ÿWPC9 /# ¢U:­ %ç 0(íb w@!4au„ 0l„ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  1uœ 0d Bu AQ’ Æã 0D© 0@í 0D- U*q D/› B)Ê Bó D3 DCC AM† Ó v~è vÓf˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ¦E§¨D©ªD«D¬Ó€¶·¸zƒ=#3|x¸((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial(('÷ÿ dxd% Line 7 düÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd''''7Border 1dd!#*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌOctober€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€OÈXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌJAN€MILTON€HAUSMANN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9702„CH„00092Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€ChanceryÌNINA€LOUISE€STANFORDà àà à)à àNo.€93„381ÌÙ€!ÙßR€+,*A1-j|¬(` ç `€€@ÿRßHAUSMANN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àÔ€%¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÔ€%XÔÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MAURY€COUNTYÌAT€COLUMBIA,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌEDWARD€J.€GROSSÌSuite€1601,€Parkway€TowersÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌJ.€RUSSELL€PARKESÌ102€West€7th€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€692ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402„0692Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€€MODIFIED€IN€PART;Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€%„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€%XÔÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€wife€a€divorce€after€a€marriage€of€twenty„eight€years,€and€divided€the€marital€property,€including€the€marital€home,€betweenÏthe€parties.€€In€addition,€the€husband€was€ordered€to€pay€the€wife€$5,000€perÏmonth€as€alimony€in€futuro,€and€her€attorney€fees€of€$9,645.80.€€We€modify€theÏdivision€of€the€marital€property€to€grant€the€wife€an€undivided€interest€in€the€maritalÏhome.€€We€also€reduce€the€alimony€award€to€$2,500€per€month.€€In€all€otherÏrespects,€we€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Marriage€and€Divorceó óÌÌà àà àJan€Milton€Hausmann€and€Nina€Louise€Stanford€married€in€1967,Ïwhen€he€was€working€on€his€masters€degree€in€physiology,€and€she€was€aÏnursing€school€student.€€Mrs.€Hausmann€obtained€her€R.N.€degree€about€threeÏmonths€after€the€marriage.€€Her€husband€obtained€his€masters€degree,€and€beganÏmedical€school€in€1968.ÌÌà àà àDuring€Dr.€Hausmannððs€medical€training,€his€wife€worked€to€supportÏthe€family.€€She€continued€to€be€the€primary€wage€earner€until€the€partiesððÏyoungest€child€was€born€in€1972.€€Thereafter,€with€her€husbandððs€encouragement,ÏMrs.€Hausmann€stayed€home€to€raise€the€partiesðð€three€children,€while€he€actedÏas€the€familyððs€breadwinner.ÌÌà àà àIn€1976,€the€parties€settled€in€Columbia,€where€Mrs.€Hausman€hadÏgrown€up,€and€where€her€parents€still€lived.€€Dr.€Hausman€joined€a€ColumbiaÏinternal€medicine€practice€with€three€other€physicians.€€The€wifeððs€parents€gaveÏher€a€fifty€acre€tract€of€land€that€adjoined€their€own€property.€€The€parties€built€aÏsix„bedroom,€four„and„a„half€bath€house€on€the€land.€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Hausman€discovered€that€medical€practice€was€not€as€lucrativeÏas€he€had€hoped,€and€by€his€own€testimony,€he€often€found€it€difficult€to€pay€hisÏprofessional€and€personal€bills.€€Additionally,€the€long€hours€required€by€aÍgeneral€practice€prevented€him€from€participating€in€his€childrenððs€upbringing€toÏthe€degree€that€he€wished.ÌÌà àà àAt€some€point,€the€relationship€between€Dr.€Hausman€and€his€wifeÏbegan€to€deteriorate.€€Dr.€Hausman€dates€their€problems€to€the€partiesðð€thirteenthÏwedding€anniversary€in€1980.€€On€that€date,€Dr.€Hausman€was€out€with€his€son,Ïand€returned€home€one€hour€late€for€a€planned€celebration€in€Nashville.€€His€wifeÏwas€furious,€refused€to€go€out€with€him,€and€went€to€bed.ÌÌà àà àCommunication€continued€to€worsen€between€Dr.€Hausmann€andÏhis€wife,€and€in€1985,€during€a€time€that€he€characterizes€as€a€period€of€crisis,€heÏbecame€infatuated€with€the€wife€of€the€minister€at€the€partiesðð€church,€andÏrecorded€his€feelings€in€a€calendar€that€he€used€as€a€journal.€€Mrs.€HausmannÏread€the€calendar€and€became€jealous,€leading€to€many€arguments.ÌÌà àà àIn€one€incident,€the€Hausmanns€were€lying€in€bed,€discussing€theÏsituation,€and€Mrs.€Hausmann€became€so€angry€that€she€started€kicking€herÏhusband.€He€jumped€out€of€bed€and€grabbed€her€ankles,€pulling€her€onto€theÏfloor.€€He€immediately€apologized,€but€the€damage€was€already€done.€€Mrs.ÏHausmann€was€subsequently€diagnosed€with€a€compression€fracture€of€theÏthoracic€spine.€€In€1986,€Dr.€Hausman€suffered€a€nervous€breakdown,€requiringÏcounseling€and€medication.ÌÌà àà àBy€1988€or€1989,€Dr.€Hausmanððs€practice€in€Columbia€had€matured,Ïbut€it€was€still€not€producing€the€income€required€by€his€family,€and€he€wasÏworking€part„time€in€the€emergency€room€in€order€to€make€ends€meet.€€HeÏdecided,€with€his€wifeððs€concurrence,€that€he€should€make€a€change.€€In€1991,€heÏpurchased€a€medical€practice€for€$250,000€from€a€retiring€Nashville€physician.ÌÌà àà àIt€appeared€at€first€that€St.€Thomas€Hospital€was€willing€to€guaranteeÏthe€loan€Dr.€Hausmann€needed€to€complete€the€purchase,€making€collateralÏunnecessary.€But€St.€Thomas€ultimately€declined,€so€the€house€and€land€inÏColumbia€had€to€be€pledged€as€collateral€to€secure€the€loan.€€Dr.€HausmannÏfound€his€new€practice€to€be€less€stressful€than€the€old€one,€even€though€he€hadÏto€commute€from€his€home€in€Columbia€to€Nashville€four€days€a€week.€€€ÌÌà àà àHowever€the€change€in€practice€did€not€repair€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€parties.€€In€1992,€Mrs.€Hausmann€had€an€argument€with€her€son,Ïwho€was€a€medical€student€at€the€time.€€The€upshot€of€the€argument€was€that€theÏson€would€no€longer€be€receiving€financial€help€from€his€mother,€as€she€wanted€toÏpreserve€her€inheritance,€and€that€Dr.€Hausmann€would€henceforth€have€to€payÏall€the€sonððs€expenses.€€Dr.€Hausmann€established€an€account€in€Nashville€forÏthat€purpose.€€When€Mrs.€Hausmann€found€out€about€the€account,€she€called€herÍhusband€deceitful,€because€he€had€opened€the€account€in€his€own€name€withoutÏtelling€her€about€it.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Hausmann€testified€that€his€wife€was€subject€to€repeatedÏepisodes€of€irrational€behavior,€furious€outbursts€in€which€she€insulted€andÏbelittled€him.€€Mrs.€Hausmann€admitted€that€she€often€acted€unreasonably€out€ofÏanger,€and€that€it€took€her€a€long€time€to€get€over€her€feelings.€€But€she€testifiedÏthat€she€eventually€did€get€over€them,€and€she€faulted€her€husband€for€failing€toÏlet€go€of€his€resentment€over€her€behavior.ÌÌà à€à àDr.€Hausmann€left€the€marital€home€in€December€of€1992,€followingÏan€incident€in€which€his€wife€refused€to€go€out€on€a€planned€dinner€and€movieÏdate€with€him€when€he€returned€from€work€later€than€the€parties€anticipated.€€Dr.ÏHausman€moved€to€Nashville,€where€he€rented€a€small€apartment,€and€heÏvoluntarily€started€paying€his€wife€$4,325€per€month€to€cover€her€expenses.€€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Hausmann€had€a€first€cousin€in€Texas,€Ann€McEnroe,€whom€heÏhad€been€very€close€to€when€they€were€growing€up.€€At€some€point,€he€beganÏcommunicating€with€her€by€telephone,€and€found€her€to€have€a€sympathetic€ear.€ÏMrs.€McEnroeððs€husband€grew€suspicious€because€of€the€frequent€and€lengthyÏphone€calls,€and€because€Dr.€Hausmann€sent€her€gifts€of€flowers.€€Apparently,€Mr.ÏMcEnroe€tapped€the€phone€at€one€point,€but€at€trial€he€invoked€his€privilegeÍagainst€self„incrimination,€and€declined€to€testify€about€the€phone€tap.€€In€anyÏcase,€he€telephoned€Mrs.€Hausmann€to€tell€her€of€his€suspicions.ÌÌà àà àIn€May€of€1993,€Dr.€Hausmann€travelled€to€San€Antonio,€ostensiblyÏto€see€his€father€and€stepmother,€but€at€least€in€part€to€see€Mrs.€McEnroe.€€ThoughÏthe€parties€had€separated€by€then,€Mrs.€Hausmann€was€still€getting€calls€at€homeÏfrom€her€husbandððs€patients,€and€Dr.€Hausmann€felt€he€had€to€let€her€know€hisÏwhereabouts€so€she€could€respond€to€questions€from€them.€€He€therefore€told€herÏabout€his€upcoming€trip.€€Unbeknownst€to€him,€she€also€travelled€to€Texas,Ïaccompanied€by€two€private€investigators.ÌÌà àà àThey€followed€Dr.€Hausmann€and€Mrs.€McEnroe€from€Friday€night€toÏSunday€afternoon,€when€the€two€drove€from€San€Antonio€to€Kerrville€and€back.€ÏThey€observed€the€two€cousins€stopping€at€roadside€parks€to€pick€flowers€andÏembrace,€and€pulling€into€a€cul„de„sac€near€Dr.€Hausmannððs€fatherððs€house,€soÏthey€could€embrace€and€kiss.€€At€trial,€Dr.€Hausmann€admitted€embracing€andÏkissing€his€cousin,€but€denied€that€they€had€engaged€in€sexual€acts.ÌÌà àà àOn€July€12,€1993,€Dr.€Hausmann€filed€for€a€divorce€on€the€ground€ofÏirreconcilable€differences.€€On€August€27,€1993,€his€wife€answered,€and€counter„claimed€for€divorce,€on€the€ground€of€adultery.ÌÌà àà àAfter€considering€all€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€concluded:€ð ð[i]tÏappeared€to€the€court€that€the€Defendant€(sic),€Dr.€Jan€Milton€Hausman,€has€beenÏguilty€of€adultery,€and€the€Defendant,€Nina€Louise€Stanford€Hausmann,€is€entitledÏto€an€absolute€divorce€from€the€Plaintiff.ðð€€Dr.€Hausmann€subsequently€appealed.à àÌ€€€€Ìà@ àò òII.€€Absolute€Divorceó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€although€Dr.€Hausmann€may€have€beenÏguilty€of€bad€judgment€in€visiting€Mrs.€McEnroe€so€soon€after€the€partiesððÏseparation,€there€was€no€proof€that€he€had€committed€adultery.€€It€is€true€that€thereÏis€no€direct€evidence€of€adulterous€acts€in€the€record,€but€there€is€uncontrovertedÏproof€from€which€a€trier€of€fact€might€reasonably€infer€that€such€acts€had€beenÏcommitted.€€Adultery€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence,€and€needÏnot€be€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òò€Sutton€v.€Suttonóó,€3€Tenn.€App.€333Ï(1926);€òòTrout€v.€Troutóó,€250€S.W.2d€372,€35€Tenn.€App.€617€(1952);€òòGilliam€v.ÏGilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81€(1988).ÌÌà àà àWe€must€state€at€the€outset€that€we€do€not€find€any€significantÏevidence€in€the€record€to€indicate€an€adulterous€relationship€between€Dr.ÏHausmann€and€the€ministerððs€wife.€€The€only€evidence€conceivably€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€trial€courtððs€finding€involves€Dr.€Hausmannððs€cousin.ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€includes€Dr.€Hausmannððs€admission€that€he€spent€twoÏnights€in€the€same€house€with€Mrs.€McEnroe,€a€photograph€of€Dr.€Hausmann€andÏhis€cousin€with€their€arms€around€each€other,€and€his€admission€that€he€kissedÏher€on€the€lips.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€had€discussed€with€Mrs.€McEnroe€theÏpropriety€of€first€cousins€marrying.€€Balanced€against€that€evidence€is€Dr.ÏHausmannððs€denial€that€he€had€any€romantic€interest€or€feelings€for€AnnÏMcEnroe.€€ÌÌà àà àA€finding€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€a€civil€action€is€accompanied€onÏappeal€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€that€finding.€€An€appeals€court€mayÏnot€set€such€a€finding€aside€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€13(d).€€The€trial€court€is€entitled€to€this€presumption,€because€as€the€trierÏof€fact,€the€trial€judge€observes€the€witnesses€on€the€stand,€and€is€thus€in€a€betterÏposition€than€is€the€appeals€court€to€assess€their€credibility.€òò€Harwell€v.€Harwellóó,Ï612€S.W.2d€182€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€ÌÌà àà àAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€this€record,€we€do€not€believe€that€itÏconclusively€proves€that€the€appellant€has€been€guilty€of€adultery.€€But€neither€canÏwe€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.ÌÌà àà àAdultery€has,€of€course,€long€been€recognized€as€a€ground€forÏdivorce.€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„101.€€The€fact€that€the€alleged€adultery€mayÍhave€occurred€after€the€parties€separated€does€not€prevent€the€trial€court€fromÏgranting€one€party€a€divorce€on€the€basis€of€the€other€partyððs€adultery.òò€€Clark€v.ÏClarkóó,€644€S.W.2d€681€(Tenn.€App.€1981);€òòPerry€v.€Perry,óó€765€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1988).€€We€do€not€find€any€error€in€the€courtððs€decision€to€grant€the€wife€anÏabsolute€divorce€on€the€basis€of€the€husbandððs€adultery.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€The€Marital€Homeó óÌÌà àà àThe€issues€of€the€disposition€of€the€marital€home€and€the€award€ofÏalimony€are€closely€intertwined€in€this€case.€€To€the€degree€that€the€alimonyÏaward€was€based€upon€the€appelleeððs€need,€a€prime€consideration€inÏestablishing€that€need€appears€to€have€been€the€cost€of€her€continued€occupationÏof€the€6,000€square€foot€home€that€the€parties€shared€during€their€marriage.€ÏNonetheless,€for€the€sake€of€clarity,€we€will€discuss€the€two€issues€separately.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAs€mentioned€earlier,€the€partiesðð€marital€home€was€built€on€a€fiftyÏacre€tract€that€was€given€to€Mrs.€Hausmann€by€her€parents.€€An€inheritance€fromÏMrs.€Hausmanððs€aunt€enabled€her€to€build€a€porch€and€entranceway€onto€theÏhome.€Another€inheritance€from€an€uncle,€and€further€financial€gifts€from€herÏparents€underwrote€additional€improvements€to€the€home€and€its€furnishings.€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€appellee€the€use€and€occupancy€of€theÏmarital€home,€but€ordered€that€if€she€remarried,€the€house€would€be€sold,€and€theÏappellant€would€be€entitled€to€half€the€proceeds,€minus€the€appraised€value€of€theÏfifty€acres€at€the€time€of€sale,€and€also€minus€the€$50,000€of€inherited€money€thatÏMrs.€Hausmann€had€put€into€the€residence.€€If€the€appellee€chose€to€sell€the€homeÏat€any€time,€Dr.€Hausmann€would€likewise€be€entitled€to€the€same€portion€of€theÏequity€as€he€would€upon€her€remarriage.ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€that€several€purposes€are€served€by€a€judicial€division€ofÏmarital€property€incident€to€divorce.€€One€obvious€purpose€is€to€give€each€party€anÏequitable€portion€of€the€property€that€was€accumulated€by€the€efforts€andÏcontributions€of€both€parties.€€Another€is€to€provide€each€of€the€parties€withÏsufficient€property€to€meet€that€partyððs€future€needs.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121.€ÌÌà àà àYet€another€purpose€is€to€allow€the€parties€to€disentangle€theirÏfinancial€affairs,€so€that€each€may€get€on€with€his€or€her€own€life€withoutÏunnecessary€involvement€of€the€other.€€This€purpose€is€more€easily€achieved€inÏcases€like€the€present€one,€where€the€necessary€involvement€between€the€partiesÏis€reduced€because€no€minor€children€are€involved.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€the€equity€in€theÏhome€serves€any€of€the€above€purposes.€€While€both€parties€contributedÏsubstantially€to€the€construction€and€maintenance€of€the€home,€and€the€husbandÏtherefore€has€a€theoretical€right€to€a€share€in€the€equity,€the€economic€benefit€toÏhim€of€the€conditional€right€to€receive€that€equity€is€minimal,€and€the€requirementÏthat€the€wife€sell€the€home€if€she€remarries€is€an€unnecessary€intrusion€on€herÏfreedom.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€correctly€recognized€that€it€is€appropriate€to€allow€theÏwife€to€continue€to€live€in€the€home,€if€she€is€able€to€do€so.€€She€wishes€toÏmaintain€her€emotional€ties€to€the€house€and€to€the€Columbia€community,€whileÏthe€husband€now€lives€and€works€in€Nashville.€€We€also€find€no€fault€with€theÏcourtððs€reasoning€that€she€would€be€entitled€to€the€larger€share€of€the€equity€in€theÏhome€if€it€were€sold,€because€of€the€contributions€of€her€relatives.Ì€€€€€Ìà àà àThe€husband€has€been€granted€the€undivided€right€to€his€medicalÏpractice,€which€in€his€hands€is€a€productive€asset.€€The€house€cannot€beÏconsidered€a€productive€asset,€but€it€is€by€far€the€most€valuable€property€theÏparties€accumulated€during€their€marriage.€€(The€trial€court€found€the€home€andÏfifty€acres€to€be€worth€$350,000,€and€the€medical€practice€to€be€worth€$50,000).€€ItÏis€clear€that€by€granting€the€wife€undivided€title€to€the€marital€home,€she€is€gettingÏa€far€larger€share€of€the€marital€assets€than€is€the€husband.€€But€we€believe€thatÍsuch€a€division€is€equitable,€in€accordance€with€the€factors€set€out€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„4„121(c)€for€the€division€of€marital€property,€especially€factor€(4)€ð ðtheÏrelative€ability€of€each€party€for€future€acquisition€of€capital€assets€and€income.ððÌÌà àà àOne€problem€involved€in€divesting€the€husband€of€his€interest€is€thatÏthe€remaining€$185,000€balance€on€the€loan€the€husband€used€to€purchase€theÏNashville€practice€is€collateralized€by€the€equity€in€the€house€and€land.€€Until€thatÏloan€is€paid€by€the€husband€it€will€remain€a€restraint€on€the€wifeððs€ability€to€sell€theÏproperty.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€deal€with€that€problem€and€the€parties€have€notÏraised€it€on€appeal,€so€we€will€not€attempt€to€resolve€it€here€except€to€point€out€thatÏthe€obligation€belongs€exclusively€to€the€husband€and€the€wife€is€entitled€toÏindemnification€for€any€losses€that€result€from€the€husbandððs€loan.€Ìà àÌà àà àOn€balance,€this€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€granting€the€wife€theÏmarital€home€is€the€course€best€calculated€to€give€each€of€the€parties€the€freedomÏto€live€their€lives€without€unwelcome€involvement€of€the€other.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€Alimonyó óÌÌà àà àIn€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€the€legislature€sets€out€anÏexhaustive€list€of€factors€for€the€court€to€consider€in€determining€the€appropriateÏlevel€of€support€and€maintenance€for€an€obligor€spouse€to€pay.€€There€is€no€needÍto€copy€the€entire€list€verbatim€in€this€opinion,€but€we€note€that€some€of€the€factorsÏthat€support€the€right€of€Mrs.€Hausman€to€receive€substantial€alimony€from€herÏformer€husband€are€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€age€and€physical€conditionÏof€the€parties,€the€relative€earning€capacity€of€the€parties,€and€the€standard€ofÏliving€established€by€the€parties€during€their€marriage.ÌÌà àà àMrs.€Hausmann€was€fifty€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Though€sheÏhas€an€R.N.€degree,€she€no€longer€has€an€active€nursing€license.€€To€obtain€suchÏa€license€at€this€point€would€require€several€years€of€additional€study.€€Further,Ïshe€suffers€from€rheumatoid€arthritis,€and€a€compression€fracture€of€the€spine,€andÏwould€not€be€able€to€perform€many€of€the€functions€traditionally€associated€withÏthe€nursing€profession,€without€suffering€severe€pain.€€Since€the€separation€fromÏher€husband,€she€has€been€working€two€days€a€week€at€a€church€daycare€center,Ïand€earning€$300€per€month.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€because€of€her€prior€training€as€a€nurse,ÏMrs.€Hausmann€would€be€an€appropriate€candidate€for€rehabilitative€alimonyÏrather€than€permanent€alimony.€€Though€we€do€not€find€it€inconceivable€that€sheÏmight€obtain€gainful€employment€in€some€field€that€would€enable€her€to€bypassÏher€physical€limitations,€we€believe€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€she€should€receive€alimony€in€futuro,€until€her€death€orÏremarriage.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€believe,€however,€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏan€award€of€$5,000€per€month.€€In€setting€the€amount€of€alimony,€the€mostÏimportant€factors€are€the€obligeeððs€need€and€the€obligorððs€ability€to€pay.€€See€òòLoydÏv.€Loyd,€óó860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòLancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671ÏS.W.2d€501,€503€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Another€important€factor€in€some€cases€isÏthe€relative€fault€of€the€parties.€€We€will€examine€each€of€these€factors€in€turn.ÌÌà@ àò òa.€€Needó óÌÌà àà àThe€wife€filed€a€Sworn€Statement€of€Income€and€Expenses,Ïindicating€total€monthly€expenses€of€about€$4,000.€€Of€that€amount,€expenses€onÏthe€house€amounted€to€almost€$2,000.€€Mortgage€payments€on€the€$355,000Ïhouse€were€only€$607€per€month,€but€insurance€and€taxes€were€listed€as€costingÏ$303€per€month,€utilities,€$608€per€month,€and€maintenance,€$400€per€month.€ÏOther€items€in€the€category€of€general€expenses€were€car€payment,€gas,€oil,Ïrepairs€and€insurance,€$470€per€month,€and€ð ðother,ðð€$204€per€month.ÌÌà àà àThe€larger€items€in€the€$1,290€category€of€personal€expensesÏincluded€food€at€$300€per€month,€clothing€at€$200€per€month€and€ð ðMiscellaneousÏ(Contributions€&€Gifts)ðð€at€$400€per€month.€€The€wife€indicated€that€she€neededÍ$5,000€per€month€in€order€to€net€the€$4,000€after€taxes€that€she€required€to€meetÏher€monthly€expenses.€€à àÌà àà àAs€mentioned€above,€the€need€of€the€obligee€is€a€prime€factor€toÏconsider€in€setting€alimony,€and€the€court€is€directed€by€statute€to€consider€theÏstandard€of€living€the€parties€enjoyed€during€their€marriage.€€Unfortunately,€it€mayÏnot€be€possible€to€maintain€the€marital€living€standard€if€the€same€income€thatÏpreviously€only€supported€one€household€is€now€called€upon€to€support€two.ÌÌà@ àò òb.€€Ability€to€Payó óÌÌà àà àWhen€he€was€still€practicing€in€Columbia,€Dr.€Hausmann€created€aÏProfessional€Corporation€for€liability€and€tax€purposes.€€The€proof€shows€that€onÏApril€1,€1994,€Dr.€Hausmann€(or€his€P.C.)€entered€into€a€management€servicesÏagreement€with€St.€Thomas€Hospital.€€By€the€terms€of€that€agreement,€St.€ThomasÏpays€the€overhead€expenses€of€Dr.€Hausmannððs€practice€in€exchange€for€50%€ofÏhis€gross€receipts.€€We€note€that€there€is€testimony€in€the€record€that€it€is€not€at€allÏunusual€for€overhead€to€consume€50%€or€more€of€the€revenue€produced€by€aÏgeneral€medical€practice.ÌÌà àà àUnfortunately,€a€copy€of€the€contract€has€not€been€made€a€part€of€theÏrecord,€which€makes€it€difficult€for€us€to€evaluate€other€testimony€to€the€effect€thatÏthere€are€some€overhead€items€that€are€not€covered€by€the€contract,€and€that€theÍappellant€must€reimburse€St.€Thomas€for€overhead€expenses€it€pays€in€excess€ofÏ50%€of€gross€receipts.€€Two€things€that€are€clear€from€the€record€are€that€Dr.ÏHausmannððs€salary€is€paid€from€that€half€of€his€receipts€that€are€left€over€after€St.ÏThomas€has€been€paid,€and€that€the€$1,917€monthly€payment€on€the€debt€from€hisÏpurchase€of€Dr.€Foremanððs€practice€is€not€covered€by€the€contract.ÌÌà àà àIn€1992€(the€first€full€year€in€which€Dr.€Hausmann€engaged€in€hisÏnew€Nashville€practice)€he€had€gross€receipts€of€$308,000.€€In€1993€the€grossÏamounted€to€$325,000.€€In€1994€his€gross€receipts€amounted€to€$251,000.€€TheÏdecline€in€receipts€was€attributed€in€part€to€changing€rules€of€MedicareÏreimbursement€and€in€part€to€stress€over€the€divorce.€€We€find€it€reasonable€toÏassume,€therefore,€that€in€the€last€year€for€which€we€have€records,€the€appellantððsÏpersonal€income€amounted€to€no€more€than€$125,500,€before€income€taxes€andÏcorporate€taxes,€and€perhaps€somewhat€less.€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Hausmannððs€own€income€and€expense€statement€only€lists€theÏincome€he€receives€from€his€$6,500€monthly€salary,€and€not€the€profits€from€hisÏpersonal€corporation.€€We€therefore€do€not€find€credible€his€assertion€that€hisÏobligations€to€his€wife€and€to€the€bank€consume€virtually€his€entire€income,€forcingÏhim€to€live€solely€on€the€good€graces€of€his€creditors.ÌÌà àà àThe€expense€side€of€his€statement€indicates€total€monthly€expensesÏof€$3,334.€€Of€that€amount,€over€$1,500€is€allocated€to€insurance€expensesÏ(including€insurance€for€the€wife).€€There€was€testimony€that€some€of€theÏinsurance€obligations€were€paid€out€of€the€professional€corporationððs€account,Ïand€an€implication€that€some€may€have€actually€been€included€in€the€overheadÏpaid€by€St.€Thomas.ÌÌà àà àDespite€the€deficiencies€and€ambiguities€in€his€income€and€expenseÏstatement,€it€is€clear€that€Dr.€Hausman€is€maintaining€a€far€more€modest€life€styleÏthan€is€his€former€wife,€particularly€in€view€of€the€fact€that€he€resides€in€a€rentedÏtwo€room€apartment€and€drives€a€ten€year€old€station€wagon.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€that€we€can€fairly€infer€from€the€record€that€on€his€currentÏincome,€Dr.€Hausmann€would€be€unable€to€pay€$5,000€per€month€in€alimony€(orÏ$60,000€a€year),€remain€current€on€his€monthly€debt€payments€of€$1,917€(orÏ$22,004€a€year),€and€maintain€a€reasonable€standard€of€living€for€himself€inÏNashville.€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellee€argues€that€Dr.€Hausmann€could€earn€more€money€ifÏhe€started€working€part„time€in€the€emergency€room€again,€as€he€did€previously,Ïand€the€trial€court€found€that€Dr.€Hausmann€ð ð.€.€.€has€an€unlimited€earningÏcapacity,€having€practiced€medicine€for€in€excess€if€twenty€(20)€years.ðð€€However,Íwe€do€not€believe€that€Dr.€Hausmanððs€income€is€as€elastic€as€the€trial€courtÏindicates.ÌÌà àà àTo€the€contrary,€we€believe€that€Dr.€Hausmannððs€experience€hasÏamply€demonstrated€that€while€physicians€are€well€compensated,€there€are€limitsÏto€what€they€can€earn,€and€in€particular,€limits€on€what€he€himself€is€capable€ofÏearning.€€Dr.€Hausman€has€testified€that€over€half€his€current€patients€are€onÏMedicare,€so€his€income€may€be€further€constrained€by€future€changes€inÏMedicare€compensation€rates.€ÌÌà@ àò òc.€€Faultó óÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€refers€to€the€wife€in€its€final€order€as€ð ðthe€innocentÏspouse.ðð€€Elsewhere€in€the€order€he€says€ð ðthe€proof€is€clear€the€Plaintiff€destroyedÏthis€marriageðð€and€in€another€place€ð ð[t]his€divorce€was€caused€by€the€misconductÏof€the€Plaintiff.ðð€€It€is€thus€reasonable€for€us€to€infer€that€the€question€of€faultÏweighed€heavily€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€the€appellee€alimony€ofÏ$5,000€per€month.ÌÌà àà àWhile€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€permits€the€trial€court€toÏconsider€the€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€setting€an€alimony€award,€spousalÏsupport€awards€are€not€intended€to€be€punitive,€nor€is€fault€permitted€to€overrideÍthe€other€factors€the€court€is€directed€to€consider€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€36„5„101(d).€€òò€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€163€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€ÌÌà àà àIn€any€case,€after€thoroughly€reading€the€transcript€of€evidence,Ïincluding€the€direct€and€cross„examination€of€the€parties,€we€believe€that€bothÏparties€must€bear€some€responsibility€for€the€break„up€of€this€marriage.€€ThoughÏthe€trial€court€granted€the€wife€the€divorce,€the€alleged€adultery€of€the€husbandÏoccurred€after€the€relationship€of€the€parties€was€already€beyond€repair,€due€toÏthe€failure€of€each€party€to€extend€to€the€other€that€degree€of€affection€and€supportÏnecessary€to€maintain€the€bonds€of€matrimony.ÌÌà àà àWe€are€therefore€of€the€opinion€that€the€husbandððs€alimonyÏobligation€should€be€reduced€to€$2,500€per€month.€€The€duration€of€the€obligationÏis€to€remain€until€the€wifeððs€death€or€remarriage.€€Of€course,€if€there€is€a€significantÏand€material€change€of€circumstances,€such€as€a€substantial€change€in€theÏincome€of€either€party,€the€support€obligation€may€be€amended€upon€the€filing€of€aÏpetition€for€modification€of€alimony.€ÌÌà@ àò òV.€€Attorney€FeesÌó óÌà àà àThe€trial€court€ordered€Dr.€Hausmann€to€pay€$9,645€of€the€attorneyÏfees€incurred€by€Mrs.€Hausmann.€€An€award€of€attorney€fees€in€a€divorce€case€isÍconsidered€to€be€a€form€of€alimony€in€solido.€òò€Raskind€v.€Raskindóó€45€Tenn.€App.Ï583,€325€S.W.2d€617€(1959);€òòStorey€v.€Storeyóó,€835€S.W.2d€593€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992).€€The€trial€court€is€vested€with€wide€discretion€in€awarding€attorney€fees,Ïand€will€not€be€reversed,€absence€abuse€of€that€discretion.€òò€Elliot€v.Elliotóó,€825ÏS.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€We€do€not€find€any€such€abuse€of€discretion€in€thisÏcase.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€modified€in€part.ÏRemand€this€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Maury€County€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€equally€to€bothÏparties.€ÌÌ€€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ Ü ÑÑ  Ñà@ à