of€his€salary,€the€Trial€Court€erred€because€it€made€aÏdownward€deviation€from€the€Child€Support€œGuidelines€without€giving€writtenÏreasons€for€the€deviation.›Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband€earned€a€much€larger€income€when€he€was€part€owner€ofÏthe€business,€but€he€testified€that€he€sold€his€share€of€the€business€because€of€longÏhours€and€his€desire€to€spend€more€time€with€his€children,€and€at€the€time€of€theÏdivorce€his€only€income€was€his€salary€as€a€respiratory€therapist.€€Additionally,€heÏoffered€medical€testimony€that€he€was€depressed€before€the€sale€and€was€advised€toÐ 922 Ðreduce€his€workload.€€The€Trial€Court€determined€that€ð ðMr.€Hamby€certainly€wasÏdepressed€clinically,€as€the€medical€evidence€shows,€that€he€was€overworked€when€heÏsold€his€share€of€the€business.ðð€The€Child€Support€Guidelines€provide€that€if€anÏobligor€is€ð ðwillfully€and€voluntarilyðð€underemployed,€child€support€is€to€be€calculatedÏbased€on€a€determination€of€potential€income.€Tenn.Comp.R.&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03Ï(3)(d).€€The€Trial€Court€did€not€consider€the€sale€of€the€business€as€a€ð ðwillfully€andÏvoluntarilyðð€move€to€become€under„employed.€€The€Trial€Judge€credited€the€reasonsÏgiven€by€the€husband,€as€well€as€œthe›€medical€testimony,€as€a€basis€for€his€actions,€andÏwe€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€œñ+ñtheseñ+ñ›€œfindingñ-ññ,ñdñ,ññ-ññ.ñsñ.ñ.›Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€made€no€written€findings€to€supportÏhis€variance€from€the€guidelines€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101.€€The€transcript,Ïhowever,€shows€that€the€Trial€Court€was€aware€of€the€deviation.€€The€Court€noted€thatÏalthough€the€child€support€amount€deviated€slightly€from€the€guidelines,€ð ðthatððsÏjustified€considering€the€amount€of€time€that€the€non„custodial€parent€is€spending€withÏthe€children.ðð€€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€parties€offered€differing€estimates€of€the€time€that€the€husband€spentÏwith€the€children.€€The€wife€estimated€that€it€was€only€a€third€of€the€time,€while€theÏhusband€testified€that€it€was€closer€to€one„half.€€The€guidelines,€in€pertinent€part,€Ïprovide€that€they€are:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àdesigned€to€apply€in€situations€where€children€are€livingÏprimarily€with€one€parent€but€stay€overnight€with€the€other€parentÏat€least€as€often€as€every€other€weekend€from€Friday€to€Sunday,Ïtwo€weeks€in€the€summer€and€two€weeks€during€holidaysÏthroughout€the€year€.€.€.€In€situations€where€overnight€time€isÏdivided€more€equally€between€the€parents,€the€courts€will€have€toÏmake€a€case„by„case€determination€as€to€the€appropriate€amountÏof€support.€1240„2„4„.02(6).€€Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓThus,€ð ð[d]eviation€from€the€guidelines€may€be€appropriate€.€.€.€where€physical€custodyÏof€the€child(ren)€is€more€equally€divided€.€.€.ðð€1240„2„4„.04(2).€€While€the€Trial€CourtÐ Ì8Ä11 Ðdid€not€make€a€written€finding€on€this€issue,€the€transcribed€record€shows€the€reasonÏfor€the€deviation.€€This€Court€has€held€that€an€ð ðoral€pronouncement€by€the€courtÏsubsequently€transcribedðð€may€suffice€to€avoid€sending€a€case€back€to€the€trial€courtÏð ðsolely€for€the€purpose€of€written€findings.ðð€òòKoch€v.€Koch.óó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€578Ð   Ð(Tenn.App.€1993).€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÏdetermination,€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).Ìà 4 àà Œ àAppellant€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€establishing€the€value€ofÏCleveland€Home€Respiratory€Care,€and€argues€that€the€transfer€was€a€fraudulentÏconveyance.€€A€conveyance€is€fraudulent€if€it€is€made€without€fair€consideration,Ïleaving€the€grantor€insolvent€or€if€the€conveyance€was€made€with€the€actual€intent€toÏhinder,€delay€or€defraud€creditors.òò€Macon€Bank€and€Trust€Co.€v.€Hollandóó,€715€S.W.2dÐ XP Ð347,€349€(Tenn.App.€1996);€òòSee€also€óóT.C.A.€ðððð€66„3„305,€66„3„308.€€Whether€aÐ `X Ðtransfer€is€fraudulent€is€determined€by€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances€of€eachÏcase.€òòMacon€Bankóó,€at€p.€349.€€Ð p!h Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€value€of€marital€property€is€a€fact€question.€òòWallace€v.€Wallaceóó,€733Ð x#p ÐS.W.2d€102,107.€(Tenn.App.€1987).€€The€burden€is€on€the€parties€to€produceÏcompetent€evidence€of€value,€and€they€are€bound€by€the€evidence€they€present.€òòId.óó€TheÐ ˆ'€  Ðtrial€court€is€free€to€place€a€value€on€a€marital€asset€that€is€within€the€range€of€evidenceÏsubmitted.Ìà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€case,€the€parties€presented€testimony€from€three€expertsÏconcerning€the€value€of€the€business.€€The€wife€offered€the€testimony€of€anÏaccountant,€who€testified€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€company€was€Ï$1,189,860.00€on€the€date€of€sale.€€The€husband€offered€the€testimony€of€HarryÏTrewhitt,€who€served€as€accountant€for€the€corporation€and€Ronald€Arnett,€who€madeÏan€independent€evaluation.€€Trewhitt€valued€the€corporation€at€$181,987.00,€andÏArnett€valued€the€corporation€at€$288,000.00.Ð Ð9È22 Ðà 4 àà Œ àThis€Court€has€noted€that€ð ð[d]etermining€the€value€of€a€closely€heldÏcorporation€is€not€an€exact€science.ðð€òòWallaceóó,€733€S.W.2d€at€107.€€In€òòWallaceóó,€theÐ   ÐCourt€cited€factors€for€€the€court€to€consider€when€determining€a€closely€heldÏcorporationððs€value.€€The€Trial€Court€took€the€relevant€factors€into€account€inÏassigning€a€value€to€the€husbandððs€interest€in€the€corporation.€€The€experts€hadÏdiffering€views€concerning€the€nature€of€the€business,€the€proper€method€of€valuationÏand€how€important€the€individual€skill€and€contacts€of€the€husband€were€to€its€success.€ÏMoreover,€the€experts€differed€on€their€projections€for€the€future€stability€of€theÏindustry.€€The€Trial€Court€made€an€extensive€analysis€and€assigned€a€value€that€wasÏwithin€the€range€of€evidence€submitted.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthis€determination.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àœñ/ñOurñ/ññ0ñTheñ0ñ›€Court€concluded€the€transaction€was€not€œfraudulentñ1ñ,ñ1ññ2ñ€andñ2ñ›€determinedÏthat€Anthony€Hamby€had€paid€fair€consideration€of€$100,000.00€for€his€brotherððsÏinterest.€€The€husband€also€retained€a€storage€facility€that€had€been€built€withÏcorporate€funds.Ìà 4 à€€à Œ àThe€Trial€Court€noted€that€ð ð[t]hereððs€no€doubt€thereððs€some€red€flagsÐ €%x Ðhere.ðð€€He€noted€that€the€transaction€involved€a€sale€to€a€family€member€without€aÏnoncompete€agreement€and€must€be€ð ðcarefully€scrutinized.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€foundÏAnthony€Hamby€ð ðto€be€a€very€credible€œwitness.ñ5ñððñ5ñ›€œñ6ñð ðñ6ññ7ñ›€ñ7ñThe›€weight,€faith€and€credit€to€beÏgiven€the€witnessesðð€testimony€lies€in€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact,€and€theÏcredibility€accorded€will€be€given€great€weight€by€the€appellate€court.ðð€òòWhitaker€v.Ð ¨/ (( ÐWhitaker,óó€957€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.App.€1997.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ð[t]heÐ °1¨** Ðwife€has€shown€no€evidence€of€fraud€.€.€.€except€for€those€red€flags,€but€other€than€thatÏthereððs€no€evidence€whatsoever€that€there€was€any€fraud€involved€in€this€transaction€orÏthat€$100,000€was€not€a€fair€consideration€for€this€business.ðð€€€The€weight€to€be€givenÏto€any€particular€ð ðbadges€of€fraudðð€is€generally€a€question€for€the€trial€court.òò€MaconÐ Ð9È22 ÐBank,€óó715€S.W.2d€at€349„50.€€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÐ  Ðcourtððs€decision.ÌÌà 4 à€€à Œ àNext,€the€wife€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€dividing€the€partiesððÐ   Ðestate.€€Trial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€dividing€marital€estates.€òòKincaid€v.Ð (  ÐKincaid,€óó912€S.W.2d€140,€142€(Tenn.App.€1995).€€We€generally€do€not€disturb€a€trialÐ 0(  Ðcourtððs€division€unless€ð ðthe€distribution€lacks€proper€evidentiary€support€or€resultsÏfrom€an€error€of€law€or€a€misapplication€of€statutory€requirements€and€procedures.ðð€ÏòòThompson€v.€Thompsonóó,€797€S.W.2d€599,€604€(Tenn.App.€1990).€€Ð H@ Ðà 4 àà Œ àT.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(a)(1)€provides€that€marital€property€shall€be€dividedÏequitably,€without€regard€to€fault.€€An€equitable€division,€however,€is€not€necessarilyÏan€equal€one.€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849€(Tenn.App.€1988).€€In€reaching€aÐ `X Ðdecision,€a€trial€court€should€not€mechanically€apply€the€factors€listed€in€ðð€36„4„121Ïbut€rather€consider€the€most€relevant€factors€in€light€of€the€unique€facts€of€each€case.ÏòòId.óó€€In€this€case,€the€Trial€Court€basically€adopted€the€husbandððs€Proposed€DistributionÐ x#p Ðof€Marital€Assets,€with€some€modifications.€€In€their€briefs,€the€parties€provideÏdiffering€totals€for€each€share.€€Based€on€the€values€set€forth,€and€the€other€itemsÏincluded€in€the€trial€courtððs€order,€the€wifeððs€share€totaled€approximately€$276,893.50Ïwhile€the€husbandððs€share€was€approximately€$320,686.50.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àAs€the€Trial€Court€found,€both€parties€are€of€similar€age€and€educationalÏlevel.€€The€Trial€Court€also€found€that€the€partiesðð€earning€capacities€were€relativelyÏequal.€€The€record€shows€that€Joseph€Hamby€was€a€founder€of€Cleveland€HomeÏRespiratory€Care,€and€worked€diligently€to€make€the€company€a€success.€€He€alsoÏworked€at€Copper€Basin€Medical€Center€as€a€respiratory€therapist.€€While€the€wife€wasÏnot€directly€involved€in€running€the€company,€the€trial€court€found€that€she€madeÏð ðgreat€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€to€this€marriage€over€the€years.ðð€€The€TrialÐ Ð9È22 ÐCourt€considered€the€factors€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121€in€reaching€its€decision,€and€weÏconclude€that€the€Trial€Court€made€an€equitable€distribution€of€the€marital€property.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àÌà 4 àà Œ àFinally,€the€wife€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€allowing€theÏhusband€to€continue€to€serve€as€custodian€for€accounts€œñ3ñthatñ3ññ4ñwhichñ4ñ›€he€set€up€for€the€minorÏchildren.€€The€record€contains€no€evidence€that€the€husband€was€guilty€of€anyÏmisconduct€in€managing€these€accounts.€€Additionally,€the€Trial€Court€providedÏsafeguards€for€distributions€from€the€accounts.€We€find€no€basis€to€disturb€the€CourtððsÏruling€on€this€issue,€as€well.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€the€cost€of€the€appeal€isÏassessed€to€the€appellant,€and€the€cause€remanded.ÌÌÓÓÌÌòòà 4 àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð t"l Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________Ìœñ2ñòòóóñ2ñWilliam›€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.