ÿWPCM /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}ÆŒ 0lR 0D¾ 0J 0TL 0^  0hþ 0rf 0|Ø 0†T 0Ú 1uj 0dß U>C AQ BÒ 0Dï 0@3 0Ds B)· D/à DC BR D3o AM¢ U*ï  àv~üvÓz˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ PUQ R S T U£VWXÓ€dn~<$3|xdƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó% Line 7 d'''÷ÿ dxd$$$$7Border 1ddüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd"&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌò òJuly€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€*ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò ò36„4„129.€€Stipulated€grounds€and/or€defenses€„„€Grant€of€divorce.€„„ó óÌà à.€.€.€.€Ìà à(b)€The€court€may,€upon€such€stipulations€or€upon€proof,€grant€a€divorce€to€the€party€whoÏwas€less€at€fault€or,€if€either€or€both€parties€are€entitled€to€a€divorce,€declare€the€parties€to€beÏdivorced,€rather€than€awarding€a€divorce€to€either€party€alone.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òLESLIE€A.€HASSELLó ó,à à)à àHenderson€County€Chancery€CourtÌÙ€ÙßR€)+&A1-j|…` Å `€€@ÿRßà à)à àNo.€9218Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9709„CH„00220Ìà à)Ìò òTHOMAS€W.€HASSELLó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Henderson€County€at€Lexington.Ìò òHonorable€William€Michael€Maloan,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òScott€Kirkó ó,€HARDEE,€MARTIN€&€JAYNES,€P.A.,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant.ÌÌÌò òJoe€H.€Byrd,€Jr.ó ó,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àFollowing€the€trial€of€this€matter,€the€court€ordered€the€parties,€Leslie€A.€HassellÏ(Wife)€and€Thomas€W.€Hassell€(Husband),€to€be€entitled€to€a€divorce€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„129(b).× ƒ, ××  ×€€Husband€was€ordered€to€pay€Wife€$500€per€month€as€alimony€òòò òin€futuroóóó ó€and€that€awardÏis€the€sole€issue€presented€by€Husband€to€this€court€on€appeal.ÌÌà àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€òòò òde€novoóóó ó€with€a€presumption€that€thoseÏfindings€are€correct,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Trial€courts€haveÏbroad€discretion€in€determining€the€need€for€spousal€support,€the€nature,€amount€and€duration.€Ïòòò òSee€Garfinkel€v.€Garfinkelóóó ó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€The€generalÏassembly€has€expressed€its€intent€that€a€spouse€who€is€economically€disadvantaged,€relative€to€theÏother€spouse,€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible.€€We€agree€with€Husbandððs€contention€that€theÏstatute€directs€that€the€granting€of€alimony€òòò òin€futuroóóó ó€requires€a€threshold€determination€by€the€trialÏjudge€that,€considering€all€relevant€factors,€rehabilitation€of€the€economically€disadvantaged€spouseÏis€not€feasible.€€Husband€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€make€such€a€threshold€determination.€ÏHowever,€in€ruling€from€the€bench,€the€chancellor€stated€on€two€separate€occasions€that€he€hadÏconsidered€the€statutory€factors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101,€stressing€the€importance€of€needÏand€ability€to€pay.€€While€we€believe€it€would€have€been€desirable€for€the€trial€court€to€have€statedÏthat€it€had€made€a€threshold€determination€that€rehabilitation€was€not€feasible,€we€interpret€hisÏremarks€as€having€considered€the€statute€in€its€entirety.€€The€question€then€becomes€whether€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Wife€was€entitled€to€payment€ofÍsupport€on€a€long„term€basis.€€òòò òStorey€v.€Storeyóóó ó,€835€S.W.2d€593,€597€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€payment€for€support€and€maintenance€is€proper,€and€inÏdetermining€the€nature,€amount€and€length,€the€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors€includingÏthose€set€forth€in€the€statute€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€andÏfinancial€resources€of€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,Ïprofit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;Ìà8 àà à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€theÏability€and€opportunity€of€each€person€to€secure€such€education€andÏtraining,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€andÏtraining€to€improve€such€partyððs€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonableÏlevel;Ìà8 àà à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ìà8 àà à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;Ìà8 àà à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€notÏlimited€to,€physical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronicÏdebilitating€disease;€Ìà8 àà à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€toÏseek€employment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€beÏcustodian€of€minor€child€of€the€marriage;Ìà8 àà à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€andÏpersonal,€tangible€and€intangible;Ìà8 àà à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€propertyÏas€defined€in€ðð€36„4„121;Ìà8 àà à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€duringÏthe€marriage;Ìà8 àà à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangibleÏand€intangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€andÏhomemaker€contributions,€and€tangible€and€intangible€contributionsÏby€a€party€to€the€education,€training€or€increased€earning€power€ofÏthe€other€party;Ìà8 àà à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,Ïin€its€discretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€andÌà8 àà à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€toÏeach€party,€as€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€theÏparties.ÌÌÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€(1996).ÌÌà àIn€1971,€Husband,€his€father€and€brother€began€an€automotive€parts€businessÏwhich€became€known€as€Hassellððs€Auto€Supply,€Inc.€and€each€earned€500€shares.€€The€father€diedÍin€1982€and€his€stock€passed€to€Husbandððs€mother.€€About€1990€Husband€purchased€his€brotherððsÏstock.€€Their€mother€died€in€1994€and€at€the€time€of€the€trial€Husband€was€the€sole€owner€of€theÏstock€in€that€corporation.ÌÌà àHusband€contends€that€the€partiesðð€earnings€are€approximately€equal€in€that€WifeÏearns€approximately€$28,000€as€assistant€to€the€county€mayor€of€Madison€County€and€that€he€earnsÏapproximately€$500€per€week€as€assistant€parts€manager€for€an€automobile€agency.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€he€sold€the€inventory€of€Hassellððs€Auto€Parts€in€1995€without€consulting€with€Wife.€ÏHe€retained€ownership€of€the€building€and€receives€rental€income€of€$1,699.€€He€stated€most€ofÏthat€goes€for€expenses.€€At€the€time€of€trial€he€was€also€receiving€$1,000€per€month€rental€fromÏanother€commercial€building.€€The€partiesðð€joint€federal€income€tax€return€for€1994€shows€totalÏincome€in€excess€of€$76,000,€of€which€approximately€$24,000€were€Wifeððs€earnings.€€HusbandððsÏ1995€return€discloses€total€income€in€excess€of€$77,000.€€The€partiesðð€filed€separately€that€year€andÏWifeððs€return€shows€total€earnings€slightly€below€$25,000.€€Husband€presented€a€letter€from€hisÏaccounting€firm€indicating€that€included€in€his€1995€income€was€$25,000€cash€ð ðthat€you€receivedÏfrom€the€sale€of€Airways€Auto€Electric,€Inc.€and€Smith„Hassell€rental€properties.€€However€theseÏmonies€were€not€retained€by€you€but€were€deposited€directly€into€the€Hassellððs€Auto€Supply,€Inc.Ïchecking€account.ðð€€However,€as€previously€noted,€Husband€was€the€sole€stockholder€of€HassellððsÏAuto€Supply,€Inc.€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Although€apparently€a€profitable€business,€Husband€testifiedÏthat€he€sold€the€business€in€order€to€lessen€his€stress.€€Husband€further€testified€that€he€had€alsoÏturned€down€a€higher€paying€job€than€his€current€position€because€of€the€travel€involved.€€We€noteÏthat€the€statute€refers€to€earning€capacity€rather€than€actual€earnings.ÌÌà àHusband€has€a€college€degree€in€business€administration€and€Wife€has€one€year€ofÏcollege€credits.€€She€testified€that€her€present€job€would€not€allow€her€to€return€to€college€as€sheÏoften€has€to€attend€evening€and€out„of„town€functions€and€cannot€afford€to€quit€in€order€to€furtherÏher€education.€€She€testified€that€she€knows€of€no€other€job€for€which€she€is€qualified€that€wouldÍpay€more€than€her€current€position.€€The€parties€were€married€approximately€21€years.€€At€the€timeÏof€trial€Wife€was€age€44€and€Husband€50.€€Both€parties€are€apparently€in€reasonably€good€health,Ïalthough€Husband€testified€that€he€has€elevated€cholesterol€and€needs€hearing€aids.ÌÌà àHusband€was€awarded€property€having€a€value€of€$219,500€and€Wife€$137,689,Ïmost€of€which€consisted€of€equity€in€the€marital€home.€€A€portion€of€the€property€awarded€toÏHusband€was€separate€property€which€consisted€of€equity€value€of€Hassellððs€Auto.€€A€portion€ofÏthat€equity€was€acquired€during€the€partiesðð€marriage€and€Wife€testified€that€she€helped€out€at€theÏbusiness€at€times.€€€Husbandððs€inheritance€from€his€mother€also€included€$80,000€cash.€€Wife€wasÏworking€as€a€secretary€when€the€parties€married€in€1975€but€quit€in€1976€when€she€becameÏpregnant€and€the€parties€agreed€for€her€to€quit.€€She€did€not€return€to€public€work€for€anyÏsignificant€time€until€her€present€job€began€in€1989.ÌÌà àMr.€Hassell€was€ordered€to€pay€support€for€the€partiesðð€minor€child€of€$610€perÏmonth€until€her€graduation€from€high€school,€unless€otherwise€ordered.€€The€record€reflects€thatÏshe€reached€the€age€of€eighteen€in€April€1997€and€we€can€presume€that€child€support€payments€willÏcease€in€the€near€future€if€they€have€not€already€done€so.ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€award€alimony€is€factually€driven€and€requires€a€balancing€of€theÏfactors€listed€in€the€statute€set€forth€heretofore.€€The€two€most€important€factors€are€theÏdemonstrated€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse€and€the€ability€of€the€other€spouse€to€pay.€€òòò òLoydÏv.€Loydóóó ó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€Having€reviewed€this€record,€we€haveÏdetermined€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Ms.€HassellÏwas€economically€disadvantaged€and€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€considering€all€the€relevantÏfactors.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÍMr.€Hassell,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌ