WPCP }N}- [&tPMpho#lIO9'vlޣ1}N΋?%L)Жj*ӑm+`LWr'T/a9iì٭oE|7{HTl2Q2̠5tKIv mb#\ % UN# 0q U&N 0DG U@ z E U> UNU ^ w  y ?:N4E*, m......................bEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 0MMMM B88 0U D3 D-, 0KYY AS 0 0Da AHP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  (hH  Z(Times New Roman  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt\  `&Times New Roman(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular -L Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 0 R$      1  T  _ԀRule7wasformerlyRule15oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppeals.Thelanguageandintentofthecurrent  Rule7andformerRule15,however,areidentical.t%+k2|3|xU- -(|G2$ !..8dd8         0    d(|3A0$ !..8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A0$ !..8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8$dd8     _  $8cXXdd8  @ $INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#$ #Ԉ ,   FEBRUARY20,2002Session X XcX$ #$XXc#JOYCEMARIEHOWELLv.PHILLIPDAVIDHOWELLXcX$   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMadisonCounty  h @@No.51574;TheHonorableJoeC.Morris,Chancellor  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200101167COAR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      X8XXXcThisappealarisesfromaactionfordivorce.Followinglengthylitigation,thetrialcourtvaluedand  dividedthepartiesmaritalproperty,refusedtograntthewifealimonyinfuturo,forgaveanarrearage  inalimony_pendente_Ԁliteowedbythehusband,andorderedeachpartytopaytheirownattorneys  fees.Wifefiledthisappealandnowarguesthatthecourterredinitsvaluationanddistributionof z maritalassets,refusaltograntheralimony,refusaltoawardattorneysfees,andforgivenessofthe f husbandsarrearage.Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt. R Ѐ#XcXXX8v##$XXcp#XcX$ > j Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  j   #$Xc#XcX.$AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., J andWilliamB._Acree_,Jr.,Sp.J.,joined. : DonG.Owens,III,Memphis,TN,forAppellant  JamesF.Butler,Jackson,TN,forAppellee    OPINION #$XXc#XcX$ "! #$XXc #XcX$  X8XXXc@ttI.FactsandProceduralHistory.  j$#   ThislitigationbeganonMarch1,1996withJoyceMarieHowell(Wife)petitioningthe B&!% ChanceryCourtofMadisonCounty,Tennesseeforanorderofprotectionfromherhusbandof .'~"& almosttwentysixyears,PhillipDavidHowell(Husband).Thesameday,anexparteorderof (j#' protectionwasissued.TheorderprohibitedHusbandfrom abusing,threateningtoabuse,or )V$( committingactsofviolenceupon[Wife]. )B%)   Severaldayslater,onMarch5,1996,Wifefiledacomplaintrequestinganabsolutedivorce +'+ fromHusband.Asgroundsforthedivorce,Wifescomplaintallegedinappropriatemaritalconduct, ,(, adultery,andtheexistenceofirreconcilabledifferences.Wifescomplaintalsosoughttotemporarily -(- enjoinHusbandfrom,amongotherthings,dissipatingmaritalassets.Thecourtissuedatemporary  injunctionconsistentwithWifesrequest.Approximatelyonemonthlater,anotherrestrainingorder  wasplacedonHusbandandanorderofprotectionwasgrantedtoWife.Finally,onOctober8,1996,  thecourtenteredanorder_nunc_Ԁpro_tunc_requiringHusbandtopay$1000.00permonthtoWifefor t alimony_pendente_Ԁlite. `   Thecourtsmanyordersdidlittletoquellthebitternessandbickeringbetweentheparties. 8  OnOctober15,1996,thecourtheldbothpartiesincontemptforwithholdingcertainmarital $ t property.Morepetitionsforcontempt,however,wouldsoonarise.Indeed,therecordinthiscase  ` islitteredwithmotionuponmotionforcontempt,specificrelief,andforrestrainingorders.  L    Duringthelengthylitigation,HusbandfiledforandwasgrantedabankruptcyunderChapter $  11oftheU.S.Code.Apparently,thebankruptcywasnosurprise.Thetrialcourtnotedinits   findingsoffactthat itwasfairlyobviousfromthebeginningduetolackofcommunicationand   cooperationbetweenthepartiesthatabankruptcywasinevitableandanyequitythathadbeen   accumulatedwouldprobablybelost.     ThecourtsfinaldecreewasissuedonApril23,2001.Thisdecreeoutlinedthedivisionof \ maritalproperty,forgaveanarrearagebyHusbandinalimony_pendente_Ԁlitepayments,andordered H eachpartytopaytheirownattorneysfees.ThedecreealsostatedthatalthoughWifewasdisabled, 4 shewasnotentitledtoalimonyinfuturo.Thecourtreasonedthatnoalimonyinfuturowasneeded  p becauseWifewasdrawingdisability,wasnothavingtorepayanymaritaldebts,andHusbands  \ incomewasapproximatelythesameasWifes.Wifefiledanoticeofappealandthismatterisnow H beforethisCourt. 4   II.LawandAnalysis.      Wifehasraisedseveralissuesforourreview.Wifesissuesconcernthecourtsdivisionof  maritalproperty,failuretoawardalimonyinfuturo,forgivenessofHusbandsarrearageofalimony  _pendente_Ԁlite,andfailuretoawardattorneysfees.Wewilldiscusseachoftheseissuesinturn.    Becausethismatter#XcXXX8 #XcXXXcwasheardbyatrialjudgesittingwithoutajury,ourreviewisdenovo X  ontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefactualfindingsbelow.Foster X! v._Bue_,749S.W.2d736,741(Tenn.1988);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemaynotreversethefindings H"  offactmadebythetrialjudgeunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence._Jahn_ 8#! v._Jahn_,932S.W.2d939,941(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thispresumptionofcorrectness,however, ($x" doesnotattachtothetrialjudgeslegaldeterminationsorthetrialcourtsconclusionsthatarebased %h # onundisputedfacts._NCNB_Ԁ_Natl_ԀBankv._Thrailkill_,856S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).#XcXXXc#X8XXXc &X!$   A.DivisionofMaritalProperty. '4#& B  Wifesfirstissueraisedforourreviewconcernsthemannerinwhichthetrialcourtchose ) %( tovalueanddividethepartiesmaritalpropertyanddebt.First,Wifearguesthatthetrialcourt *%) undervaluedthefarmandhomeownedbythepartiesandimproperlydistributedittoHusband. +&* Next,WifecontendsthatthetrialcourterredbynotrequiringHusbandtoassumecertaindebt  associatedwithhisbusinessandholdherharmlessthereon.    ThisCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatanequitabledivisionofpropertydoesnotnecessarily t meananequaldivision.See_Bookout_Ԁv._Bookout_,954S.W.2d730,732(Tenn.Ct.App.1997); ` _Batson_Ԁv._Batson_,769S.W.2d849,856(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)."Thedivisionoftheestateisnot L  renderedinequitablesimplybecauseitisnotmathematicallyequal,orbecauseeachpartydidnot 8  receiveashareofeveryitemofmaritalproperty."Kingv.King,986S.W.2d216,219(Tenn.Ct. $ t App.1998)(citingCohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2d823,832(Tenn.1996);Ellisv.Ellis,748S.W.2d  ` 424,427(Tenn.1988);Brownv.Brown,913S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)).  L    Indeterminingwhatconstitutesanequitabledivisionofmaritalassets,thecourtwillconsider $  thefactorslistedinsection364121(c)oftheTennesseeCode.Section364121(c)provides:   8  Inmakingequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevant   factorsincluding:    0    (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;\(#(#  8  (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills,employability,earning 4 capacity,estate,financialliabilitiesandfinancialneedsofeachoftheparties; p    8  (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyone(1)partytotheeducation,training H orincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;4    8  (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionsofcapitalassetsand   income;    8  (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation,appreciationor  dissipationofthemaritalorseparateproperty,includingthecontributionofaparty l tothemarriageashomemaker,wageearnerorparent,withthecontributionofaparty X  ashomemakerorwageearnertobegiventhesameweightifeachpartyhasfulfilled D! itsrole;0"     8  (6)Thevalueoftheseparatepropertyofeachparty;$X"    8  (7)Theestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthemarriage;%0!$    8  (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivisionofpropertyis '#& tobecomeeffective;(#'     8  (9)Thetaxconsequencestoeachparty;and|*%)     8  (10)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.   Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(2001).Further,thecourtmustmakethedivisionofmarital t propertywithoutregardtomaritalfault.Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(a)(1)(2001). `   Thetrialcourt'sclassificationanddivisionofmaritalpropertyenjoysapresumptionof 8  correctnessonappealandwillbereversedormodifiedonlyiftheevidencepreponderatesagainst $ t thetrialcourt'sdecision.SeeLancasterv.Lancaster,671S.W.2d501,502(Tenn.Ct.App.1984);  ` _Hardin_Ԁv._Hardin_,689S.W.2d152,154(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)."Thetrialcourtisgrantedbroad  L  discretioninadjustingandadjudicatingtheparties'interestinalljointlyownedproperty.Itsdecision  8  regardingdivisionofthemaritalpropertyisentitledtogreatweightonappeal."_Watters_Ԁv._Watters_, $  959S.W.2d585,590(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)(citing_Batson_,769S.W.2dat859).Thefairnessofthe   propertydivisionisjudgeduponitsfinalresults.SeeWadev.Wade,897S.W.2d702,717(Tenn.   Ct.App.1994)(citingThompsonv.Thompson,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)).     Turningtothecasesubjudice,wemustfirstnotethatWifehasfailedtocomplywithRule p 7oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppeals. #  1      ׀Rule7states: \ 8  (a)Indomesticrelationsappealswheretheissuesinvolvetheamountorthe 4 dispositionofthemaritalproperty,theappellantsbriefshallcontaininthestatement  p offactsorinanappendix,anorderlytabulationofallmaritalproperty.... \   8  (b)Iftheappealinvolvesissuesabouttheseparatepropertyofeitherpartyorthe H allocationofthemaritaldebts,theappellantsbriefshallcontainaseparatetablein 4 thesameformshowingthepertinentinformationforthatdisputedissue.    8  ...    ThisCourthasheldthatwhereanappellantfailstocomplywiththisrule,thatappellantwaivesall  suchissuesrelatingtotherulesrequirements.SeeBeanv.Bean,40S.W.3d52(Tenn.Ct.App.  2000).Evenwithoutthisinformationinherbrief,however,wehavestillbeenabletogleanfrom l therecordfactswhichshowWifesargumentstobewithoutmerit. X    Withregardtotheoveralldistributionofmaritalpropertyinthiscase,thetrialcourt 0"  distributed$67,115.00ofmaritalassetstoWife.Husband,ontheotherhand,wasgivenassetsworth #l! $327,282.00encumberedby$561,000.00ofdebt.ThecourtalsoorderedHusbandtopayan $X" additional$123,284.00ofotherunrelatedandunsecureddebts.Finally,thecourtheldthatWife $D # divertedmaritalpropertytotaling$92,009.22toherselfsoonafterthedivorceactionwasfiled. %0!$ Accordingly,byourcalculation,Wifeultimatelyreceived$159,124.22inmaritalassetswhereas &"% Husbandendedupwithnegative$360,562.00ofequity,adifferenceofoveronehalfofamillion '#& dollars. (#' Ї  Wifenowarguesthatthetrialcourtmiscalculatedthevalueofvariousitemsofmarital  propertyanderredincalculatingthetotalfundsgrantedtoher.Basedontheallegederroneous  valuesandcalculations,Wifearguesthattheresultsobtainedbythetrialcourtareinequitable.From  ourreviewoftherecord,takingallofWifesallegationsastrue,westillfailtofindthatthefinal t resultsachievedbythetrialcourtareinequitableoroutoflinewiththestatutoryfactorsenumerated ` above.Accordingly,wefindWifesargumentswithrespecttothisissuetobewithoutmerit. L    Wifealsoarguesthatthecourtfailedtoholdherharmlessoncertaindebtrelatedto $ t Husbandsbusiness.Wefindthisargumenttobewithoutmeritaswell.Thetrialcourtsfindings  ` clearlyindicatedthatHusbandreceivedthepropertyencumberedbythedebtaswellasthedebt  L  itself.Further,thecourt,initsfindings,specificallystatedthatWife isnotobligatedtopayanyof  8  thedebts.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdistributionofmaritalpropertyanddebtinall $  respects.     B.AlimonyInFuturoandAlimony_Pendente_ԀLiteArrearage.   C  WifessecondissueraisedforourreviewconcernsthetrialcourtsrefusaltograntWife   alimonyinfuturoandtheforgivenessofHusbandsarrearageofalimony_pendente_Ԁlite.Thetrial p court,initsfindingsoffactstatedthat, [_a]lthough_Ԁ[Wife]isdisabled,sheisalsodrawingdisability, \ andisnotobligatedtopayonanyofthedebts.Further,thecourtstatedthat, [Husbands]income H isapproximatelythesameas[Wifes].WithregardtoHusbandsarrearage,thecourtstatedthat 4 althoughhewasorderedtopaytemporaryalimony, theproofisuncontrovertedthathehasnotbeen  p abletopayit.Basedonthesefacts,thecourtrefusedtograntWifealimonyandforgaveHusbands  \ arrearage. H   Therearenohardandfastrulesgoverningtheavailabilityof_spousal_Ԁsupport._Crain_Ԁv._Crain_,   925S.W.2d232,234(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Section365101(d)(1)oftheTennesseeCode,   however,providesaframeworkfromwhichcourtscanmakeaproperdeterminationofwhether  supportisneeded.Thissectionlistsnumerousfactorsthatcourtsshouldconsider.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.365101(d)(1)(A)(L).Alsohelpfultoourreviewis#XcXXX8 # X8XXXcoursupremecourtsopinioninAaron  v.Aaron,909S.W.2d408(Tenn.1995).InAaron,#XcXX X88J# X8XXXcthesupremecourtstatedthat [_w]hile_Ԁthereis l noabsoluteformulafordeterminingtheamountofalimony,therealneedofthespouseseekingthe X  supportisthesinglemostimportantfactor.Id.at410(quoting_Cranford_Ԁv._Cranford_,772S.W.2d D! 48,50(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)).#XcXX X8J# X8XXXcNext, thecourtsmostoftenconsidertheabilityofthe_obligor_ 0"  spousetoprovidesupport.Id.#XcXX X8M#X8XXXc #l!   Wemustalsobecognizantofthefactthattrialcourtsretaindiscretionindetermining $D # whetherornottoaward_spousal_Ԁsupportandthat appellatecourtswillnotinterfereexceptinthe %0!$ caseofanabuseofdiscretion._Burlew_Ԁv._Burlew_,40S.W.3d465,470(Tenn.2001)(citations &"% omitted).Further,indeterminingwhetheranabuseofdiscretionhasoccurred,wemustnotmerely '#& substituteourjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt.Whitev.VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,223 (#' (Tenn.Ct.App.1999)Instead,appellatereviewmustseektodeterminewhetherthelowercourt's )$( decisionhasabasisinlaworfactandisthereforenotarbitrary,illogical,orunconscionable.State |*%) v.Brown&WilliamsonTobaccoCorp.,18S.W.3d186,191(Tenn.2000).Whereacourthas h+&* improperlyconstruedorappliedtheapplicablelegalprinciples,appellatecourtsmayproperlyreverse  thetrialcourtsdecision.White,21S.W.3dat223.    Here,Wifearguesthatthefactorsgiveninsection365101(d)(1)workinherfavorandthat t properapplicationofthefactorsshowthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.First,Wifeasserts ` thatbecauseofherdisability,herneedforsupportisobvious.Whilewegenerallyagreewiththis L  statement,wemustalsolookattheotherrelevantfactorsincludingHusbandsabilitytopayher 8  support. $ t   WithregardtoHusbandsabilitytopay,thecourtfoundthatHusbandsincomewas  L  approximatelythesameasWifes.Specifically,Husbandofferedswornproof,whichindicatedthat  8  hisaveragemonthlyincomeis$883.26ascomparedtothe$919.15thatWifereceiveseverymonth $  inSocialSecuritydisabilitybenefits.WifenowarguesthatHusbandstestimonyregardinghis   incomewasnotcredibleandthatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsthatHusbandactually   enjoysamuchgreaterincome.WedisagreewithWifesconclusions.Wifehasofferednorealproof   regardingHusbandsallegedgreaterincome.Instead,Wifeoffersmerelyspeculativeevidence   consistingofHusbandsintentandpastactions.Thisevidencedoesnotrisetothelevelrequiredfor p thisCourttosecondguessthefactualfindingsofthelowercourt. \   WemustalsonotetheamountofmaritalpropertythatwasgiventoWifeandthefactthat 4 shewasgivennoneofthehugedebtscreatedbytheparties.Further,Wifewasabletotake  p approximately$92,000.00ofmaritalpropertysoonafterthedivorcewasfiled,whichindicatesthat  \ herneedfortemporaryalimonywasgreatlyreduced.Accordingly,weaffirmthecourtsdecision H inrefusingtoawardalimonyinfuturoandforgivingHusbandsarrearage. 4   C.AttorneysFees.   [  Wifesnextissueconcernsthecourtsfailuretoawardherattorneysfees.Thiscourthas  repeatedlyheldthatanawardforattorneysfeesinadivorcecaseistreatedas_spousal_Ԁsupportand  shouldbecharacterizedasalimonyin_solido_.Wildv.Wild,66S.W.2d892,894(Tenn.Ct.App. l 2001)(citing_Sannella_Ԁv._Sannella_,993S.W.2d73,76(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Smithv.Smith,984 X  S.W.2d606(Tenn.Ct.App.1997);_Anderton_Ԁv._Anderton_,988S.W.2d675,682(Tenn.Ct.App. D! 1988);_Gilliam_Ԁv._Gilliam_,776S.W.2d81(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)).Accordingly,whenreviewing 0"  acourtdecisiontoawardattorneysfees,wemustrecognizethewidediscretiongiventothetrial #l! court.Id.󀀀Appellatecourtsmayreverseatrialcourtsdecisiontoawardattorneysfees,however, $X"  wheretheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheaward,andamanifestinjusticewillbedoneby $D # allowingthetrialcourtsdecisiontostand.Id. %0!$   Withattorneysfeesbeingaformofalimony,courtsmustbalancethefactorsgiveninsection '#& 365101(d)(1)oftheTennesseeCode,asstatedabove,indeterminingaproperaward.Again,the (#' cornerstonesinbalancingthefactorsaretherealneedoftherequestingspouseandtheabilityofthe )$( _obligor_Ԁspousetopay.#XcXXX8M# X8XXXcAaron,909S.W.2dat410.Althoughtherelativefaultofthepartiesistobe |*%) considered,awardsshouldnotbepunitiveinnature._Anderton_,988S.W.2dat682.Instead,thetrue h+&* purposeshouldbeto aidthedisadvantagedspousetobecomeandremainselfsufficientand...to  mitigatetheharsheconomicrealitiesofdivorce.Id.#XcXX X8qc#X8XXXc    Here,withregardtothisissue,Wifemerelyreliesonherpreviousargumentsandassertsthat t Husbandhastheabilitytopayandthatshelackssufficientfundstocoverhercosts.Again,however, ` forthesamereasoningasabove,wefindthatthepreponderanceoftheevidencedoesnotcontradict L  thefindingsofthetrialcourtandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingto 8  awardattorneysfeestoWife.Accordingly,wefindWifesargumentswithrespecttothisissueto $ t bewithoutmerit.  `    _III._ԀConclusion   L  Ih__  #XcXXX8ve#XcXXXcBasedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourtinall  8  respects.CostsonappealareassessedagainstAppellant,JoyceMarieHowell#XcXXXch# X8XXXc,andhersurety,for (  whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XcXX X8j#X8XXXc (  #XcXXX8j##$XXc #XcX$   `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE