ÿWPC+ —|ÖÚ¬ã/ÿn©ù‡–"Ãê$xþGïV#‹ƒwYÖ¿ÆY„HøzÔH%1\S.íû©KzWn„¦ÄÜ?» ÚÅPÑôo¼ NÈ® y­ƒô<µ~Ò=²º™V¯Ü­jÜ¥¼`¡=¸mÙÞÿ<—€è:å(5ä)ΞØRÔÏQ"ÌèÅvf†Kœ=ß°”- RàŒúŒaXà4•?ÈÂ××µŠÞzßõf›ˆ‘úõ¥‘¥%á›M·CÞ0&8ì}žxîB¤8Wðýêýº³mM¤¨Zšõ\󇨕þ« PÐߊ³c­ËÔÛ¾÷kÒéÛ°6Í€>¢Ðê¾Æšv¯yø£5ÝH¼@^šjŒ}ÆP_R*­}n&âšòkÛaþ¹ÞÐ=8Íi{€Ü›§[®‡ˆÝ'‘ø±¿ïCõ àØQµì•ýà .Âþï»’ ¾phu†÷׳ΘÑx¾w}RuHÀL~[™óôÐZ¡¸º…ëÿeÙ7Ÿác27 ¯[ ]–ܤõ¼%Í{FkXJ°œ=Úxrw¸=¾cã=’k-òLÝ)Æeðús޳n,ØØjœ‡g ‡ØÞ·®[§õ©y S˜3b.—þ²&{b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë p±N! 0D#U@gE§U@©ÑéUNº%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%º%b&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 0ë&&&& Bû&û& 0¤' D3¼' D-ï' 0K(( ASg(ƺ( 0¤€) 0D$* A«h*»C€+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-C +Þ¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 fÝ ƒRê´$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSubsequent€to€Husbandððs€filing€of€his€notice€of€appeal€on€July€6,€1999,€Wife€filed€a€Motion€for€a€New€TrialÐ ° Ðor€in€the€Alternative€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Final€Decree,€placing€the€appeal€on€hold.€€On€July€15,€1999,€the€partiesÐ tÄ Ðentered€an€agreed€order€modifying€the€final€divorce€decree€with€regards€to€certain€property.€€On€October€29,€1999,€theÐ 8ˆ Ðtrial€court€conducted€a€hearing€regarding€Wifeððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€in€the€alternative€to€alter€and€amend.€Ð üL  ÐSubsequently,€on€February€16,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€denying€Wifeððs€motion€and€altering€the€divorceÐ ° Ðdecree€in€other€respects€that€do€not€affect€this€appeal.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  ÇÝ ƒRê´$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d)€states:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à(d)(1)€It€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€a€spouse€who€is€economically€disadvantaged,€relativeÐ 8ˆ Ðto€the€other€spouse,€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€the€granting€of€an€order€for€payment€ofÐ üL Ðrehabilitative,€temporary€support€and€maintenance.€€Where€there€is€such€relative€economicÐ À Ðdisadvantage€and€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€including€thoseÐ „Ô Ðset€out€in€this€subsection,€then€the€court€may€grant€an€order€for€payment€of€support€and€maintenanceÐ H ˜ Ðon€a€long-term€basis€or€until€the€death€or€remarriage€of€the€recipient€except€as€otherwise€provided€inÐ  \ Ðsubdivision€(a)(3).€€Rehabilitative€support€and€maintenance€is€a€separate€class€of€spousal€support€asÐ Ð  Ðdistinguished€from€alimony€in€solido€and€periodic€alimony.€€In€determining€whether€the€granting€ofÐ ” ä  Ðan€order€for€payment€of€support€and€maintenance€to€a€party€is€appropriate,€and€in€determining€theÐ X ¨  Ðnature,€amount,€length€of€term,€and€manner€of€payment,€the€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors,Ð  l  Ðincluding:Ðà 0 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financial€resources€of€each€party,Ð h¸  Ðincluding€income€from€pension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;Ð,| Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€and€opportunity€of€each€partyÐ ð@  Ðto€secure€such€education€and€training,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€andÐ ´  Ðtraining€to€improve€such€party's€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;ÐxÈ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ð<ŒÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;ÐPÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€physical€disability€orÐ Ä Ðincapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitating€disease;ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seek€employment€outside€theÐ Lœ Ðhome€because€such€party€will€be€custodian€of€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;Ð`Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangible€and€intangible;ÐÔ$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€as€defined€in€ðð€36-4-121;ИèÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€the€marriage;Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€to€theÐ  p Ðmarriage€as€monetary€and€homemaker€contributions,€and€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€by€aÐ ä4 Ðparty€to€the€education,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;ШøÐ Ð  Ðà0  àà ` à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€its€discretion,€deems€it€appropriate€toÐ l¼ Ðdo€so;€€andÐ0€ (#(# Ðà8  àà ` à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,€as€are€necessary€toÐ ôD! Ðconsider€the€equities€between€the€parties.и"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(2)€An€award€of€rehabilitative,€temporary€support€and€maintenance€shall€remain€in€the€court'sÐ @ $ Ðcontrol€for€the€duration€of€such€award,€and€may€be€increased,€decreased,€terminated,€extended,€orÐ !T% Ðotherwise€modified,€upon€a€showing€of€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances.€Ð È!& ÐRehabilitative€support€and€maintenance€shall€terminate€upon€the€death€of€the€recipient.€€Such€supportÐ Œ"Ü' Ðand€maintenance€shall€also€terminate€upon€the€death€of€the€payor€unless€otherwise€specifically€stated.€Ð P# ( ÐThe€recipient€of€the€support€and€maintenance€shall€have€the€burden€of€proving€that€all€reasonableÐ $d)  Ðefforts€at€rehabilitation€have€been€made€and€have€been€unsuccessful.Ô‡XD™Xòô ]ÔаРР ÐÔ#†ô ]òXXD™f#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2ê´$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô d(|3AH$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3AH$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€D™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÄuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€Ô_ÔNASHVILLEÔ#†¼u»îîÄ #ÔÔ_ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓDecember€7,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_Ô€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XD™X»¼uÔÌò òÔ#†¼u»XXD™5#ÔBRENDA€C.€KINGòòóó€v.€DANNY€F.€Ô_ÔKING,€D.V.M.òòóóÔ‡XD™X»¼uÔó óÔ_ÔÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€Ô_Ô97DÔ_Ô„2861€€€€€€Marietta€M.€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô_ÔM1999Ô_Ô„02556„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔR3Ô_Ô„CV€„€Filed€August€22,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€The€parties€divorced€after€31€years€of€marriage.€€The€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðgranted€the€wife€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€wife€was€awardedÐ d´ Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó€in€the€amount€of€$6000€per€month€for€two€years.€€After€two€years,€the€wife€wouldÐ P  Ðreceive€$4500€per€month€and,€upon€remarriage,€the€amount€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€would€decrease€toÐ <Œ Ðòòóó$2000€per€month.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€$10,000€of€the€wifeððs€attorneyððsÐ (x Ðfees.€€Both€parties€appeal;€the€wife€appeals€the€division€of€marital€property€and€the€husband€appealsÐ d Ðthe€award€of€alimony.€€We€affirm€in€part,€modify€in€part,€and€reverse€in€part,€affirming€the€award€ofÐ P Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó,€modifying€the€amount€of€alimony€and€eliminating€the€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóóÐ ì< Ðafter€the€wifeððs€remarriage.Ð Ø( ÐÓ¥ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð ° ÐModified€in€Part,€and€Reversed€in€Part.ó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼u»àXD™¾#ÔÔ‡XD™X.¼uÔHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó€andÐ tÄ ÐòòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌRobert€L.€Jackson€and€Stanley€Ô_ÔKwellerÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Danny€F.€King.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌMarlene€Ô_ÔEskindÔ_Ô€Moses€and€Thomas€F.€Bloom,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Brenda€C.Ð #`" ÐKing.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ‹ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼u»XXD™º #ÔÔ‡XD™X»¼uÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼u»XXD™S #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XD™X»¼uÔÓ Óà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€Brenda€King€(ð ðWifeðð)€and€Danny€King€(ð ðHusbandðð)€married€in€1967.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐThe€parties€had€a€tumultuous€marriage€marked€by€Husbandððs€alleged€physical€and€emotional€abuseÐ ˜(è#( Ðof€Wife.€€After€30€years€of€marriage,€in€September€1997,€Wife€filed€for€divorce.€€The€case€was€triedÐ „)Ô$) Ðover€two€days€in€April,€1999.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Wife€and€Husband€were€51€and€53€years€old,Ð p*À%* Ðâ ârespectively.Ð \+¬&+ýÿ Ðà  àHusband€is€a€veterinarian€who€owns€and€operates€a€veterinary€clinic.€€Wife€has€some€collegeÐ ° Ðâ âeducation,€but€left€college€in€order€to€work€full„time€while€Husband€completed€his€education.€Ð œì ÐDuring€the€early€years€of€the€partiesðð€marriage,€Wife€worked€outside€the€home.€€Later,€Wife€wasÐ ˆØ Ðprimarily€a€homemaker,€but€also€helped€Husband€run€the€veterinary€clinic.€€To€aid€her€in€her€workÐ tÄ Ðat€the€veterinary€clinic,€Wife€completed€several€courses€in€management€and€taxation.€€Wife€receivedÐ `° Ðno€salary€for€her€work€in€the€veterinary€clinic.€€Wife€worked€in€the€clinic€from€the€time€it€opened€in€Ð L œ Ð1971€until€February€1998,€when€Husband€removed€Wife€from€the€facility.€€At€the€time€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdivorce,€Wife€was€unemployed.€€At€the€trial,€there€was€some€proof,€albeit€unclear,€that€HusbandððsÐ $ t Ðincome€from€the€veterinary€clinic€in€1998€was€roughly€$180,000.Ð  ` Ðà  àAt€the€trial,€Wife€presented€the€testimony€of€her€treating€psychologist,€Dr.€Joan€Schleicher.€Ð è 8  ÐDr.€Schleicher€testified€that,€as€a€result€of€Husbandððs€abuse,€Wife€suffers€from€post„traumatic€stressÐ Ô$  Ðsyndrome.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔSchleicherÔ_Ô€said€Wife€had€been€taking€anti„depressants€since€1999,€and€that€theÐ À  Ðmedication,€combined€with€therapy,€had€greatly€improved€Wifeððs€condition.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔSchleicherÔ_Ô€felt€thatÐ ¬ü  ÐWife€would€benefit€from€employment€and€opined€that,€within€a€few€months€to€two€years,€WifeððsÐ ˜è  Ðmental€health€would€be€at€a€point€where€she€could€seek€employment€in€a€setting€which€did€not€haveÐ „Ô  Ðfactors€which€could€trigger€her€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome,€such€as€a€supervisor€with€HusbandððsÐ pÀ Ðpersonality€characteristics.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔSchleicherÔ_Ô€emphasized€that€Wife€is€a€bright€woman€who€is€good€atÐ \¬ Ðmany€things€and€could€benefit€from€employment,€but€maintained€that,€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,Ð H˜ ÐWife€could€not€fully€support€herself.€€€€€€€€Ð 4„ Ðà  àAfter€the€hearing,€Wife€was€granted€the€divorce€based€on€Husbandððs€inappropriate€maritalÐ  \ Ðconduct€and€his€adultery€post„filing€of€the€divorce€complaint.€€Wife€was€awarded€the€majority€of€theÐ øH Ðmarital€property.€€The€trial€court€required€Husband€to€maintain€a€life€insurance€policy€for€$250,000Ð ä4 Ðwith€Wife€as€the€sole€beneficiary.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Wifeððs€standard€of€living€was€$5000€perÐ Ð  Ðmonth,€and€assumed€that,€after€two€years,€Wife€would€be€capable€of€earning€$25,000€per€year.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðtrial€court€made€no€finding€as€to€Husbandððs€earning€capacity€or€average€earnings.€€Wife€was€awardedÐ ¨ø Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó€in€the€amount€of€$6000€per€month€for€two€years.€€After€two€years,€the€amount€ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€would€be€reduced€to€$4500€per€month.€€Upon€Wifeððs€remarriage,€the€awardÐ €Ð Ðwould€be€immediately€reduced€to€$2000€per€month.€€Husbandððs€alimony€obligation€was€to€terminateÐ l¼ Ðupon€his€death.€€In€addition€to€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€the€trial€court€also€awarded€Wife€$150,000€inÐ X ¨ Ðalimony€òòin€solidoóó.€€In€payment€of€the€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€the€trial€court€required€Husband€either€toÐ D!” Ðmake€monthly€payments€into€an€alimony€trust€over€a€period€of€ten€years,€beginning€two€years€afterÐ 0"€  Ðthe€divorce,€or€to€maintain€an€additional€life€insurance€policy€of€$250,000€with€Wife€as€the€soleÐ #l! Ðbeneficiary.€€Husband€subsequently€chose€to€secure€the€additional€life€insurance€policy.€€Finally,€theÐ $X" Ðtrial€court€awarded€Wife€$10,000€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€divorce€decree€was€later€modified€to€setÐ ô$D # Ðout€specific€parameters€as€to€the€life€insurance€policies€Husband€was€ordered€to€obtain€under€theÐ à%0!$ Ðoriginal€divorce€decree.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Both€parties€now€appeal.Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€inappropriateÐ ° Ðbecause€the€trial€court€found€that€Wife€is€capable€of€earning€a€living€of€at€least€$25,000€per€year.€€HeÐ œì Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awarded€rehabilitative€alimony€based€on€its€finding€ofÐ ˆØ ÐWifeððs€earning€capacity€and€because€of€the€partiesðð€relative€ages,€educational€training,€physicalÐ tÄ Ðcondition,€contribution€to€the€breakup€of€the€marriage,€and€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€maritalÐ `° Ðproperty€in€Wifeððs€favor.€Although€Husband€concedes€that€his€present€earning€capacity€is€greaterÐ L œ Ðthan€Wifeððs€earning€capacity,€he€contends€that€his€future€earning€capacity€is€questionable€becauseÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€has€been€diagnosed€with€congestive€heart€failure.€€In€the€alternative,€Husband€argues€that€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€in€combination€with€its€award€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€is€excessiveÐ  ` Ðbecause€the€amount€of€alimony€òòin€futuroòòóóóó€awarded€exceeds€the€trial€courtððs€finding€as€to€WifeððsÐ ü L  Ðmonthly€need,€and€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay.€€Husband€maintains€that€the€trial€court€made€no€findingÐ è 8  Ðas€to€his€income€or€earning€capacity,€and€yet€awarded€Wife€30%€to€40%€of€his€present€income.€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àHusband€also€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€after€remarriage€violates€Ð ¬ü  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(2)(B),€which€provides€that€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€terminatesÐ ˜è  Ðð ðautomatically€and€unconditionally€upon€the€remarriage€of€the€recipient.ðð€€Finally,€Husband€contendsÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Wife€is€in€error€because€much€of€Wifeððs€legal€expenses€arose€outÐ pÀ Ðof€her€failure€to€cooperate€with€discovery€and€her€repeated€failure€to€produce€records€ordered€by€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial€court.Ð H˜ Ðà  àWife€argues€that€the€test€for€rehabilitation€is€not,€as€Husband€contends,€whether€theÐ  p Ðdisadvantaged€spouse€is€capable€of€earning€some€income.€€Rather,€the€test€is€whether€theÐ  \ Ðdisadvantaged€spouse€can€legitimately€expect€to€earn€a€ð ðreasonable€levelðð€of€income€in€light€of€theÐ øH Ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€wasÐ ä4 Ðproper€in€this€case€based€on€the€length€of€the€partiesðð€marriage,€the€substantial€disparity€in€theÐ Ð  Ðpartiesðð€earning€capacity,€her€lack€of€a€college€degree,€her€mental€and€emotional€problems,€herÐ ¼  Ðcontribution€to€the€marriage,€the€standard€of€living€enjoyed€by€the€parties€prior€to€divorce,€andÐ ¨ø ÐHusbandððs€fault€in€the€breakup€of€the€marriage.€€Wife€maintains€that€the€amount€of€alimony€awardedÐ ”ä Ðis€not€excessive€in€light€of€her€demonstrated€need,€her€lack€of€personal€assets€or€financial€resourcesÐ €Ð Ðoutside€of€the€marital€property€awarded€to€her,€and€Husbandððs€income.€€She€also€argues€that€the€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourtððs€award€of€alimony€after€remarriage€and€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€appropriate€under€theÐ X ¨ Ðfacts€of€this€case.€€Ð D!” Ðà  à€€€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€several€respects.€€First,€Wife€contends€the€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðerred€by€failing€to€require€Husband€to€designate€her€as€an€irrevocable€beneficiary€on€the€lifeÐ $X" Ðinsurance€policies€he€was€required€to€obtain,€in€order€to€prevent€Husband€from€changing€theÐ ô$D # Ðbeneficiary€or€allowing€the€insurance€to€lapse.€€She€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€endingÐ à%0!$ ÐHusbandððs€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€obligation€upon€his€death€rather€than€upon€her€death.€€Finally,€WifeÐ Ì&"% Ðasserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€property€was€inequitable€because€the€value€of€some€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðproperty€she€received€is€considerably€less€than€the€trial€courtððs€valuation.€€As€a€result,€Wife€argues,Ð ° ÐHusband€received€a€greater€percentage€of€the€marital€property€than€he€contends.Ð œì Ðà  àThe€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€to€determine€the€amount€and€duration€of€alimony.€Ð tÄ ÐGenerally,€issues€regarding€alimony€are€factually€driven€and€the€trial€court€should€balance€the€factorsÐ `° Ðset€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€regarding€alimonyÐ L œ Ðis€normally€overturned€only€if€the€trial€court€has€abused€its€discretion.€€ò òòòGoodman€v.€Goodmanóóó ó,€8Ð ° ÐS.W.3d€289,€293€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Similarly,€Ô‡XD™XXXD™Ôthe€trial€court€is€afforded€discretion€concerningÐ œì Ðwhether€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€in€a€divorce€case.€€òòò òSee€Long€v.€Longó óóó,€957€S.W.2d€825,€827€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€1997).€€On€appeal,€the€appellate€court€shall€not€interfere€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€exceptÐ tÄ Ðupon€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÔ#†XD™XXXD™J5#Ô€€Ô‡XD™XXXD™ÔAlthough€there€is€a€presumption€that€maritalÐ `° Ðproperty€is€owned€equally,€there€is€no€presumption€that€marital€property€should€be€divided€equally.€Ð L œ Ðò òòòSeeóóó ó€ò òòòBookout€v.€Bookoutó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€730,€731€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€€Thus,€an€equitable€division€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€marital€property€need€not€be€an€equal€division€of€the€property.€€ò òòòSee€id.€€óóó óA€trial€court€is€affordedÐ $ t Ðwide€discretion€when€dividing€the€marital€property,€and€its€distribution€will€be€given€ð ðgreat€weightððÐ  ` Ðon€appeal.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€ò òòòFord€v.€Fordó óóó,€952€S.W.2d€824,€825€(Tenn.€App.€1997).Ô#†XD™XXXD™7#ÔÐ ü L  Ðà  àWife€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€marital€property€was€in€error.€€SheÐ Ô$  Ðargues€that€the€trial€courtððs€division€was€inequitable,€based€on€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€valuingÐ À  Ðseveral€properties€awarded€to€her.€€However,€based€on€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€valuation.€€The€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourtððs€division€of€marital€property€is€affirmed.€€€ò òó óÐ „Ô  Ðà  àSecond,€we€address€Wifeððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€requiring€Husband€toÐ \¬ Ðdesignate€her€as€an€irrevocable€beneficiary€on€the€life€insurance€policies.€€However,€in€its€modifiedÐ H˜ Ðdivorce€decree,€the€trial€court€required,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Husband€€inform€the€insurance€companiesÐ 4„ Ðfrom€which€he€obtained€the€policies€that€Wife€be€notified€directly€if€any€changes€are€made€to€the€Ð  p Ðpolicies€or€there€is€a€lapse€in€payments.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð  \ Ðà  àHusband€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€arguing€that€the€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðshould€have€awarded€only€rehabilitative€alimony€and€that€the€amount€awarded€is€excessive.€€A€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourt€has€wide€discretion€in€determining€whether€an€award€of€alimony€should€be€rehabilitative€or€inÐ ¼  Ðfuturo.€€òòò òCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóóó ó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€360€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€assessing€the€type€of€alimonyÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€should€be€awarded,€the€trial€court€must€carefully€weigh€the€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ ”ä ÐAnnotated€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).€€Alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€appropriate€where€the€trial€court€finds€thatÐ €Ð Ðeconomic€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€and€long€term€support€is€necessary.€€òòò òRobertson€v.€Robertsonóóó ó,Ð l¼ ÐNo.€E2000„01698„COA„RM„CV,€2000€WL€1211314,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€25,€2000),€appealÐ X ¨ Ðden.€Mar.€12,€2001.ò ò€€ó óMere€employability€or€a€capacity€for€self„support€at€a€subsistence€level€is€notÐ D!” Ðsynonymous€with€rehabilitation.€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(quoting€òòò òÔ_ÔBlumbergÔ_Ô€v.€Blumbergóóó ó,€561€So.2d€1187,€1189€(Fla.Ð 4"„  ÐDist.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€ò òó óIn€determining€whether€rehabilitation€is€feasible,€the€trial€court€shouldÐ  #p! Ðdetermine€whether€the€disadvantaged€spouse€can€improve€her€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level.€Ð  $\" Ðòòò òDempsey€v.€Dempseyóóó ó,€No.€Ô_ÔM1998Ô_Ô„00972„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔR3Ô_Ô„CV,€2000€WL€1006945,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ø$H # Ðâ âJuly€21,€2000)òòò òóóó óÐ ä%4!$ Ðà  àIn€this€case,€Wife€does€not€have€a€college€degree,€and€for€the€majority€of€the€marriage,Ð ° Ðâ âworked€only€in€Husbandððs€veterinary€clinic.€€Wife€is€still€relatively€young,€but€suffers€from€mentalÐ œì Ðand€emotional€problems€which€the€trial€court€could€conclude€stem€from€her€marriage.€€WifeððsÐ ˆØ Ðtreating€psychologist€testified€that€it€may€be€months€before€Wife€would€be€able€to€maintain€full„timeÐ tÄ Ðemployment.€€Further,€although€the€trial€court€found€that€Wife€will€ultimately€have€a€potentialÐ `° Ðearning€capacity€of€$25,000,€Husbandððs€earning€capacity€without€question€considerably€exceeds€thatÐ L œ Ðof€Wife.€€Consequently,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€awarding€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€in€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase.€€Ð $ t ÐÔ‡XD™XXXD™Ôà  àHusband€also€argues€that€the€amount€of€alimony€awarded€to€Wife€is€excessive,€and€that€thereÐ ü L  Ðshould€be€no€continuation€of€the€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€after€Wifeððs€remarriage.€€Based€on€the€trial€courtððsÐ è 8  Ðfinding€as€to€the€amount€of€Wifeððs€monthly€needs,€considering€the€trial€courtððs€division€of€maritalÐ Ô$  Ðproperty€and€the€award€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€and€considering€the€partiesðð€circumstances€as€a€whole,Ð À  Ðwe€must€conclude€that€the€amount€of€alimony€awarded€is€excessive.€€Moreover,€under€TennesseeÐ ¬ü  ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(2)(B),€the€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€after€remarriage€is€in€error.€Ð ˜è  ÐConsequently,€we€modify€the€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€$4,500€per€month€for€the€first€two€years,Ð „Ô  Ðand€$3,000€per€month€thereafter,€terminating€upon€Wifeððs€remarriage€or€upon€the€death€of€HusbandÐ pÀ Ðor€Wife,€whichever€occurs€first.Ð \¬ Ðà  àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Wife€attorneyððs€fees.€€We€find€no€abuseÐ 4„ Ðof€discretion€in€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees,€and€this€decision€is€affirmed.€€All€other€issues€areÐ  p Ðpretermitted,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€all€other€respects.Ô#†XD™XXXD™I#ÔÐ  \ Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€modified€in€part,€and€reversed€in€part,€asÐ ä4 Ðset€forth€above€in€this€Opinion.€€Costs€are€taxed€equally€to€the€appellant€Danny€F.€King€and€theÐ Ð  Ðappellee€Brenda€C.€King,€and€their€sureties,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€òòò òóóó ó€€€€€€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€K.€LILLARD,€JUDGEÐ X ¨ ÐÓ  Ó