ÿWPC 7# UN %k 0Nq 0Í¿bŒw@”4Ôè†÷ 0D}Á BÉNæè mê 0J 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hý 0re 0|× 0†S 0Ù 1ui 0dÞ AQB Æ“ 0DY 0@ 0DÝ D/! BP D3mU > B)ÞDC AMJU*—JÁº v~ÅvÓC˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2<~$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X¾ÛX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- èDéêëEìíîHeï ðÓ€úê‚_#-3|xúholt v. holt Í & ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóüÿP Pd ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó '÷ÿ dxd d(((('ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd!#0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌDecember€5,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€value€of€the€partiesðð€ten€percent€interest€was€$28,500,€while€their€share€of€theÏmortgage€debt€was€$18,500.€€The€value€of€their€interest€less€their€share€of€the€mortgage€debt€isÏ$10,000.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&ž¼¼dXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àÔ€.„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€!ÙœßR€130A1-j|›üZ` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÔ€.¼ÔÌÌÌó óJONI€SMART€HOLT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSumner€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93D„485ÌVS.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„9609„CH„00423ÌJACK€SANDERS€HOLT,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€SUMNER€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€Ô_ÔGALLATINÔ_Ô,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€TOM€E.€GRAY,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:ÌÌRose€Palermoà àà àà àà àà àà àMary€Ô_ÔArlineÔ_Ô€EvansÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€.„Ôò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIED€IN€PART;Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€.¼ÔÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇÑ ° ÑÑ „ ÑÓ€ÓÔ€.„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€.¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€the€dissolution€of€a€nineteen„year€marriage.€€The€wifeÏfiled€suit€for€divorce€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sumner€County€but€thenÏsuspended€the€proceedings€while€the€parties€attempted€to€reconcile.€€The€effortsÏproved€fruitless,€and,€following€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€granted€the€wife€aÏdivorce€on€the€grounds€of€adultery.€€The€trial€court€also€awarded€the€wifeÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€two€children,€divided€the€marital€estate,€and€awarded€theÏwife€spousal€support€as€well€as€additional€funds€for€her€legal€expenses.€€TheÏhusband€takes€issue€on€this€appeal€with€the€financial€aspects€of€the€divorce€decree,Ïincluding€the€division€of€the€marital€property,€the€long„term€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€supportÏaward,€and€the€additional€award€to€defray€the€wifeððs€legal€expenses€at€trial.€ÏWhile€the€trial€court€properly€divided€the€marital€property€and€awarded€the€wifeÏfunds€for€her€legal€expenses€at€trial,€we€modify€the€spousal€support€award€toÏprovide€for€rehabilitative€alimony€and€for€reduced€long„term€spousal€support.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àJack€Sanders€Holt€and€Joni€Smart€Holt€were€married€in€Nashville€in€JuneÏ1976.€€Ms.€Holt€was€twenty„two€years€old€at€the€time;€while€Mr.€Holt€was€twenty„one.€€Their€first€child€was€born€in€January€1981.€€In€August€1989€their€secondÏchild€was€born€with€serious€health€problems.€€The€boy€underwent€two€heartÏsurgeries€before€his€second€birthday€and€has€also€had€several€less€severe€surgeriesÏon€his€ears.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Holt€was€employed€as€the€sales€manager€for€Sanders€ManufacturingÏCompany€throughout€most€of€the€marriage.€€Ms.€Holt€also€worked€during€most€ofÏthe€marriage€but€primarily€during€the€early€years.€€She€was€working€as€aÍsecretary„receptionist€in€a€Nashville€law€office€at€the€time€of€the€marriage€andÏlater€worked€in€the€child€support€division€of€the€circuit€court€clerkððs€office.€€SheÏstopped€working€full„time€after€her€first€child€was€born€but€continued€to€work€onÏa€part„time€basis€at€a€local€department€store€as€a€fragrance€and€cosmetic€model.€ÏShe€also€worked€for€a€short€time€at€a€day„care€facility€and€for€another€retailerÏduring€the€holiday€season.€€Ms.€Holt€stopped€working€completely€after€the€birthÏof€the€partiesðð€second€child.Ìà àThe€parties€continually€disagreed€over€whether€Ms.€Holt€should€return€toÏwork.€€Their€relationship€became€increasingly€strained€as€the€years€passed.€€TheyÏtried€marital€counseling€in€late€1988,€but€Mr.€Holt€eventually€refused€to€continueÏthe€counseling.€€During€this€time,€Ms.€Holt€began€to€suspect€that€Mr.€Holt€wasÏhaving€an€extramarital€affair€with€a€co„worker.€€The€parties€separated€fromÏFebruary€through€April€1993.€€While€their€relationship€seemed€to€improve€afterÏMr.€Holt€returned€home,€Ms.€Holt€filed€for€divorce€in€October€1993.€€FollowingÏanother€unsuccessful€reconciliation€attempt,€Ms.€Holt€moved€to€set€aside€the€orderÏof€reconciliation€and€later€filed€an€amended€divorce€complaint.ÌÌà àDuring€the€trial€in€January€1996,€Mr.€Holt€conceded€that€he€had€committedÏadultery.€€In€an€April€8,€1996€order,€the€trial€court€granted€Ms.€Holt€a€divorceÏbased€on€Mr.€Holtððs€adultery.€€The€trial€court€gave€Ms.€Holt€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€children€and€ordered€Mr.€Holt€to€pay€$1,494€per€month€in€child€support.€ÏThe€trial€court€awarded€Ms.€Holt€fifty„four€percent€of€the€marital€estate,Ïincluding€the€marital€home,€and€awarded€Mr.€Holt€the€remaining€property,Ïincluding€his€stock€in€Sanders€Manufacturing€Company€and€the€partiesðð€interest€inÏthe€Ô_ÔDanwoodÔ_Ô€Apartments.€€Mr.€Holt€was€ordered€to€pay€Ms.€Holt€alimony€in€theÏamount€of€$1,200€per€month€until€her€death€or€remarriage€and€an€additionalÏ$5,612.75€to€defray€her€legal€expenses.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌò òà@ àòòThe€Division€of€the€Marital€EstateóóÌÌó óà àWe€turn€first€to€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€divided€the€maritalÏestate.€Mr.€Holt€insists€that€the€division€of€the€marital€property€is€inequitableÏbecause€Ms.€Holt€received€a€larger€portion€of€the€estate€and€because€the€trialÏcourt€overvalued€the€Danwood€Apartments€which€were€awarded€to€him.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€divided€the€marital€property€isÏequitable.€€Ìò òÌà@ àA.Ìà@ àThe€Valuation€of€the€Interest€in€the€Danwood€Apartmentsó óÌÌà àThe€parties€owned€a€ten€percent€interest€in€the€Danwood€Apartments,€aÏtwelve„unit€apartment€building€located€on€Nashvilleððs€Music€Row.€€At€trial,€theyÏintroduced€evidence€consisting€of€a€1986€financial€statement€valuing€the€entireÏapartment€building€at€$300,000,€another€1988€financial€statement€valuing€theÏbuilding€at€$350,000,€subject€to€a€$185,000€mortgage,€and€a€1995€statementÏvaluing€their€ten€percent€interest€at€$10,000.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€trial€court,€adopting€theÏvalues€in€the€1988€financial€statement,€found€that€the€value€of€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ô€partiesðð€interestÏin€the€apartment€was€$16,500.€€Mr.€Holt€insists€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏadopted€the€1995€valuation.ÌÌà àValuing€marital€property€is€not€an€exact€science.€€It€is€a€question€of€factÏthat€depends€upon€the€proof€offered€by€the€parties.€€The€parties€have€the€burdenÏof€presenting€competent€valuation€evidence,€and€they€are€bound€by€the€evidenceÍthey€present.€€òòSee€Wallace€v.€Wallaceóó,€733€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1987).€€In€the€face€of€conflicting€valuation€evidence,€trial€courts€may€place€aÏvalue€on€the€property€that€is€within€the€range€of€the€values€presented€by€theÏevidence.€€òòSee€Brock€v.€Brock,óó€941€S.W.2d€896,€902€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€ÏLike€other€fact€questions,€a€trial€courtððs€decision€concerning€the€valuation€ofÏmarital€property€is€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal€and€will€not€be€second„guessed€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòSee€Brock€v.€Brockóó,€941ÏS.W.2d€at€902;€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,€157(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€valuation€of€the€partiesðð€interest€in€the€apartment€buildingÏis€within€the€range€of€the€competent€proof.€€We€find€no€basis€for€second„guessingÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€base€its€valuation€of€this€property€on€the€partiesðð€1988Ïfinancial€statement.€€In€the€face€of€contradictory€evidence,€the€trial€courtððsÏvaluation€is€consistent€with€the€nature€of€the€property€and€its€location.ÌÌà@ àò òB.Ìà@ àThe€Division€of€the€Marital€Estateà@ àó óÌÌà àMr.€Holt€also€asserts€that€the€overall€result€of€the€division€of€the€maritalÏestate€is€inequitable€because€Ms.€Holt€received€a€disproportionately€larger€shareÏof€their€property.€€He€argues€that€the€size€of€the€marital€property€award€indicatesÏthat€the€trial€court€must€have€considered€the€relative€fault€of€the€parties,€and€thatÏthe€size€of€Ms.€Holtððs€share€of€the€marital€property€will€be€a€disincentive€for€herÏto€attempt€to€rehabilitate€herself.€€We€have€determined€that€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€trial€court€allocated€the€marital€property€was€essentially€equitable.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€dividing€marital€property€andÏallocating€marital€debt.€€òòSeeóó€òòFisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244,€246€(Tenn.€1983);ÍòòWade€v.€Wadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€702,€715€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòKoch€v.€Koch,€óó874ÏS.W.2d€571,€579€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€We€customarily€accord€the€trial€courtððsÏdecisions€great€weight€on€appeal,€òòseeóó€òòWilson€v.€Mooreóó,€929€S.W.2d€367,€372Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996),€and€we€will€decline€to€alter€them€unless€they€areÏinconsistent€with€the€factors€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„4„121(c)€(1996)€or€areÏunsupported€by€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1994);òò€Mahaffey€v.€Mahaffeyóó,€775€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1989).ÌÌà àTrial€courts€must€distribute€marital€property€equitably.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„4„121(a)(1).€€However,€the€distribution€need€not€be€mathematicallyÏequal€to€be€equitable.€€òòSee€Cohen€v.€Cohenóó,€937€S.W.2d€823,€832€(Tenn.€1996);ÏòòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€1988);€òòHerrera€v.€Herrera,óó€944ÏS.W.2d€379,€389€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€addition,€each€party€need€not€receiveÏa€share€of€each€piece€of€marital€property€in€order€for€the€division€to€be€equitable.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€168.ÌÌà àAs€is€usual€in€cases€of€this€sort,€the€parties€placed€different€values€on€theirÏmarital€property.€€The€most€significant€differences€involve€the€value€of€theirÏinterest€in€the€Danwood€Apartments,€the€value€of€the€marital€home,€and€the€valueÏof€the€furnishings€in€the€marital€home.€€Mr.€Holt€valued€the€entire€marital€estateÏat€approximately€$407,126;€while€Ms.€Holt€valued€it€at€$367,576.€€The€trial€courtÏdetermined€the€value€of€part,€but€not€all,€of€the€property.€€Ms.€Holt€received€theÏmarital€home€and€furnishings,€a€mower,€two€individual€retirement€accounts,€andÏthe€contents€of€her€checking€account.€€Depending€on€which€partyððs€values€areÏused,€Ms.€Holtððs€share€of€the€marital€estate€was€worth€between€$199,287€(orÏ54.2%€of€the€marital€estate€according€to€her€valuation)€and€$240,087€(or€58.9%Ïof€the€marital€estate€according€to€Mr.€Holtððs€valuation).€ÌÌà àWe€have€evaluated€the€overall€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€theÏmarital€estate€in€light€of€the€factors€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(c)€and€haveÏdetermined€that€the€division€is€equitable.€€The€parties€were€married€for€nineteenÏyears.€€During€this€time,€Ms.€Holt€focused€much€of€her€attention€on€her€familyÏand€thus€her€ability€to€earn€income€and€acquire€capital€assets€will€not€be€as€greatÏas€Mr.€Holtððs.€€Ms.€Holtððs€employment€prospects€are€also€more€limited€than€Mr.ÏHoltððs€who€has€remained€in€the€full„time€work€force€throughout€the€marriage.€ÏAccordingly,€we€have€no€basis€to€differ€with€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€theÏmarital€estate.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Award€for€Ô_ÔSpousalÔ_Ô€Supportó óóóÌÌà àMr.€Holt€also€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€Ms.€HoltÏ$1,200€per€month€as€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€until€her€death€or€remarriage.€€He€assertsÏthat€Tennesseeððs€divorce€statutes€contain€a€preference€for€rehabilitative€supportÏand€that€Ms.€Holt€should€receive€rehabilitative€support€rather€than€long„termÏsupport.€€We€agree€Ms.€Holtððs€spousal€support€should€be€structured€to€provideÏher€an€incentive€to€become€more€self„sufficient.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€setting€the€amount€and€duration€ofÏÔ_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔGarfinkelÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGarfinkelÔ_Ôóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1996);€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€TheseÏdecisions€should€be€guided€by€the€particular€facts€of€each€case€and€by€a€carefulÏbalancing€of€the€factors€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(d)(1)€(Supp.Í1997).€€òòSee€Hawkins€v.€Hawkinsóó,€883€S.W.2d€622,€625€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);òòÏÔ_ÔLoydÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLoydÔ_Ôóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€This€courtÏcustomarily€declines€to€second„guess€a€trial€courtððs€decision€concerning€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_ÔÏsupport€unless€the€decision€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence€or€is€contrary€toÏpublic€policy€embodied€in€the€applicable€statutes.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913ÏS.W.2d€at€169;€òòÔ_ÔIngramÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔIngramÔ_Ôóó,€721€S.W.2d€262,€264€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àEven€though€fault€is€a€relevant€consideration€when€setting€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support,ÏÔ_ÔtheseÔ_Ô€decisions€are€not€intended€to€be€punitive.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2dÏat€169;€òòÔ_ÔMcClungÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔMcClungÔ_Ôóó,€€29€Tenn.€App.€580,€584,€198€S.W.2d€820,€822Ï(1946).€€Rather,€they€are€intended€to€assist€the€economically€disadvantaged€spouseÏto€become€self„sufficient€and,€when€economic€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible,€toÏmitigate€the€harsh€economic€realities€of€divorce.òò€€See€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€913ÏS.W.2d€at€169„70.€€The€principal€factors€influencing€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€decisionsÏinclude€the€need€of€the€recipient€spouse€and€the€ability€of€the€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€spouse€toÏpay.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔCrainÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCrainÔ_Ôóó,€925€S.W.2d€232,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòHawkinsÏv.€Hawkinsóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€625.€ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€reflects€a€preference€for€temporary,Ïrehabilitative€support,€as€opposed€to€long„term€support.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilson€v.€Mooreóó,Ï929€S.W.2d€367,€375€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€This€preference€does€notÏcompletely€displace€other€forms€of€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support.€€òòSee€Aaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909ÏS.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔIsbellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔIsbellÔ_Ôóó,€816€S.W.2d€735,€739€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€Trial€courts€continue€to€have€the€prerogative€to€determine€which€type€ofÏÔ_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€best€fits€the€facts€of€each€particular€case€and€may,€whenÏappropriate,€award€a€spouse€several€different€types€of€support.ÌÌò òà@ àB.ÌÌó óà àMs.€Holt€is€currently€forty„three€years€old€and€is€in€relatively€good€health.€ÏShe€has€a€high€school€diploma€and€has€completed€one€year€of€college.€€SheÏworked€steadily€before€and€during€the€early€years€of€the€marriage€andÏdemonstrated€that€she€could€find€employment€when€she€chose€to€work.€€SheÏelected€not€to€work€in€order€to€care€for€the€partiesðð€children€while€they€wereÏyounger,€but€these€children€are€now€Ô_ÔseventeenÔ_Ô€and€nine€years€old.€€Her€youngerÏsonððs€medical€problems€have€abated€significantly,€and€the€boy€is€now€activelyÏinvolved€in€sports€and€other€extracurricular€activities.€€€ÌÌà àBased€on€our€examination€of€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€Ms.€HoltÏis€a€candidate€for€rehabilitative€support€in€order€to€enable€her€to€become€moreÏself„sufficient.€€We€have€also€determined€that€she€should€receive€some€ð ðclosing€inÏmoney,ðð€òòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€411,€over€a€longer€term.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€modify€the€trial€courtððs€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€award€to€provide€that€Mr.€Holt€shouldÏcontinue€to€pay€Ms.€Holt€$1,200€per€month€until€December€31,€1999.€ÏThereafter,€the€amount€of€Mr.€Holtððs€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support€shall€be€reduced€to€$800Ïper€month€unless€Ms.€Holt€presents€proof€satisfactory€to€the€trial€court€that€sheÏhas€made€serious,€good€faith€efforts€to€rehabilitate€herself€and€that€her€ability€toÏearn€income€and€to€accumulate€capital€assets€has€not€appreciably€improved.€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.Ìà@ àòòThe€Award€for€Legal€Expensesóóó óÌÌà àWe€turn€finally€to€the€question€of€Ms.€Holtððs€legal€expenses.€€For€his€part,ÏMr.€Holt€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€required€him€to€pay€Ms.€HoltÏan€additional€$5,612.75.€€For€her€part,€Ms.€Holt€insists€that€this€court€shouldÏrequire€Mr.€Holt€to€pay€the€legal€expenses€she€incurred€on€this€appeal.€€We€haveÍdetermined€that€the€trial€court€properly€awarded€Ms.€Holt€the€legal€expenses€sheÏincurred€at€trial€but€that€Ms.€Holt€should€be€responsible€for€her€own€legalÏexpenses€for€this€appeal.Ìà àò òÌó óà àAwards€for€legal€expenses€in€a€divorce€proceeding€are€considered€to€beÏawards€for€additional€support.€€òòSee€Smith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,€161€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔKincaidÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKincaidÔ_Ôóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€ÏThey€are€warranted€when€an€economically€disadvantaged€spouse€lacks€the€fundsÏto€pay€his€or€her€legal€expenses.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔHerreraÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHerreraÔ_Ôóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€390;ÏòòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€170.€€These€awards,€like€other€decisions€inÏdivorce€proceedings,€are€discretionary€with€the€trial€court,€and€so€the€appellateÏcourts€will€decline€to€interfere€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€unless€the€trial€courtÏhas€abused€its€discretion.òò€€See€Ô_ÔGarfinkelÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGarfinkelÔ_Ôóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€748;€òòSmithÏv.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€161.ÌÌà àMs.€Holt€will€be€returning€to€employment€at€the€age€of€forty„three€afterÏhaving€been€away€from€the€full„time€job€market€for€approximately€twenty€years.€ÏThe€marital€property€she€received€is€not€liquid,€and€she€will€be€required€to€useÏthese€assets€to€support€her€as€the€years€go€by.€€Accordingly,€we€concur€with€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€to€require€Mr.€Holt€to€pay€her€an€additional€$5,612.75€toÏhelp€defray€the€legal€expenses€she€incurred€at€trial.€€We€have€determined,Ïhowever,€that€Mr.€Holt€should€not€be€required€to€pay€any€more€of€Ms.€HoltððsÏlegal€expenses€and€accordingly€deny€her€request€for€an€additional€award€for€herÏlegal€expenses€on€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€as€modified€herein€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€We€tax€the€costs€ofÏthis€appeal€in€equal€proportions€to€Jack€Sanders€Holt€and€his€surety€and€to€JoniÏSmart€Holt€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€Ô_ÔPRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÔ_ÔÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€œJUDGE›