WPC`  30nSwu[c YK1EnQUpʃ'L!iV\8fX &,644'8p[F;1 gCys3$&w.RΣeΨ)#Mzgǔ 6y oX)!';Hb_7ئKÛ_oRmItPB`#>53k.h $^n;OԉC6 ͻ[ nu:6UOFN߁]yآӌ6dג3&\B)jQfdyRoG4cKf<]cDzx,Y~<p j5aQ+{JoQI/iCk02CiIr>&LµNBVvjGlʦ4§n`=Uq9"Tb |u<%?t۠A %A L@ fRز<U2gp1)4>R 0(aw@UN*5U:________________UB % AQ2 0D 0D< 0D D/ B B D3- n~<$3|x($ nDoEpqrEsDtuDvwӀ   (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  !"   X~vXXX !XX X~v   Ad FILED X~vX !X   September30,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. nX X~vAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  ݛ  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7zXXdXXd7XXXXtXXfwr(<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx$ rߛw񀀀@j j  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @&ATJACKSON    ̜@p p ___________________________________________PHILIPRENEJULIAN, <     )    4    <     ) 4 Appellant,  <     )ShelbyCircuitNo.1519271   4    <     )v. 4    <     )Appeal02A019709CV00229    4    <     )BEVERLYANNJULIAN,    )    4    <     ) 4 Appellee.  <     )  @  APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@WW!ATMEMPHIS,TENNESSEE@\ \ THEHONORABLEJOHNR.McCARROLL,JR.,JUDGEFortheAppellant:  <      D FortheAppellee: % StuartBrianBreakstone <      D JamesD.Pugh, '  Memphis,Tennessee <      D Memphis,Tennessee (!! @HH! AFFIRMED ASMODIFIED  -&&  4    <      D HERSCHELP.FRANKS,J.CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.ALANE.HIGHERS,J.wf  f    w  ;44S f  wf  w@( OPINION     4  Inthisdivorceaction,thehusbandhasappealed,raisingissuesaboutthe  valueanddivisionofthemaritalproperty,aswellasanawardofattorneysfeestothewife. 4  ThehusbandfirstarguesthatthevaluationsbytheTrialJudgeareinerror,andthatthedivisionofthemaritalestateisinequitable.ItisclearfromtheTrialJudgescommentsandordersthatheintendedtodividethemaritalestatetwothirdstothewifeandonethirdtothehusband,andaccordingtotheTrialJudgesvaluations,thewifewasawarded$102,417.88,andthehusband$51,208.93.Theequityinthehouse,determinedbytheCourttobe$23,174.33wasawardedtothewife.Evidenceonthevalueoftheequitydiffers.However,theTrialJudgeassessedthecredibilityofthewitnesses,andtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthevaluationestablishedbytheTrialJudge.T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).Therundisputedrvalueofthewifesretirementsavingswithheremployerwasestablishedat$81,789.00,with$1,294.05treatedasseparateproperty.Thewifebegancontributingtothisplanbeforethepartiesmarriage,andtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialJudgesdetermination.T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).Theevidenceshowedthatthewifehadaprofitsharingplanwithheremployer,withatotalvalueof$20,403.00.TheCourtfound$6,491.00tobeseparateproperty.However,theevidencesdoespreponderateagainstthisfindingstindicatestheplanwasestablishedduringthemarriage.tu,andwuvWveconcludethatthetotalamountintheprofitsharingplanatthetimeofthedivorcewasmaritalproperty. 4  TheCourtallocated$21,947.40tothehusband,whichtheCourtdescribedasAmericanCourierIncome.Therecordshowsthepartiesformedthat 801 companyinorderforthehusbandtohaveapermanentjob,andwhilethewifehadworkedforthatcompany,aswellasthehusband,shetestifiedthatovertheyearsshehadonlydrawn$900.00outofthecompany.ShefurthertestifiedthatthecompanyhadbeencreatedoutofherfundsbysellingFederalExpressstock,andthatshehadinvestedatotalof$12,000.00inthecompany.Therecordfurthershowsthatthecompanysassetsoraccountshadbeensoldortransferred.Underthecircumstances,wefindnobasistodisturbtheTrialJudgesallocationandevaluationofAmericanCourier.However,sincethestockwasnotmentionedbytheTrialJudge,webelieveitappropriatetovestallofthestockownedbythepartiesinthehusband. 4  TennesseeCodeAnnotated364121givesatrialcourtwidediscretiontoadjustandadjudicatetherightsandinterestsofthepartiesinalljointlyownedproperty.Penningtonv.Pennington,592S.W.2d576(Tenn.App.1979).Thetestfor  theproprietyofthedivisioniswhetherthedivisionisequitable,notequal.Wardv.  Ward,937S.W.2d931(Tenn.App.1996). !  4  WefindthedivisionmadebytheTrialJudgeisequitableunderthefactsofthiscase.Thewifeownedahomewhenthepartiesmarried.Accordingtohertestimony,thehusbandbroughtintothemarriageanoldrustedoutDatsunautomobile.Shewasgainfullyemployedatthetimeofthemarriageandhascontinuedinthatemployment,andinanefforttofindemploymentforthehusband,soldstocksfromherstocksharingplanwithheremployertocreateabusinessforhim.Subsequently,shesoldherhomeandput$18,000.00ofthe$21,000.00equityrealizedfromitssaleasadownpaymentforthepresenthome,whichshepurchasedinhername.However,in1993thehomewasrefinanced,atwhichtimethehusbandsnamewasplacedonthetitle.Theothersizeableiteminthemaritalestate,otherthanthehouse,wasthewifesretirementplanwithheremployer,whichwasgeneratedthroughhereffortsandemployment. 922  4  TheactionoftheTrialJudgeinreducingthemaritalinterestintheFederalExpressprofitsharingplan,asnoted,isagainstthepreponderanceoftheevidence.Accordingly,theamountof$6,491.00designatedasseparateproperty,willbeincludedasmaritalproperty,anddividedinaccordancewiththeallocationorderedbytheTrialJudge.Inreachinghisallocation,theTrialJudgeorderedthewifetopaythehusband$19,888.40.Followingthesameformulaastotheamountaddedtothemaritalproperty,thehusbandisentitledtobepaidanadditional$2,163.77,oronethirdofthevalueoftheFederalExpressprofitsharingplanwhichwasnotincludedasmaritalproperty,foratotaltobepaidbythewifetothehusbandincashintheamountof$22,042.17.TheTrialCourtsjudgmentindividingthemaritalpropertyisaffirmed,asmodified. 4  Finally,thehusbandcontendstheTrialCourterredinrequiringthehusbandtopaythewifeaportionofherattorneysfeesmincurredm.ItisntobennotedthatahotlycontestedissueintheTrialCourtwasthecustodyofthepartieschild,andasubstantialamountofthewifeslegalexpenseswereincurredonthisaccount.Therecordestablishesthatthewifehadincurredattorneysfeesandexpensesinotheopanpamountexceeding$12,000.00,anditfurtherappearsthatshedoesnothavethenecessaryliquidassetstodefrayallofherlegalexpenses. 4  CourtsinthisStatehavelongfollowedthepolicyofupholdingtheawardofattorneysfeesbytheTrialCourt,unlesstheawardresultsinan injustice.InConnorsv.Connors,594S.W.2d672(Tenn.1980),theSupremeCourtsaid: /(( 0 4 0 4(#4(#WeadheretothelongestablishedruleofHolstonNationalBankv. 1** Wood,125Tenn.6,140S.W.31(1911),thatthisCourtwillnotinterfere 2++ withtheallowanceofattorneysfeesbythetrialcourtunlesswecanseethatsomeinjusticehasbeenperpetrated....  (# (# WefindnobasistodisturbtheTrialCourtsawardofaportionofthewifesattorneysfeesagainstthehusband.SeeT.C.A.365103(c). 811  4  WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourt,asmodified,andremandforentryofjudgmentwiththecostqofappealqadjudgedtwothirdsagainsttheappellant,andonethirdagainsttheappellee. 4   4  4    <     __________________________    4    <     HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________W.FrankCrawford,P.J.___________________________AlanE.Highers,J.