WPC=   6pop~;t"6eX8`[ 0UE 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 09 0 0C 0' 0 0 0 0q 0< 0 0 0@ 0 0! 0n" 0<# 0$b$ 0$ 0% 0^& 00' 0<K' 0' 0>E( 0v( 0`( 0`Y) 0`) 0`* 0`y* 08* 0+ 02+ 0, 0:- 0YK- 0_- 0 . 0j / 0w0 B*1 D/%2 0T2 D/3 04 064 0 5 0:6 0^M6 0<6 1e6U6L7 07U*m8 1u8 72 9 B>9 0D[9 09 D5C: D-x: 0K:: AS:K; 0< 0D< A<1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.b014c23|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 P R$      1    _Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(C),states,inpertinentpart,that  8  8`   [_i]t_Ԁistheintentofthegeneralassemblythataspousewhoiseconomically 8 disadvantagedrelativetotheotherspouse,berehabilitatedwheneverpossibleby L thegrantingofanorderforpaymentofrehabilitative,temporarysupportand  maintenance.\  `&Times New Roman*+ (_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 $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7G(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dF)1dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7F)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%& 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New(|G2$ !.8G%dd8         0  %2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti) d(#$  0  (|3p$ !.8G%dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3p$ !.8G%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8G%dd8     _  G%8XXdd8  @ UG%INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#G%U #Ԉ &   August9,2004Session L XXG% #G%XX#MITCHELLLLOYDMAGILLv.MARYR.MAGILLXXG%  J @@ AppealfromtheGeneralSessionsCourtfor_Roane_ԀCounty  J @@No.5460ADennisW.Humphrey,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302209_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDAUGUST31,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisadivorcecase.ThetrialcourtgrantedMaryR._MaGill_Ԁ( Wife)adivorcebaseduponthe x  inappropriatemaritalconductofherspouse,MitchellLloydMagill( Husband);awardedWife d rehabilitativealimonyof$600permonthforfouryears,plusattorneysfeesof$600;anddivided P thepartiesmaritalproperty.Husbandappealsthetrialcourtsawardofrehabilitativealimony.In < aseparateissue,Wifecontendsthatthetrialcourtfailedtodividemaritalassetsintheformoftwo (x businesses,i.e.,_MaGill_ԀElectricandC&MLounge#G%XX`#XXG%.Shealsoseeksanawardofdamagesfora d frivolousappeal.Weaffirm. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheGeneralSessionsCourt ( Affirmed;CaseRemanded     #G%X#XX.G%CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,_P.J._#G%XX? #XXG%,  andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.#G%XX #XXG%,joined.  _Scarlett_Ԁ_Beaty_Ԁ_Latham_,Albany,Kentucky,fortheappellant,MitchellLloyd_MaGill_. ` Tom_McFarland_,Kingston,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MaryR._MaGill_. 8!    OPINION #G%XXɨ #XXG% #`" #G%XXɯ #XXG%    I. $8 $ 8   Thetrialcourtdissolvedamarriageof17years.Atthetimeoftheirdivorce,Husbandwas &"& 47yearsold,andWifewas42.Nochildrenwereborntotheirunion. '"'   ThismatterwasinitiallyheardonOctober3,2002,andanorderwasthereafterentered )$) grantingWifeanabsolutedivorce.Theorderreservedallotherissues.Ahearingonthedivision p*%* ofthepartiespropertyandalimonywasheldonJuly31,2003.Apparently,thepartiesdidnothave \+&+ acourtreporterpresentatthislatterhearing;asaconsequenceofthis,thereisnoverbatimtranscript H,', oftheevidence.Husband,instead,filedanamendedstatementoftheevidencealongwithexhibits. 4-(- _Wifedoesnotdisputetheaccuracyofthestatement.ThepartiesandWifesdaughterofanearlier  marriageweretheonlywitnessesinthiscase.    WifetestifiedthatHusbandearned over$50,000peryearandthatheworkedfor cash t money,pocketing thousandsofdollarsthathefailedto report[]totheIRS.Wifestatedthat ` shewasemployedatHarrimanHospitalearning$6.47perhour. L    AccordingtoWife,duringthepartiesmarriage,shemadedepositsof$3,000to$4,000per $ t monthforC&MLounge,whichisapparentlyabartypeestablishment.Wifealsotenderedseveral  ` exhibitsthatwerereceivedintoevidence.Theseexhibits!apparentlyreflectingvariousbusiness  L  transactions!wereofferedinanattempttoprovethatHusbandssoleproprietorship,MaGill  8  Electric,earnedmoremoneythanreportedonthepartiestaxreturns.Inheraffidavitofassets,Wife $  listedthecurrentrevenuesofMaGillElectricas$50,000peryearandthecurrentrevenuesofC&M   Loungeas$25,000peryear.HusbandlistedthevalueofMaGillElectricas [u]nknownanddid   notlistavalueforC&MLounge.     HusbanddisagreedwithWifestestimonyregardinghisincome;heproducedjointtaxreturns p inordertosupporthisclaim.HusbandalsotestifiedthatC&MLoungenevermade muchmoney. \ Husbandstatedthat thetaxreturnsaccuratelyreflectedhisnetearningsaftercostsofgoods, H businessexpensesandotherallowabledeductionsweretakenintoconsideration. 4   ThetrialcourtenteredafinaljudgmentonAugust11,2003.Initsfinaljudgment,thetrial  \ courtmadethefollowingfindingswithrespecttoalimony. H 8  8`   Atthetimeofthedivorce,[Wife]testified,sheearnedatthehospital   $5.48anhourandnowearns$6.47.Shehasahighschooleducation   andis42.` x` x   ***   8  8`   [Husband]maintained[C&MLounge]operatedatalossanddenied X  concealingincome....D!` x` x 8  8`   [Husband]alsodeniedtheincomeattributedtohimduringcross #l! examination,whichrevealedacashflowofseveralhundredthousand $X" dollarseachyear.Heexplainedthattheexpenseofmaterialswere $D # depictedintherecordsobtainedfromhiscomputerandsubmitted %0!$ duringthehearing.Hedeniedconcealingincomefromthatbusiness &"% aswell.'#&` x` x 8  8`   [Wife],however,maintainedinhertestimonythatatthebarsheoften )$(  madethedepositsof$3,000.00to$4,000.00eachmonth,andthatas |*%) anelectrician,[Husband]wouldoftenacceptcashthatwouldnotbe  reportedasincome.[Husbands]actualincomeisindispute.` x` x    8 @ 8@`   *** t 8  8`   TheCourtresolvestheseconflictsinfavorof[Wife]andfinds L  [Husbands]testimonytonotbecredible.8 ` x` x   ***  ` 8  8`   InreviewingthewifesAffidavitofExpenses,theCourtfindsher  8  monthlyexpensesandherincometobeanaccuraterepresentationof $  herfinancialstateandagreesthatanwardofalimonyandanaward   ofattorneysfee[s]tobeappropriate.... ` x` x   ThetrialcourtorderedHusbandtopayWiferehabilitativealimonyintheamountof$600   permonthforfouryearsandawardedwife$600inattorneysfees.Thisappealfollowed. p   II. H A" X4 XXX  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelowwith  p apresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfactualfindings, unlessthepreponderanceofthe  \ evidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarenotaccorded H thesamedeference. Brumitv.Brumit ,948S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).#XX X X4v"# 4   III.   $ X4 XXX  Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(E)(i)(xii)(Supp.2003),setsforththefactorstobe  consideredbyacourtinaddressingtheissueofalimony:  8  8`   (i)Therelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancial X  resourcesofeachpartyincludingincomefrompension,profitsharing D! orretirementplansandallothersources; 0"   ` x` x 8  8`   (ii)Therelativeeducationandtrainingofeachparty,theabilityand $X" opportunityofeachpartytosecuresucheducationandtraining,and $D # thenecessityofapartytosecurefurthereducationandtrainingto %0!$ improvesuchpartysearningcapacitytoareasonablelevel;&"%` x` x 8  8`   (iii)Thedurationofthemarriage;(#'` x` x 8  8`   (iv)Theageandmentalconditionofeachparty;)$(` x` x 8  8`   (v)Thephysicalconditionofeachparty,including,butnotlimitedto, |*%) physicaldisabilityorincapacityduetoachronicdebilitatingdisease;h+&*` x` x  8  8`   (vi)Theextenttowhichitwouldbeundesirableforapartytoseek  employmentoutsidethehomebecausesuchpartywillbecustodian  ofaminorchildofthemarriage;t` x` x  8  8`   (vii)Theseparateassetsofeachparty,bothrealandpersonal, L  tangibleandintangible;8 ` x` x  8  8`   (viii)Theprovisionsmadewithregardtothemaritalpropertyas  ` definedin364121; L ` x` x  8  8`   (ix)Thestandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthe $  marriage; ` x` x  8  8`   (x)Theextenttowhicheachpartyhasmadesuchtangibleand   intangiblecontributionstothemarriageasmonetaryandhomemaker   contributions,andtangibleandintangiblecontributionsbyapartyto p theeducation,trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;\` x` x  8  8`   (xi)Therelativefaultofthepartiesincaseswherethecourt,inits 4 discretion,deemsitappropriatetodoso;and p` x` x  8  8`   (xii)Suchotherfactors,includingthetaxconsequencestoeachparty, H asarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.#XX X X4$#4` x` x   IV.   0 X4 XXX  HusbandarguesthatthetrialcourterredinawardingrehabilitativealimonytoWife solely  onthebasisofherclaimthattheHusbandhasunreportedincome.Husbandassertsthatthetrial  courtfailedtofindthat Wifeiscapableoforinneedofrehabilitationandfailedto considerthe l otherfactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.[]365101indeterminingwhetheralimonywas X  appropriateinthiscase.#XX X X411# D!   Becausetheamountofalimonytobeawardediswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt #l! inviewoftheparticularcircumstancesofthecase,appellatecourtswillnotaltersuchawardsabsent $X" anabuseofdiscretion. Lindseyv.Lindsey ,976S.W.2d175,180(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).In $D # determiningthepropriety,nature,andamountofanalimonyaward,courtsaretoconsiderthe %0!$ statutoryfactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(E)(i)(xii). [T]hereisnoabsolute &"% formulafordeterminingtheamountofalimony. Aaronv.Aaron ,909S.W.2d408,410(Tenn. '#& 1995).Thetwomostimportantfactorsinsettingtheamountofanalimonyawardareneedandthe (#' abilitytopay,withneedbeing thesinglemostimportantfactor. Id. (quoting Cranfordv. )$( Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(citationsomitted)). |*%)    h+&*   Tenn.CodeAnn.365101clearlyreflectsalegislativepreferenceforanawardof  rehabilitativealimony.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(C)(Supp.2003). W#  1      ׀Underthisstatute,  rehabilitation    8 ` meanstoachieve,withreasonableeffort,anearningcapacitythatwill ` permittheeconomicallydisadvantagedspousesstandardofliving L  afterthedivorcetobereasonablycomparabletothestandardofliving 8  enjoyedduringthemarriage,ortothepostdivorcestandardofliving $ t expectedtobeavailabletotheotherspouse,consideringtherelevant  ` statutoryfactorsandtheequitiesbetweentheparties. L ` x` x   Itisclearthat [t]hepriorconceptofalimonyaslifelongsupportenablingthedisadvantagedspouse $  tomaintainthestandardoflivingestablishedduringthemarriagehasbeensupersededbythe   legislaturesestablishmentofapreferenceforrehabilitativealimony. Robertsonv.Robertson ,76   S.W.3d337,340(Tenn.2002)(citationsomitted).     Withrespecttotheproprietyoftheawardofrehabilitativealimony,wearemindfulofthe p twocriticalfactors!needandabilitytopay.See Aaron ,909S.W.2dat410.Ourreviewoftherecord \ indicatesthatWifeisage42,hasahighschooleducation;andearns$6.47perhourasanemployee H ofHarrimanHospital.Husbandsincomewasindisputeatthetrialbelow.Wifeclaimedthat 4 husbandwouldoftenaccept!andnotreport!cashforhisworkasanelectricianandthatshemade  p depositsofupto$4,000eachmonthforthebar.Husbanddeniedconcealingincomefromhis  \ businessanddeniedthathehadanannualcashflowofseveralhundredthousanddollars.Thetrial H court resolve[d]theseconflictsinfavorof[Wife]and[found][Husbands]testimonytonotbe 4 credible.Generallyspeaking,theissueofwitnesscredibilityisforthetrialcourt.See Galbreath   v.Harris ,811S.W.2d88,91(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).   Ѐ  ItisclearthatWifeiseconomicallydisadvantagedvisavisHusband.Thetrialcourt,inan  efforttorehabilitateWife,orderedHusbandtopay$600permonthfor48months.Basedupon  Wifesneed,Husbandsabilitytopay,andtherelevantfactors X4 XXXunderTenn.CodeAnn.365 l 101(d)(1)(E)(i)(xii)#XX X X4OC#,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfinding X  thatWifecouldberehabilitated.Accordingly,wedonotfindthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion D! inmakingthis_award.  0"    V.  D  Wifearguesthatthetrialcourtheldthat_MaGill_ԀElectricandC&MLoungearemarital  property,butfailedtodividethepartiesinterestsinthebusinesses.Asaresult,Wifemaintainsthat t bothbusinessesare undistributedmartialassets. `  X4 XXX  Propertymaybeequitablydividedanddistributedbetweenthepartiesonceitisproperly 8  classifiedasmarital.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(a)(1)(Supp.2003). Trialcourtshavewide $ t latitudeinfashioninganequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty. Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,  ` 168(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)(citationomitted).Suchadivisionistobeeffecteduponconsideration  L  ofthestatutoryfactorsfoundinTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(Supp.2003).However,  8  8  8`   anequitablepropertydivisionisnotnecessarilyanequalone.Itisnot   achievedbyamechanicalapplicationofthestatutoryfactors,but   ratherbyconsideringandweighingthemostrelevantfactorsinlight   oftheuniquefactsofthecase. ` x` x  _Batson_Ԁv._Batson_ ,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Itisnotnecessarythatbothparties \ receiveashareofeachpieceofproperty. Thompsonv.Thompson ,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.Ct. H App.1990).Appellatecourtsaretodefertoatrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyunlessthetrial 4 courtsdecisionisinconsistentwiththestatutoryfactorsorisunsupportedbythepreponderanceof  p theevidence. Brown ,913S.W.2dat168#XX X X4F#.  \     Therecordinthiscaseisdevoidofanyevidenceastothevalueof_MaGill_ԀElectricandC& 4 MLounge.Wifesaffidavitsimplyliststheannualgrossincomeofeachbusinesswithoutproviding   furtherevidenceastotheirvalue,ifany,asagoingconcern.Bothbusinessesappeartobeasole   proprietorshipwhichcontinuedtobeoperatedbyHusbandfollowingthepartiesseparation.Inthe  absenceofevidenceoftangibleassetsorotherassetsofvalue,wefindnoerrorinthefailureofthe  trialcourttospecificallyaddressthesetwobusinesseswhichappear,essentially,tobenothingmore  thanthepersonofHusband. l   VI. D! P5P    WifemaintainsthatHusbandsappealisfrivolousandthatsheshouldbeawardeddamages. #l! ЀWefindWifesargumenttobewithoutmeritanddenyherclaimfordamages. $X" P7VII. %0!$ Q X4 XXX    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfor '#& enforcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuantto (#' applicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,MitchellLloyd_MaGill_.#XX X X4 R# )$(    `     h  h+&* Ї____   `     h     _______________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE