ÿWPCè /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w414eyˆ 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dmU >ÑB) AQ8 Ɖ 0DO 0@“ 0DÓ DC D/Z B‰ B¦ D3à AMö U*C *m v~— vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-DEEFDGUHIJÓ€Tê‚_#x93|xT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌNovember€7,€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€æXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌVERA€MAUREEN€HIGGS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€County€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€94639ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.̜ـ!ÙßR€*,%A1-j|kä` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9702„CV„00057ÌGALE€LYNN€HIGGS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SHELBYVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€DONALD€P.€HARRIS,€JUDGEÌó óÌÌÌÌRebecca€E.€Byrd,€#15394Ì306€Court€SquareÌFranklin,€TN€37064€ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌEdmund€Covington€Johnston,€Jr.ÌAttorney€at€LawÌ136€Fourth€Avenue€SouthÌP.O.€Box€1608ÌFranklin,€TN€37065„1608ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔMODIFIED€AND€REMANDED.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌœCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌBY€DESIGNATION̛̜WILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR›€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌò òVERA›€MAUREEN€HIGGS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€County€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€94639ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9702„CV„00057ÌGALE€LYNN€HIGGS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)Ìó óÌò òòòÔ€„Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóó óÔ€XÔÌà@ àòòò òÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔóóó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àEach€of€the€captioned€parties€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€from€a€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÏawarding€to€the€plaintiff„wife€a€divorce€on€grounds€of€adultery€and€inappropriate€maritalÏconduct.€€Ìà àAlthough€both€parties€œappealed,›€they€agreed€that€the€husband€would€present€the€case€toÏthis€Court€as€appellant,€and€the€wife€would€do€so€as€appellee.€€The€husband€presents€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓœ1.›à àDid€the€Trial€Judge€err€in€awarding€the€wife€periodicÏœà àalimony›€in€the€amount€of€seven€hundred€fiftyÏ(750.00)€œà àdollars›€per€month?ÌÌ2.à àDid€the€Trial€Judge€err€in€awarding€the€wife€fiveÏœà àthousand›€($5,000.00)€dollars€in€attorneyððs€fees€andÏœà àtwo›€thousand€five€hundred€($2,500.00)€dollars€inÏsuit€œà àexpense›€in€the€form€of€additional€alimony?ÌÌ3.à àDid€the€Trial€Judge€err€in€awarding€the€wife€aÏsecurity€œà àinterest›€in€the€husbandððs€real€property€inÏMissouri?ÌÌ4.à àDid€the€Trial€Judge€err€in€ordering€the€husband€toÏpay€œà àthe›€wifeððs€visa€indebtedness?ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àThe€wife€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓœI.›à àWhether€the€Circuit€œJudge€erred›€in€valuing€theÏbusiness€Nashville€Landscape€Systems,€Inc.ÌÌà àA.à àWhether€accounts€receivable€should€beÏà àà àdeducted€from€the€value€of€the€business€whenÏà àà àthe€business€is€the€income€stream€for€theÏà àà àobligor€œspouse.Ì›ÌÌà àB.à àWhether€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏà àà àsupports€a€business€value€for€NashvilleÏà àà àLandscape€Systems,€Inc.€in€excess€of€sevenÏà àà àthousand€five€hundred€($7,500.00)€dollars.ÌÌII.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€valuing€the€120Ïà àacre€tract€of€property€in€Exeter,€Missouri.ÌÌIII.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€valuing€the€maritalÏà àestate€property.ÌÌIV.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€the€division€ofÏà àmarital€property.ÌÌV.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€the€award€ofÏà àalimony€and€discretionary€costs.ÌÌà àA.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€the€awardÏà àà àof€periodic€alimony€where€the€wife€is€theÏà àà àinnocent€spouse€and€economicallyÏà àà àà àdisadvantaged.ÌÌà àB.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€the€awardÏà àà àof€alimony€in€solido€in€the€amount€ofÏ$5,000.00€à àà àin€attorney€fees€to€wife€and€suitÏexpenses€of€à àà à$2,500.00€where€wife€hadÏinsufficient€assets€to€à àà àpay€her€attorney€fees€andÏdiscretionary€costs€à àà àand€wife€was€the€innocentÏspouse.ÌÌà àC.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€assigningÏà àà àthe€cost€of€the€business€appraisal€to€wife.ÌÌ€à àD.à àWhether€the€Circuit€Judge€erred€in€awardingÏà àà àwife€a€security€interest€in€the€120€acre€tract€ofÏà àà àland€in€Missouri.ÌÌVI.à àWhether€wife€is€entitled€to€her€attorney€fees€and€costsÏà àof€appeal.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓà àÌà àMany€of€the€controversies€between€the€parties€are€not€included€in€the€issues€on€appeal.€ÏOnly€the€evidence,€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€Trial€Court€which€relate€to€the€stated€issuesÏwill€be€discussed€in€this€opinion.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€reflects€that€this€is€a€marriage€of€20€years€duration€which€produced€twoÏchildren,€aged€10€and€12,€and€a€marital€estate€consisting€of€a€residence€and€its€contents,€aÏlandscape€business€in€which€the€parties€worked€together€until€their€separation,€and€two€tracts€ofÏland€in€Missouri.ÌÌà àThe€marital€residence€was€found€to€be€worth€$140,000€mortgaged€for€$92,887.39,€netÏ$47,112.61.€€A€37.5€acre€tract€was€found€to€be€worth€$35,000.00€and€a€one„half€interest€inÏ120€acres€was€found€to€worth€$65,000€less€a€$20,000.00€separate€interest€of€wife,€netÏ$45,000.00.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€awarded€the€wife€the€marital€residence€and€$18,846.14€cash€to€equalizeÏthe€award€to€the€husband€of€the€marital€business€and€the€real€estate€in€Missouri.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€ordered€payment€to€the€wife€of€alimony€of€$750.00€per€month€until€herÏdeath€or€remarriage€or€until€the€husband€reaches€the€age€of€65,€$5,000.00€attorney€fee€andÏ$2,500.00€of€wifeððs€ð ðsuit€œexpenseðð.›€€The€husbandððs€first€and€second€issues€complain€of€theseÏawards.ÌÌà àThe€stated€conditions€for€continuation€of€alimony€render€uncertain€the€duration€of€theÏalimony,€hence€it€cannot€be€said€to€be€fixed€in€aggregate€amount.ÌÌà àSince€the€specified€conditions€render€the€duration€of€the€ð ðalimony€in€futuroðð€(subject€toÏchange),€T.C.A.€ðð36„820€„€now,€36„5„101(a),€òòNaron€v.€Naronóó,€218€Tenn.€App.€125,€401ÏS.W.2d€766€(1966),€œit€is›€not€ð ðalimony€in€ð ðsolidoðð€(final€and€unchangeable).€€T.C.A.€€ðð€36„828,€now€€ðð€36„5„101(a);€òòSpalding€v.€Spaldingóó,€Tenn.€App.€1980,€597€S.W.2d€739;€òòIsbell€v.ÏIsbellóó,€Tenn.€App.€1991,€816€S.W.2d€735;€òòMcKee€v.€McKeeóó,€Tenn.€App.€1983,€655€S.W.2dÏ164.ÌÌà àThe€contention€of€the€wife€that€the€alimony€was€not€subject€to€the€continuing€control€ofÏthe€Court€is€rejected.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€„Ôà à#2ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€contentions€of€the€defendant€husband€regarding€the€amount€andÏduration€of€the€alimony€are€not€supported€by€the€evidence€and€the€law.€€The€Legislature€hasÏcreated€a€factor€of€rehabilitation€in€the€award€of€alimony.€€However,€this€does€not€prevent€theÏexercise€of€the€broad€discretionary€powers€of€the€Trial€Judge€in€respect€to€alimony€and€legalÏexpenses,€including€fees.€€òòSelf€v.€Selfóó,€Tenn.€App.€1993,€861€S.W.2d€360;€òòKincaid€v.ÍKincaid,óó€Tenn.€App.€1995,€912€S.W.2d€œ140.€€The›€œmarital€estate€cash›€ð ðequalizerðð€of€Ïœ$18,846.14›€is€not€necessarily€required€to€be€used€for€such€expenses.€€In€appropriate€cases,Ïwhere€the€income€from€marital€distribution€is€adequate€to€satisfy€such€expenses,€they€mightÏproperly€be€disallowed.€€However,€the€amount€of€the€cash€distribution€in€the€present€case€doesÏnot€justify€the€disallowance€of€such€expenses.ÌœÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€age€of€the€wife,€(42),€and€her€considerable€work€experience€inÏkeeping€the€books€of€€business€activities€of€the€parties,€this€Court€has€determined€that€theÏ$750.00€per€month€periodic€alimony€be€considered€rehabilative€and€limited€to€three€years€inÏduration€unless€extended€by€the€trial€court€for€good€cause.Ì›Ìà àThe€husband€next€complains€of€the€imposition€of€a€lien€upon€the€120€acres€of€hisÏproperty€in€Missouri€to€secure€the€payment€of€alimony.€€No€issue€is€raised€as€to€the€power€of€aÏTennessee€Court€to€encumber€real€estate€in€Missouri€or€the€proceedings€necessary€to€exerciseÏsuch€power.€€No€fact€or€law€is€presented€to€otherwise€render€the€encumbrance€œinvalid€orÏerroneous.›ÌÌà àAlthough€not€expressed€in€the€husbandððs€issues;€he€argues,€without€citation€of€evidenceÏor€law,€that€the€Trial€Court€should€have€awarded€a€part€of€the€Missouri€property€to€him€œas€his›Ïseparate€estate.€€Without€support€in€fact€or€law,€the€argument€cannot€be€sustained.€€The€wifeÏresponds,€with€supporting€citations,€that€the€part€interest€of€the€husband€in€the€Missouri€landÏwas€transmuted€into€marital€property€by€placing€title€in€the€joint€names€of€the€parties€to€thisÏsuit.€€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€Tenn.€App.€1988,€769€S.W.2d€849.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€husband€complains€that€he€was€required€to€pay€the€credit€card€indebtednessÏof€the€wife.€€The€wifeððs€brief€offers€a€tabulation€of€the€division€of€responsibility€for€debts,€butÏneither€party€cites€evidence€of€the€amount€or€origin€of€the€credit€card€debt.€€This€court€finds€noÏbasis€for€revising€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€in€this€respect.ÌÌà àœThe›€wife€complains€of€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Judge€that€the€landscape€business€wasÏworth€only€$7,500.00.€€The€Trial€Court€appointed€a€Mr.€Parsons€to€appraise€the€business.€ÏBased€upon€information€received€from€the€husband,€he€valued€the€business€at€betweenÏ$28,000.00€and€$30,000.00.€€The€wife€testified€that€ð ðthe€value€of€the€business€inventory€wasÏapproximately€œ$91,000.00.ð𛀀The€evidence€in€respect€to€the€value€of€the€business€is€soÏconvoluted€and€uncertain€that€it€is€virtually€impossible€to€arrive€at€a€satisfactory€estimate€of€itsÏtrue€value.€€The€evidence€does€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€a€$7,500.00€value€and€inÏfavor€of€a€value€of€$53,000.00.€€This€valuation€requires€an€increase€in€the€marital€estate€ofÏ$45,500.00€and€an€increase€in€the€ð ðcash€equalizerðð€from€œ$18,846.14›€to€$41,596.14.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€œis›€modified€accordingly.€€ÌÌà àœThe›€wife€insists€with€inadequate€citation€of€evidence,€that€she,€the€innocent€spouse,€hasÏbeen€deprived€of€her€former€scale€of€living€by€the€misconduct€of€the€defendant.€€She€claims€thatÏ$3,700.00€per€month€is€required€to€maintain€herself€and€children€in€their€former€scale€of€living.€ÏThe€œ$1,384.00›€child€support,€and€the€$750.00€alimony€amount€to$2,134.00€per€œmonth.€€SheÏadmits€other€income€of€$1,140.47,€making€a€total€of€$3,274.00,€which€is€$525.53›€less€thanÏwhat€she€insists€that€she€needs.€œ€Her€statements€of€expenses€includes€the€following:›ÌœÌ›à àMortgage€payment€...........à à$899.96Ìà àTaxes,€insurance,€repairs€..à à€€285.41Ìà àSchool€tuitionà à..................à à€€576.00Ìà àTransportation€.................à à€€594.61Ìà àChild€counseling€..............à à€€175.00ÌœÌà àThe›€above€list€contains€several€items€which€are€not€permanent€in€nature,€but€may€wellÏbe€present€œnecessities.›ÌÌà àThe€husband€argues€that€he€does€not€have€enough€income€to€pay€this€much€alimony,Ïbut€the€evidence€does€not€support€his€plea.€€He€relies€upon€his€assertion€that€he€draws€onlyÏ$1,300.00€per€month€salary,€ignoring€the€fact€that€retained€earnings€of€his€corporation€wereÏavailable€to€him.€€In€setting€child€support€under€the€guidelines,€the€Trial€Court€found€hisÏincome€to€be€œ$70,000.00›€per€year€($5,883.33€per€month).€€Out€of€this€income€he€should€beÏable€to€pay€œ$750.00›€alimony€and€œ$1,384.00€child€support,€a€total€of€$2,134.00›€per€month.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€„Ô#3ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àThe€wife€complains€of€the€action€of€the€Trial€Judge€in€requiring€her€to€pay€the€fee€of€theÏappraiser€appointed€by€the€Trial€Court€to€evaluate€the€business€of€the€husband.€€Neither€theÏmemoranda€and€orders€of€the€Trial€Court€or€the€briefs€of€the€parties€states€the€amount€of€feeÏclaims€by€the€appraiser.€€Upon€remand,€the€Trial€Court€should€determine€the€amount€to€beÏpaid,€but€it€should€be€paid€by€the€husband,€rather€than€the€wife.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€wife€seeks€discretionary€costs€and€legal€expenses€of€this€appeal.€€œChild›Ïœsupport€was€not›€an€issue€in€this€œappeal.›€Under€œthis›€circumstance,€this€Court€is€not€impelled€toÏpenalize€either€party.€€Each€party€should€bear€his€or€her€part€of€the€expense€of€this€appeal.ÌÌà àIn€summary,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€modified€œto€designate€the›€alimony€œof›Ï$750.00€per€month€œas€rehabilitative€and€to€limit€its€duration€to€three€years,€subject€to€extensionÏfor€good€cause,›€to€increase€the€cash€payment€due€the€wife€as€part€of€the€marital€estate€fromÏ$22,750.00€to€$41,596.14;€and€to€require€the€husband€to€pay€the€fee€of€the€€court€appointedÏappraiser.ÌÌà àIn€all€other€respects,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appealÏare€€taxed€equally€to€the€parties,€that€is,€each€party€will€pay€one„half€of€said€costs.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€in€conformity€with€this€opinion.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓMODIFIED€AND€REMANDED.ó óÌÓ  Óà àà àÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌœCONCUR:ÌÌ̛̜_________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌBY€DESIGNATION›ÌœÌ›Ìœ__________________________________›ÌœWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR›€JUDGEÌÌÌ