WPCE u}1Ga:,۪VV4䨛|fQPq~$+ } #h GQfQ: E&ڪ^r Jo\L(2V"hQI:i6|1[.,[."gy]&[X$|} 9{I*btԠC}shH*[~, GC >f"/ZA?3'(Q?p:i>08TjU8ҝ8'ql@(&0i|ާit']>Q }VE2iVV&d)pZIC97SvQ tLgU$ X]#%&?W'Ȗn$K1E6]7ǼX9̩3]R!8C3F't=f# %U ^ [ 0g UN w= 4A zU    m UN    i 0D/Ns 0Uu 0E 0 0 0~ 0^ 0; 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0M 0 0 0 0@e 0 0y 0J 0 0 0!bp" 0x" 0:# 00# 0<'$ 0c$ 0>!% 0v_% 0`% 0`5& 0`& 0`& 0`U' 08' 0' 02( 0( 0:) 0Y'* 0_* 0 * 0j+ 0S- B*. D// 00/ D/0 00 061 01 0:2 0^)3 0<3U63U>3U*74 0a4wL5L57 B<< 0KA D3A D-"B 0KOBOB ASBB 0C 0DWD ADUNFEU>EEEHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,07\-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],t 0 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dE)1dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7  ?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(|G264$ !.8dd8         0    m R64$      2     _EvenifHusbandwasnotprecludedfromraisingtheissueonappeal,testimonyindicatedthatthepartiesadult  daughterdidnotcontributetoWifessupport,andWifescontributiontoherdaughtersexpenseswaslisted.As x discussedbelow,Wifehadaneedforalimonyevenifexpensesrelatedtothechildrenandgrandchildrenwerenot @ considered.Underthesecircumstances,thestatutorypresumptionwouldberebutted.  R64$      1     _Section365101(a)(3)oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotatedstates:  8  Inallcases SӀwhereapersonisreceivingalimonyinfuturoandthealimonyrecipientliveswithathird @ person,arebuttablepresumptionistherebyraisedthat: X Ѐ ` (A)Thethirdpersoniscontributingtothesupportofthealimonyrecipientandthealimony   recipientthereforedoesnotneedtheamountofsupportpreviouslyawarded,andthecourttherefore  shouldsuspendallorpartofthealimonyobligationoftheformerspouse;or `   Ѐ ` (B)Thethirdpersonisreceivingsupportfromthealimonyrecipientandthealimony  recipientthereforedoesnotneedtheamountofalimonypreviouslyawardedandthecourttherefore x shouldsuspendallorpartofthealimonyobligationoftheformerspouse.@   Tenn.Code.Ann.365101(a)(3)(2001). S d  R64$      3     _Thefactorstobeconsideredare:  b 8  (A)Therelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancialresourcesofeachparty,including @ incomefrompension,profitsharingorretirementplansandallothersources; T Ѐ....  (C)Thedurationofthemarriage;  Ѐ....P    8  (E)Thephysicalconditionofeachparty,including,butnotlimitedto,physicaldisabilityorincapacity  d duetoachronicdebilitatingdisease;  ( Ѐ....# b#c     (K)Therelativefaultofthepartiesincaseswherethecourt,initsdiscretion,deemsitappropriateto `   doso.... $ t  # cA#    Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(A),(C),(E)and(K)(2001). (|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman  !.8dd8     _  8CXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   May23,2002Session X XCX #XXC#DONALDFRANKLINKINGv.BETTYJUNEKINGXCX   ` @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHendersonCounty  h @@No.14164JoeC.Morris,Chancellor  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200101766_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober28,_2002_ '  AV) ` dE<` A      Thisisanalimonycase.Thepartiesweremarriedfortwentynineyears.Thewifeisdisabledand  unabletowork.Upondivorce,thehusbandwasorderedtopayalimonyinfuturountilthewife  reachessixtytwoyearsofage.Onappeal,thehusbandarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperly  assessedthewifeslivingexpenses,andthatthehusbandwillnotbeabletoaffordthenecessities  oflifeifheisrequiredtofulfillhisalimonyobligation.Weaffirm,findingthatthetrialcourtdid v notabuseitsdiscretion. f    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  F N#XCh#XCX.HollyK._Lillard_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, &v andAlanE._Highers_,J.,joined. f _Carthel_ԀL.Smith,Lexington,Tennessee,forappellant,DonaldFranklinKing F JamesF.ButlerandJ.Brandon_McWherter_,Jackson,Tennessee,forappellee,BettyJuneKing. &    OPINION #XXC#XCX !  h #XXC #XCX   DonaldFranklinKing( Husband)andBettyJuneKing( Wife)weremarriedJanuary16, #" 1972.Thepartiesseparatedin1997,andonJune26,2000,Husbandpetition#XXC #XCXedfordivorce,citing $# inappropriatemaritalconductandirreconcilabledifferences.Wifecounterclaimedfordivorce,also v% $ assertingirreconcilabledifferencesandinappropriatemaritalconduct.Atthetimeofthedivorce, f&!% thepartieshadtwodaughters,oneofwhomwasaminor.Eachdaughterhasachild,andbothofthe V'"& daughtersandbothgrandchildrenresidewithWife.Wifeisdisabledandunabletowork.Atthe F(#' timeofthehearing,shewas  fortyfiveyearsold.HusbandhasbeenemployedwithKrogerformost 6)$( ofhisadultlife,andearns$13.65perhour,withanetmonthlyincomeof$1,680.Hewas  fortynine &*v%) yearsoldatthetimeofthehearing. +f&*  X? XXXC  ,F(,   Fromthetimethepartiesseparatedin1997untilAugust,2000,Husbandpaidwife$100per  week,primarilytosupporttheirminorchild.OnAugust17,2000,atahearingtodetermine  temporarysupportandotherissues,thetrialjudgeorderedHusbandtopay$525permonthalimony  _pendente_Ԁlite,effectiveAugust18,2000. t   ThedivorcehearingwasheldonJune26,2001.Intheseproceedings,Wifelistedexpenses L  of$2,036.13permonth,$420ofwhichwasattributedtocaringforthedaughtersandgrandchildren. 8  Wifesincomeatthetimeofthehearingconsistedof$861inSocialSecuritybenefits,plus$461in $ t SocialSecuritybenefitsfortheminordaughter,whichterminatedinJanuary,2002,whenthe  ` daughterturnedeighteenyearsold.ThetrialcourtgrantedthedivorcetoWife.Bystipulationin  L  thedivorcedecree,HusbandagreedtopayWife$400permonthinchildsupportuntilMay,2002,  8  whentheyoungerdaughtergraduatedfromhighschool.Thisobligationwasoffsetbythe$461 $  SocialSecuritypaymentfromthetimeofthedivorcedecree throughJanuary,2002.Husbandwas   alsoorderedtopayWife$400permonthalimonyinfuturountilWifeturnssixtytwoyearsold.   Fromthisorder,Husbandnowappeals.#XCX X X?#      Onappeal,Husbandargues(1)thatthetrialcourtfailedtoconsiderthefinancialhousehold p contributionsoftheadultdaughterwhowasthenlivingwithWife;(2)thatthetrialcourterredin ` consideringWifesexpensesthatweredirectlyrelatedtosupportingthepartiestwodaughtersand P grandchildrenlivingwithWife;and(3)thatthealimonyawardpreventsHusbandfrompayingfor @ thenecessitiesoflife. 0   Becausethiscasewasheardbythetrialcourtsittingwithoutajury,wereviewthecasede ` novoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt P below,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthedecisionofthetrialcourt. See Tenn.R.App. @ P.13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Inreviewinganalimony 0 award,theappellatecourtwillnotoverturnthejudgmentofthetrialcourtunlesstheaward   evidencesanabuseofdiscretion. Lindseyv.Lindsey ,976S.W.2d175,180(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  Anabuseofdiscretionmeansthatthediscretionofthetrialcourtjudge wasnotexercisedin  conformitywiththeapplicableguidelines,orthe decisionwasplainlyandlogicallyagainstthe  factsbeforethecourt. BIF,Div.ofSignalControls,Inc.v.ServiceConstr.Co. ,No.87136II,   1988Tenn.App.LEXIS430,at*8(Tenn.Ct.App.July13,1988)(citationsomitted). !   Husbandfirstarguesthatthetrialcourtfailedtoapplythethirdparty_rebuttable_Ԁpresumption, `#! assetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotated365101(a)(3),8 @> U #  1      ׀tothepartiesadultdaughterwhowas P$" thenlivingwithWife.Thestatuteraisesa_rebuttable_Ԁpresumptionthatathirdpartylivingwiththe  alimonyrecipientiseithercontributingtothesupportofthealimonyrecipient,therebydiminishing  theneedforalimony,orthatthealimonyrecipientiscontributingtothesupportofthethirdparty  andthereforedoesnotneedthealimony.Husbandpointstonoplaceintherecordinwhichthis  issuewasraisedtothetrialcourt.BecauseHusbandfailedtoaddressthisissuewiththetrialcourt, p heisprecludedfromraisingtheissueonappeal.S #  2      ׀ Brownv.Brown ,No.M199901085_COA_ԄR3 `  CV,2000Tenn.App.LEXIS287,at*56(Tenn.Ct.App.May5,2000). P    HusbandnextarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperlyassessedWifeslivingexpensesbecause 0  itfailedtoexcludeexpensesdesignatedforthesupportofthepartieschildrenandgrandchildren.  p  Whilethereisnoformulafordeterminingtheamountofalimony,thecourtshouldconsiderthe `  factorssetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotated365101(d)(1)(A)(L).W  #  3      ׀ Claytonv.Clayton ,No. P  E20001413_COA_ԄR3CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS399,at*11(Tenn.Ct.App.May30,2001); @   Aaronv.Aaron ,909S.W.2d408,410(Tenn.1995).Themostimportantfactorsarethe_obligor_s 0  abilitytopay,andthe_obligee_sneedforsupport. See_Cranford_Ԁv._Cranford_ ,772S.W.2d48,50   (Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Inthiscase,therecordshowsthatWifesexpensesare$2,036.12permonth,  ofwhich$420isdesignatedforcaringforthechildrenandgrandchildren.Evenifthe$420is  subtractedfromWifestotalexpenses,theexpensesstillamountto$1,616.12permonth,leaving  herwithatleasta$350deficit.Therefore,evenexcludingtheseexpenses,Wifestillhasaneedfor  thealimonypayments.    Therecordalsoindicatesthatthetrialcourtconsideredthedurationofthemarriage(29  years),Husbandsearningcapacityandrelativefaultinthedivorce,andWifesdisabilityand  consequentinabilitytowork.Husbandarguesthatthealimonyawardleaveshimunabletopayfor  thenecessitiesinhislife.Thealimonyaward,however,essentiallyequalizesthepartiesincome.  Afterpayingalimony,Husbandsmonthlygrossincomeis$1,280($1,680minus$400alimony p obligation).Afterreceivingalimony,Wifesmonthlyincomeis$1,262($861inSocialSecurity `  benefitsplus$400inalimony).Inthiscase,theresimplyislittlemoneytogoaround,anditappears P  thatthetrialcourtsdecisionwasmakingthebestofadifficultsituation.Underthesecircumstances, @  wefindnoabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourt,andaffirmtheawardofalimony. 0     Finally,Wiferequestsanawardofattorneysfeeswithrespecttothisappeal.Basedonthe `  partiessituationasdiscussedabove,thisrequestisdeclined. P    Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsaretaxedtoAppellant,DonaldFranklin 0  King,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.       `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     HOLLYK._LILLARD_,JUDGE