WPCt0 *N#Udul@!jyst lW]acլ-}t@(]c(OcrDlN&%^ d%wp%4t%%b%% m% 0% 0^&N' 0DO))\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+\+ 0q+q+q+q+ B\,\, 0y, D3- D-P- 0K}-}- AS-. 0. 0D/ A/HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,02G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para\  `&Times New Roman*:) 9?(bk13|x- - U0;;.footer   !XXX   !XXX({2)>$ !.8dd8      D R]$      2  |  _Wifedeniesattackingthecoworker,afemale,butadmitsthatshereferredtothecoworkeras trailertrash  andtoldherthatsheshouldhaveherteethfixed.WifeadmitsbitingHusbandandhittinghistruckwithatwobyfour x in1993.WifeallegesthatHusbandhadatonetimehitherintheheadwithafryingpanandhadpulledherbyherhair. @ Husbanddeniestheseallegations.(#$  0    R]$      1  |  _XX||XX&  ThecomplaintandanswerindicatethatKeelysdateofbirthisFebruary4,1981.Thestatementofthe  evidenceindicatesthatKeelysdateofbirthisApril2,1981.#XX|#'    (|G2]$ !.8dd8         0  | d(|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 !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  6P@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE##Ԉ ,   June2000Session X XX #XX#JACKIE_MCGREGOR_v.GREGORSCOTT_MCGREGOR_XX   ` @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  h @@No.97DR0428L.MarieWilliams,Judge  X FILEDSEPTEMBER26,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E199900877_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      #XX#XX)XXXXThisisadivorcecase.Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelow(1)grantedthepartiesadivorceon  stipulatedgrounds;(2)dividedthemaritalproperty;and(3)foundthatwifewasnotentitledtoan  awardofalimony,butthatfundswithdrawnbyherfromajointaccountimmediatelypriortoher  filingfordivorceconstitutednecessarytemporarysupportforherandthepartiesdaughter.Wife  appealsthetrialcourtscharacterizationofcertainrealpropertyasmaritalpropertyandthetrial v courtsdivisionofthemaritalproperty.Bothwifeandhusbandtakeissuewiththetrialcourts f treatmentofthefundswithdrawnbywifefromthejointaccount.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrial V court,asmodified. F   #XXX)X`##XXA#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt f AffirmedasModified;CaseRemanded  V   #XP #XX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand 6 D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined. & Thomas_Crutchfield_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Jackie_McGregor_. !  GraceE._Daniell_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,GregorScott_McGregor_. #"   OPINION #XXK # v% $ XX    I. ~'"&     Inthisdivorcecase,thetrialcourtdissolvedthemarriageofJackie_McGregor_Ԁ( Wife)and ^)$( 6P 6  6  GregorScott_McGregor_Ԁ( Husband).Thepartieshadbeenmarriedsince1975,andtheirmarriage  producedonechild,_Keely_Ԁ(DOB:April2,1981).5 4#  1           Wifehasabachelorofsciencedegreeandworkedasarealestateagentfrom1983to1989  andfrom1992to1996.SheallowedherrealestatelicensetolapseinOctober,1996,afteran p unsuccessfullawsuitregardingrealestateshehadattemptedtopurchase.Wifesubsequentlyworked `  asawaitressandasasocialworker.AccordingtoWifesincomeandexpensestatement,her P  monthlyincomewas$1,390whileherexpenseswere$1,515.Shetestified,however,thather @  expensesweregreaterthanrepresentedonherincomeandexpensestatement. 0    Husbandworkedasacontractorremodelinghomesuntilheallowedhiscontractorslicense `  tolapsein1997.Atthetimeoftrial,hewasworkingfulltimeasapainterearning$13.00perhour. P  Hetestifiedthatinclementweathersometimesaffectedhisabilitytoworkafull40hourweek. @  AccordingtoHusbandsincomeandexpensestatement,Husbandsmonthlyincomewas$1,125.80, 0  andhismonthlyexpenseswere$1,474.     InMarch,1996,thepartiesformulatedwhatisreferredtointherecordas theplan.The  purposeof theplanwastogetthepartiesoutofdebt. Theplaninvolvedremodelingthemarital  residenceandsellingit.Thepartiesthenproposedtoutilizetheproceeds,alongwithWifes  inheritanceof$50,000fromhermothersestate,topayoffdebtsandtopurchasealot( theBrady  Pointproperty)onwhichtheyplannedtobuildanewmaritalresidence. p   OnMarch20,1996,thepartiesenteredintoarealestatesalesagreementforthepurchaseof P theBradyPointpropertyfor$25,000.Thisagreementcontainsthefollowinglanguage: @ 8  8`   Purchasersassigntheamountoftwentyfivethousanddollarsand  p 00/100centsfromtheestateof[Wifesmother]tosellersasof_todays_ ` [sic]dateverifiedbyphonecallwith[theirattorneys].Purchasers P willsignnecessarypaperstoeffectthis.@` x` x Inthemeantime,thepartiesappliedforaloantoremodelthemaritalresidence.Ontheirloan   application,thepartieslistedWifesinheritanceasajointasset. !   ThepartiesclosedontheBradyPointpropertyinAugust,1996.Manyfeesandexpenses #! relatingtothisproperty,includingthedownpayment,anarchitectfee,anappraisalfee,acredit $" reportfee,andtaxeswerepaidfromajointaccountoftheparties. % #   ThepartiesremodeledthemaritalresidenceandsolditinJanuary,1997.Mostofthe `'"% proceedsfromthissalewereusedtopayoffdebts;theremainingfunds,being$18,000,were P(#& depositedintothejointaccount.InlateJanuary,1997,Husbandwithdrew$500fromthisaccount  toreimbursehimforcertainremodelingexpensespaidbyhimoutofhisbusinessaccount.When  WifelearnedofHusbandswithdrawal,shebecameupset,andonFebruary3,1997,shewithdrew  theremaining$17,500fromtheaccount.AccordingtoHusbandstestimony,Wifeattackedaco  workerofHusbandsonthesameday,3 4#  2      ׀andHusbandspentthenightawayfromthemarital p residence.HereturnedtostaythenightsofFebruary4andFebruary5,1997,andwas drivenout `  onthenightofFebruary6,1997.Whenhereturnedthenextmorning,Wifecalledthepolice.Wife P  filedthisdivorceactiononFebruary11,1997. @    OnMay15,1997,thetrialcourt(1)orderedWifetopayintocourtthebalanceofanyfunds  p  heldbyWifethatwerewithdrawnfromthepartiesjointaccount;and(2)orderedHusbandtopay `  $81perweekinchildsupport.Wifesubsequentlypaidapproximately$3,700intocourt,thebalance P  ofapproximately$13,800havingbeenspenton,amongotherthings,$2,200inattorneysfees, @  $6,000forayearsworthofrent,and$5,600formovingandlivingexpensesforherand_Keely_.On 0  June4,1997,thetrialcourtorderedthatthe$3,700paidintocourt bepaidfortheminorchilds   educationandfortemporaryalimony_pendente_Ԁlite.    ThetrialcourtawardedthepartiesadivorceonstipulatedgroundsonOctober17,1997,but  referredtomediationissuesrelatingtothedivisionoftheproperty,childcustody,childsupport,and  alimony.Mediationfailed,andthecourtheardtestimonyonthereservedissuesin1999.    OnJune2,1999,thetrialcourt,amongotherthings: ` 8  8`   (1)foundthattheBradyPointpropertywasmaritalproperty, its @ characterhavingbeentransmutedfromseparatetomaritalproperty 0 bythetreatmentoftheproperty; p` x` x 8  8`   (2)orderedthattheBradyPointpropertybesoldforaminimum P purchasepriceof$50,000,theproceedsto beutilizedfirsttopayany @ unpaidportionoftheguardianadlitemsfee,secondtopayany 0 unpaidtherapyfeesforthebenefitofthechild,thirdtopayanytax   indebtednesswhicharoseduringthemarriageorwhichisrelatedto ! theBradyPointlot,fourthtopayanyunsecureddebtoftheparties, "  andnexttopayanysecureddebtoftheparties.Anyproceeds #! remainingwillbedividedequallybetweentheparties.;$"` x` x 8  8`   (3)dividedseveralitemsofpersonalproperty;andp&!$` x` x  `'"% 8  8`   (4)foundthatnoalimonyshouldbeawarded.` x` x   UponHusbandsmotiontoalteroramendassertingthatheisentitledtohalfofthe$17,500  sumthatWifewithdrewfromthejointaccountpriortoseparation,thecourtdeniedthemotion, p findingthatthosefundswerenecessarysupportforWifeand_Keely_. `    Wifenowappeals,raisingasissuesthetrialcourtscharacterizationoftheBradyPoint @  propertyasmaritalpropertyandthetrialcourtsdivisionofthemaritalproperty.WifeandHusband 0  bothtakeissuewiththetrialcourtstreatmentofthe$17,500Wifewithdrewfromthejointaccount.  p    II. P  -  Sincethisisanonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow. 0  Thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfactualfindings,a   presumptionthatwemusthonorunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Tenn.  R.App.P.13(d).Wereviewthetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawdenovowithnopresumptionof  correctness. Adamsv.DeanRoofingCo. ,715S.W.2d341,343(Tenn.Ct.App.1986).    III.  /  A. ` /  Indivorcecases,Tennesseerecognizestwodistinctclassesofproperty:(1) marital @ property,asdefinedinT.C.A.364121(b)(1)(1996);and(2) separateproperty,asdefinedin 0 T.C.A.364121(b)(2)(1996).Thedistinctionisimportantbecause,inanactionfordivorce,only  p maritalpropertyisdivided,distributed,orassignedbetweentheparties.SeeT.C.A.364121(a)(1) ` (1996).Implicitinthestatuteistheunderstandingthatseparatepropertyisnotdividedbetweenthe P parties. Brockv.Brock ,941S.W.2d896,900(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). @   Generally,propertythatisacquiredduringthemarriagebyeitherorbothspousesandstill   ownedbyeitherorbothspouseswhenthedivorcecomplaintisfiledisclassifiedasmaritalproperty ! andisthussubjecttoequitabledivision.T.C.A.364121(b)(1).However,propertyacquiredby "  aspousebygift,bequest,deviseordescent,evenifacquiredduringthemarriage,isseparate #! propertyandnotsubjecttodivision.T.C.A.364121(b)(2)(D). $"   Undercertaincircumstances,however,propertygenerallydeemedseparatemaybefoundto p&!$ have transmutedintomaritalproperty: `'"% 8  8`   [Transmutation]occurswhenseparatepropertyistreatedinsucha @)$' wayastogiveevidenceofanintentionthatitbecomemarital 0*%( property.Onemethodofcausingtransmutationistopurchase  +p&) propertywithseparatefundsbuttotaketitleinjointtenancy.This ,`'* mayalsobedonebyplacingseparatepropertyinthenamesofboth  spouses.Therationaleunderlyingboththesedoctrinesisthatdealing  withpropertyinthesewayscreatesa_rebuttable_Ԁpresumptionofagift  tothemaritalestate8.Thepresumptioncanberebuttedbyevidence  ofcircumstancesorcommunicationsclearlyindicatinganintentthat p thepropertyremainseparate.` ` x` x  _Batson_Ԁv._Batson_ ,769S.W.2d849,858(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)(emphasisadded)(bracketsin @  original). 0    Acourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertymustbeaccomplisheduponconsiderationofthe `  statutoryfactorsfoundinT.C.A.364121_(c)_Ԁ(1996).Maritalfaultcannotbeconsidered.T.C.A. P  364121(a)(1).Appellatecourtsaretodefertoatrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyunless @  thetrialcourtsdecisionisinconsistentwiththestatutoryfactorsorisunsupportedbythe 0  preponderanceoftheevidence. Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).     Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtcharacterizedtheBradyPointpropertyasmaritalproperty,   itscharacterhavingbeentransmutedfromseparatetomaritalpropertybythetreatmentofthe  property.Wifearguesthatthefindingoftransmutationiserroneous.Morespecifically,sheargues  thateventhoughthepropertywastitledjointly,anyintentonherpartforthepropertytobetreated  asamaritalassetwas(1)thwartedbythebreakupofthemarriage;and(2)baseduponHusbands p fraud,i.e.,Husbandsfeignedcompliancewith theplanasaschemetoenablehimtoobtaina ` greaterallotmentofpropertyafterheabandonedthemarriage. P   Wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthe 0 BradyPointpropertyhadtransmutedintomaritalproperty.Eventhoughthepropertywaspurchased  p withWifesinheritance,thepropertywastitledjointly.Thereisinsufficientproofintherecordto ` rebuttheresultingpresumptionofagifttothemaritalestate.Onthecontrary,theevidenceindicates P thatthepartiestreatedthepropertyasamaritalasset.Theinheritancewaslistedasajointassetof @ thepartiesonthepartiesloanapplicationwhentheysoughtfundingfortheadditiontothemarital 0 residence.Inaccordancewith theplan,theinheritancewasusedtopaythepartieslegalbillsand   thedownpayment,taxbills,andconstructionloanontheBradyPointproperty,whichclosedin ! August,1996.Theeventsleadingtothefilingofthedivorceactiondidnotoccuruntilthefirstweek "  ofFebruary,1997.Weareconcernedwiththeintentofthepartiesatthetimetheyimplemented the #! plan,notatthetimethedivorcewasimminent,andtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthe $" trialcourtsfindingthatthepartiestreatedtheBradyPointpropertyasamaritalasset. % #   Norcanwesaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthat there `'"% wasnofraudulentconveyanceinanticipationofthefilingofthepetitionfordivorcebyeitherparty. P(#& TheevidenceinsteadsuggeststhatHusbanddidnotwanttodivorceWife.Hedidnotleavethe @)$' marriagevoluntarily,butratherwas drivenoutbyWife.Wife,ontheotherhand,hadpreviously 0*%(  spokentoafriendaboutdivorcingHusband,hadpreviouslyprepareddivorcepapers,andwasthe  +p&) partywhofiledfordivorce.Therefore,wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrin  characterizingtheBradyPointpropertyasmaritalproperty.       B.  cI  Wifenextarguesthat,evenifthetrialcourtwascorrectincharacterizingtheBradyPoint  propertyasmaritalproperty,iterredinitsdispositionoftheproperty.Morespecifically,Wife p arguesthatthetrialcourterred(1)inapprovingthesaleoftheBradyPointpropertyfor$50,000;(2) `  inorderingthatcertainindebtednessbepaidfromtheproceedsofthesaleofthepropertybeforeany P  proceedsaredividedanddistributedbetweentheparties;and(3)inorderingthatanyproceeds @  remainingaftercertaindebtsarepaidaretobedividedequallybetweentheparties.Wewillexamine 0  eachofthesecontentionsinturn.  p    Accordingtothestatementoftheevidencethatwaspresentedatthehearingsin1997,Wife P  valuedtheBradyPointpropertyat$25,000whileHusbandtestifiedthatthepropertyhadbeen @  appraisedat$50,000.InitsorderofJune2,1999,thetrialcourtorderedthat [_t]he_ԀBradyPoint 0  propertywillbeplacedforsaleataminimumpurchasepriceof$50,000.00.Husbandsubsequently   filedtwomotions,thefirstseekinganorderrequiringWifetolistthepropertyforsaleatapriceof  $50,000,andthesecondseekinganorderallowingHusbandtoacceptathirdpartysofferto  purchasethepropertyfor$48,000withoutincurringarealtorsfee.Wife,inresponsetooneorboth  ofthesemotions,apparentlyprofferedawrittenappraisalofthepropertyvaluingitat$80,000.The  trialcourtgrantedHusbandsmotionsonAugust3,1999.Wifenowarguesthatthetrialcourts  orderapprovingthesaleoftheBradyPointpropertyfor$50,000iserroneousinlightoftheappraisal p indicatingthevalueofthepropertytobe$80,000. ` ?+ ,4 <DLX?  Thevaluetobegivenamaritalassetisaquestionoffact. _Kinard_Ԁv._Kinard_ ,986S.W.2d @ 220,231(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Inmakingthisdetermination,thetrialcourtistoconsiderall 0 relevantevidence,and,iftheevidenceisconflicting,thecourt mayassignavaluethatiswithinthe  p rangeofvaluessupportedbytheevidence. Id .Anappellatecourtistopresumeatrialcourts ` factualdeterminationsarecorrectunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem. Id . P       Wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsorderapprovingthe 0 saleoftheBradyPointpropertyfor$50,000ortoathirdpartyfor$48,000withoutarealtorsfee.   ThecourthadbeforeittheoraltestimonyofWifeandHusbandvaluingthepropertyat$25,000and ! $50,000respectivelyand,inaddition,Wifesprofferedappraisalvaluingthepropertyat$80,000. "  Thetrialcourtsorderassignedavaluetothepropertythatiswithintherangeofvaluessupported #! bytheevidence,and,therefore,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthis $" determination._Thus,_ԀwefindthisissueadversetoWife. % #   Wifenexttakesissuewiththetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthemoniesrealizedfromthe `'"% saleoftheBradyPointpropertyaretobeappliedto anytaxindebtednesswhicharoseduringthe P(#& marriageorwhichisrelatedtotheBradyPointlotandtopay anyunsecureddebtoftheparties @)$' beforeanyproceedsofthesalearedividedbetweentheparties.Sheassertsthatsheshouldnotbe 0*%( requiredtopayanyportionofHusbands separatedebts.  +p&)  ,`'*   Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdeterminationinthisregard.  HusbandstatedthatheincurredataxliabilitybecauseWiferefusedtofileajointreturnwithhim  andthattheywouldhavebeenentitledtoarefundhadtheyfiledjointly.Wefindthatthetrialcourt  didnoterrinfindingthesedebtstobemaritaldebts,andtherefore,wefindnoerrorinorderingthat  theybepaidoutofmartialpropertybeforeanydistributiontotheparties. p   WifealsoarguesthateveniftheBradyPointpropertyisproperlycharacterizedasmarital P  property,thetrialcourtsdecisiontoequallydividetheproceedsremainingafterpaymentofdebts @  iserroneous.Onthispoint,weagree. 0    Oncepropertyisclassifiedasmaritalproperty,courtsmustequitablydividethemarital `  propertyinaccordancewiththestatutoryfactorsfoundinT.C.A.364121(c).Oneofthesefactors P  is [_t]he_Ԁcontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition8ofthemarital8property.T.C.A.364 @  121(c)(5).Weareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtogivesufficientconsideration 0  tothisfactorindividingtheBradyPointproperty.     Aspreviouslyindicated,theBradyPointsalesagreementcontainsthefollowinglanguage:  8  8`   Purchasersassigntheamountoftwentyfivethousanddollarsand  00/100centsfromtheestateof[Wifesmother]tosellersasof_todays_  [sic]dateverifiedbyphonecallwith[theirattorneys].Purchasers p willsignnecessarypaperstoeffectthis.`` x` x Theagreementprovidesthatthepurchasepriceofthepropertyis$25,000.Theevidenceindicates @ tousthatthefullpurchasepriceoftheBradyPointpropertywaspaid___with_ԀfundsfromWifes 0 inheritance.Thus,Wifecontributedthefullamountofthepurchasepriceforpropertythatclosed  p approximatelysixmonthsbeforeWifefiledfordivorce.Inlightofthisfact,andinlightofT.C.A. ` 364121(c)(5),wefindthatthetrialcourterredindividingequallybetweenthepartiesanynet P proceedsfromthesaleoftheBradyPointproperty.Wemodifythetrialcourtsjudgmentsoasto @ orderthattheproceedsremaining,ifany,afterthepropertyhasbeensoldandthedebtshavebeen 0 paid,beawardedtoWife.     InadditiontobeingdissatisfiedwiththetrialcourtstreatmentoftheBradyPointproperty, "  Wifearguesthatthetrialcourterredwithrespecttoseveralsmalleritems:(1)anantiquecupboard; #! (2)anantiquearmoire;and(3)Husbandsbusinessassets. $"   Wifearguesthattheantiquesareherseparateproperty.Wefindthattheevidencedoesnot p&!$ preponderateagainstthetrialcourtstreatmentoftheantiques.Thetestimonyoftheparties `'"% concerningtheseitemsconflicted,andthus,thetrialcourtsdeterminationastotheseitemsis P(#& groundedinitsassessmentofthecredibilityoftheparties.Thisbeingthecase,thetrialcourts @)$' determinationisentitledtogreatweightonappeal,see _Massengale_Ԁv._Massengale_ ,915S.W.2d818, 0*%( 819(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),andwefindandholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthe  +p&) trialcourtsdecision. ,`'* Ї  WithrespecttotheassetsofHusbandsbusiness,Wifesargumentisthatthetrialcourtfailed  toaccountforthem.Wefindthisassertiontobeincorrect.InitsJune2,1999order,thetrialcourt  statedthat [_t]he_ԀremainingpropertyindisputearethoseitemshighlightedinExhibit33whichhave  notbeenmarkedthrough.TheCourtfindstheseitemsaremaritalproperty.Anexaminationof  Exhibit33revealsthatthereareseveralitemsofHusbandsbusinesspropertythataremarked p through.Thus,thetrialcourtfoundtheseassetsnottobeindispute,therebyaccountingforthem. `  Wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtstreatmentofthem,andwe P  thereforefindthisissueadversetoWife. @    IV.  p  n  Thesecondmajordisagreementbetweenthepartiesconcernstheproceedsfromthesaleof P  themaritalresidence,i.e.,the$17,500thatWifewithdrewfromthepartiesjointaccount.Husband @  assertsthatheisentitledtohalfofthesefunds,andWifeseeksreimbursementfromHusbandof the 0  portionofchildsupportpaidtoherwithhershareofthejointsavingsaccount.     Wifewithdrewapproximately$17,500fromthejointaccountonFebruary3,1997.OnMay  15,1997,thetrialcourtorderedWifetopaythebalanceofanyfundsheldbyWifethatwere  withdrawnfromthepartiesjointaccountintocourt.Wifesubsequentlypaidapproximately$3,700  intocourt,thebalanceofapproximately$13,800havingbeenspenton,amongotherthings,$2,200  inattorneysfees,$6,000forayearsworthofrent,and$5,600formovingandlivingexpensesfor p herandthepartiesdaughter.OnJune4,1997,thetrialcourtorderedthatthe$3,700paidintocourt `  bepaidfortheminorchildseducationandfortemporaryalimony_pendente_Ԁlite.InitsJune2, P 1999order,thetrialcourtfoundthefollowing: @ 8  8`   TheCourthasreviewedthestatutoryfactorsforthesettingof  p alimonyinlightoftheproofinthiscaseanddeterminesnoalimony ` shouldbeawarded.Althoughitisamarriageoflengthyduration,the P relativeearningcapacitiesofthepartiesarecomparableasisthe @ educationandtrainingofeachwhichqualifiesthemfortheir 0 employmentpotential.TheCourtfindsnootherfactorwhichwould   bepertinenttoanawardofalimonyto[Wife].TheCourtdoesnot ! findanyfaultof[Husband]which,whencomparedwiththefaultof "  [Wife],wouldresultinthisCourtfindingitappropriatetoconsider #! relativefault.$"` x` x Subsequenttothisorder,Husbandfiledamotiontoalteroramendassertingthatheisentitledtohalf p&!$ ofthe$17,500thatWifewithdrewfromthejointaccount.Inresponsetothismotion,thetrialcourt `'"% statedthefollowing: P(#& 8  8`   TheCourtdenies[Husbands]claimforreimbursement8.Itwasthe 0*%( testimonyof[Wife]paymentsweremadeonmaritaldebt,oncar  +p&) insurancesixmonthsinadvance,andtopayoffthelineofcrediton ,`'* thecar.PartofthemoneywasusedformoneyforaNotreDametrip  for[thechild]andtoestablish[Wifeandchild]inanewresidence.  TheCourtfindsthemonieswereusedfornecessarysupportof[Wife]  andtheminorchildpriortotheentryofanorderforalimonyorchild  support_pendente_Ԁlite.Accordingly,themotiontoalteroramend8is p denied.` ` x` x   Husbandnowassertsthattheawardoftemporarysupportisexcessive.Wifeseeks @  reimbursementof theportionofchildsupportpaidtoherwithhershareofthejointsavings 0  account,arguingthatthetrialcourtsorderpermitsHusbandto satisfyhalfofhischildsupport  p  obligationwith[Wifes]ownmoney. `    Theamountanddurationofalimony,includingalimony_pendente_Ԁlite,areissueswithrespect @  towhichthetrialcourtexerciseswidediscretion. _Garfinkel_Ԁv._Garfinkel_ ,945S.W.2d744,748 0  (Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Aftercarefulreviewoftherecordinthiscase,wecannotsaythatthe   evidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtstreatmentofthefundsWifewithdrewfromthejoint  account.Asstatedpreviously,suchanalimonydeterminationisentitledtogreatweightonappeal,  andwefindnoabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthetrialcourtonthisissue.Accordingly,wefind  noerrorastothetrialcourtsdecreeswithrespecttothefundsunderdiscussion.    V. p   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourt,asmodified,isaffirmed.Thecaseisremandedtothetrial P courtfortheentryofanappropriateorderinaccordancewiththisopinionandforsuchfurther @ proceedings,ifany,asmayberequired.Exercisingourdiscretion,wetaxeachofthepartieswith 0 halfofthecostsonappeal.  p    `     h     ___________________________________ 0    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE