ÿWPC¤" L›̰ÞsS«Ø<g:Ì?¬¿†JÚc€§íy0ÄÕY«Ú<ÑPGÅöÒù“+bÂö¹Z5%ÄøÄ®èm1ª•öº`„sÚLýÅÁQzË´â]PݸKùm;·¿ìùkiÍV:¿ =2ÈxèRo¦ý(;Œó¼j(ôîQ Aää!*w:pƒŠTRÚPûÒƒ)v0Mhúò÷·¹ô0 U=ºT¾¢ÛRie侊c²³KûNø ”~q ¤ª‘RYBÝ'’¤ÉcáGø•oRË#â“/9_ÇŸ­…EPjàs½F‚“¢)ÃažEŠP{Ë®þu©=­)r§'x%êM0Ð40 á&eƒqtĦz õ;¬bþ5T+Tìß²Ï<\©ÁÿZ±ØÙ⾡8Ïö%'K¼‘yö¾ò.× •mÂJ,¯jšb6ûŬ×x­\‹¢»d˜nª.fž/RàGh×Å5‘SµÐìco³'kób2')Y³Ÿµu–3æ¼[mT¨Š(JÒgŸ8!ò3æáïûøÅAG «ˆaµ+B‰ÆqõV~š¤Áźv³ˆGßö¸ÊÓ.»?LŒ5q°PD•YÍÚ*îh¦hQmÇq7Òk#ÉÚ %£ ^ © 0ˆµ U:N= w‹ 4 z£ Ò ï þ m Š Æ¡ÆgÆ-ÆóUN¹NÝ  0DæE*UN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 0ë‚‚‚‚ Bmm 0¤Š D5. D-c 0K ASÛÆ. 0¤ô 0D˜ A«ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ‡˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Š/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  COA P.J.SfikasLenningtonTinappleobligeeobligorAnderton LoydCampanaliBowserBowsers KojaKinardspousalLangschmidtYountGarfinkle t]heEldridgeLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ÓÝ ƒR3$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôù}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€made€it€clear€that€it€expected€Ms.€Miller€to€work€at€least€part€time.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G23$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôù}ò»»Ô d(|3ÉP$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÉP$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK  Ý ƒR3$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôù}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€factors€the€court€must€consider€in€setting€the€alimony€obligation€are:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs€and€financial€resources€of€each€party,€includingÐ 8ˆ Ðincome€from€pension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;ÐüLÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€and€opportunity€of€each€party€toÐ „Ô Ðsecure€such€education€and€training,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€and€trainingÐ H ˜ Ðto€improve€such€partyððs€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Д ä Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;Ð l Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€physical€disability€or€incapacityÐ ¤ô  Ðdue€to€a€chronic€debilitating€disease;Ðh¸ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seek€employment€outside€the€homeÐ ð@  Ðbecause€such€party€will€be€custodian€of€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;д Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangible€and€intangible;Ð<ŒÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€as€defined€in€ðð€36„4„121;ÐÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€the€marriage;ÐLœÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€to€the€marriageÐ Ô$ Ðas€monetary€and€homemaker€contributions,€and€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€to€theÐ ˜è Ðeducation,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€its€discretion,€deems€it€appropriate€toÐ ä4 Ðdo€so;€and€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,€as€are€necessary€to€consider€theÐ 0€  Ðequities€between€the€parties.ÐôD!Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1).Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼O»»»ÔÑ8€ÑXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îWLOÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼O»îîWL #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€8,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÑX»¼OÔÌò òÔ#†¼O»XXÑô#ÔLORRAINE€M.€MILLER€v.€BRUCE€L.€MILLERÔ‡XÑX»¼OÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€28653€€€€€€R.€E.€Lee€Davies,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02731„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€10,€2003Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€awarded€a€divorce€to€a€sixty„four€year€old€woman€with€multiple€health€problems,€andÐ xÈ  Ðordered€her€former€husband€to€pay€her€$700€per€month€as€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€The€husband€arguesÐ d´ Ðon€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred,€because€the€wife€was€capable€of€working,€and€was€therefore€onlyÐ P  Ðentitled€to€rehabilitative€alimony.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð <Œ ÐÔ#†¼O»XXÑ_#ÔÔ‡XÑX»¼OÔÌÓ‡ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ P ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼O»àXÑu#ÔÔ‡XÑX.¼OÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€William€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€P.J.,Ð Ä ÐM.S.,€and€Fòòrank€G.€Clement,€Jróó.,€J.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌErnest€W.€Williams;€Anna€E.€Freeman,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Bruce€L.€Miller.Ð ˆØ ÐÌHelen€Sfikas€Rogers;€Lana€L.€Lennington,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Lorraine€M.Ð `° ÐMiller.Ð L œ ÐÓ4ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼O»XXÑc#ÔÔ‡XÑX»¼OÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼O»XXÑ… #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÑX»¼OÔà@ññ$ìàò òI.€The€Factsó óˆÐ ü#L# ÐÌà  àBruce€and€Lorraine€Miller€first€married€in€1984.€€They€subsequently€divorced,€but€marriedÐ Ô%$!% Ðagain€on€July€29,€1991.€€There€were€no€children€from€either€of€these€marriages,€but€Lorraine€MillerÐ À&"& Ðhad€a€daughter€and€two€grandchildren€as€the€result€of€a€still€earlier€marriage.€€Ms.€Miller€is€sevenÐ ¬'ü"' Ðyears€older€than€Mr.€Miller.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€1991€marriage,€Bruce€Miller€was€unemployed,€having€been€laid€off€fromÐ p*À%* Ðhis€job€at€General€Motors.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Lorraine€Miller,€who€was€working€for€SaturnÐ \+¬&+ ÐCorporation,€helped€her€husband€find€a€job€there€too.€€In€1994,€the€parties€bought€a€house€in€SpringÐ H,˜', ÐHill.€€The€wife€used€$11,564€from€an€inheritance€to€cover€the€closing€costs.€€With€the€agreement€ofÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôher€husband,€she€retired€from€Saturn€in€1999€at€the€age€of€62,€and€began€collecting€social€securityÐ ° Ðretirement€benefits.€€Her€monthly€check€at€the€time€of€trial€was€$573.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€parties€apparently€got€along€fairly€well€during€the€first€few€years€of€their€secondÐ tÄ Ðmarriage.€€But€with€the€passage€of€time,€Bruce€Miller€began€feeling€discontented,€and€started€to€takeÐ `° Ðnotes€as€to€things€that€bothered€him€about€his€wife.€€Most€of€these€complaints€had€to€do€with€hisÐ L œ Ðwifeððs€purchasing€habits,€including€buying€ð ðnonessentialsðð€without€checking€with€him€first,€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðspending€too€much€money€on€presents€for€her€grandchildren.€€Ms.€Miller€admitted€at€trial€that€a€lotÐ $ t Ðof€what€she€bought€was€probably€unnecessary.€€The€proof€also€showed€that€Mr.€Miller€himself€spentÐ  ` Ðsignificant€sums€of€money€on€his€own€interests,€including€extensive€monthly€purchases€of€comicÐ ü L  Ðbooks€and€videotapes.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€March€of€2001,€Lorraine€Miller€moved€out€of€the€marital€home€with€the€intention€ofÐ À  Ðseparating€from€her€husband,€and€went€to€New€York€where€she€could€be€closer€to€her€sisters.€€SheÐ ¬ü  Ðtestified€that€she€had€also€hoped€that€after€she€moved,€Mr.€Miller€would€realize€he€missed€her€andÐ ˜è  Ðask€her€to€come€back.€€The€parties€agreed€to€divide€some€of€their€marital€property€at€the€time€of€theirÐ „Ô  Ðseparation.€€Among€other€things,€they€refinanced€the€marital€home€in€order€to€extract€the€equity€fromÐ pÀ Ðit.€€Ms.€Miller€signed€a€quitclaim€deed€as€part€of€the€refinancing€process.€€The€refinancing€generatedÐ \¬ Ð$64,393€in€cash,€which€the€parties€divided€equally.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAbout€a€month€after€his€wife€left,€Mr.€Miller€contacted€Patricia€Tinapple,€a€former€classmateÐ  p Ðwho€lived€in€Arizona.€€He€flew€out€to€Arizona€to€see€her,€and€they€began€an€intimate€relationship.€Ð  \ ÐHe€subsequently€returned€to€Arizona€on€a€frequent€basis€and€paid€for€Ms.€Tinapple€to€fly€toÐ øH ÐTennessee€to€see€him.€€On€one€trip€to€Arizona,€Mr.€Miller€spent€$1,700€on€a€wedding€ring.€€HeÐ ä4 Ðtestified€that€the€ring€was€not€for€Ms.€Tinapple,€but€for€himself.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWhen€Lorraine€Miller€returned€to€Tennessee,€she€quickly€discovered€that€she€and€herÐ ¨ø Ðhusband€would€not€be€getting€together€again.€€He€remained€in€the€marital€home,€and€she€moved€intoÐ ”ä Ðgovernment„subsidized€housing.€€Although€the€low€rent€of€$162€per€month€allowed€Ms.€Miller€toÐ €Ð Ðstretch€her€social€security€check,€her€income€was€still€far€from€adequate€for€her€needs.€€By€the€timeÐ l¼ Ðof€trial,€she€had€completely€depleted€the€$32,000€she€had€received€from€the€refinancing€of€the€maritalÐ X ¨ Ðhome.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àOn€April€4,€2002,€Lorraine€Miller€filed€a€Bill€for€Legal€Separation€on€the€ground€ofÐ #l! Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€She€asked€the€court€to€divide€the€marital€property,€and€to€award€herÐ $X" Ðalimony,€reasonable€attorney€fees,€and€discretionary€costs.€€The€husband€filed€an€Answer€andÐ ô$D # ÐCounterclaim€for€Absolute€Divorce.€€He€did€not€state€any€grounds€for€divorce,€but€denied€that€he€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðguilty€of€inappropriate€conduct.€€He€also€asked€the€court€to€deny€his€wifeððs€request€for€alimony€andÐ Ì&"% Ðattorney€fees.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Їà@ìàò òII.€Divorce€Proceedingsó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€hearing€was€conducted€on€September€17,€2002,€and€began€with€the€wifeððs€attorneyÐ ˆØ Ðasking€the€court€to€amend€her€complaint€to€make€it€one€for€absolute€divorce€rather€than€forÐ tÄ Ðseparation.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Lorraine€Miller€was€sixty„four€years€old,€and€Bruce€Miller€was€fifty„Ð `° Ðseven.€€Much€of€Mr.€Millerððs€testimony€had€to€do€with€financial€and€property€matters.€€His€taxÐ L œ Ðreturns€showed€an€income€from€Saturn€of€$45,665€in€1998,€$56,434€in€1999,€$60,000€in€2000,€andÐ 8 ˆ Ð$56,520€in€2001.€€He€had€a€vested€pension€from€General€Motors€that€entitled€him€to€$1341€perÐ $ t Ðmonth€at€the€time€of€his€retirement.€€His€Saturn€401(k)€Individual€Retirement€Account€had€a€valueÐ  ` Ðof€$74,090.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€contrast,€Lorraine€Miller€had€no€significant€income€after€her€retirement€from€Saturn,€andÐ Ô$  Ðher€retirement€account€only€had€a€value€of€$15,110.€€Ms.€Miller€also€testified€as€to€a€long€history€ofÐ À  Ðhealth€problems€she€has€suffered,€including€a€failed€stomach€stapling,€pancreatitis,€hypothyroidism,Ð ¬ü  Ðand€irritable€bowel€syndrome.€€Because€of€these€problems,€she€testified€that€it€would€be€difficult€forÐ ˜è  Ðher€to€hold€down€a€job.€€She€stated,€however,€that€she€would€like€to€do€volunteer€work€at€a€hospital.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€announced€its€decision€from€the€bench.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðdecision€was€memorialized€in€the€Final€Decree€of€October€3,€2002.€€The€court€granted€the€wifeððsÐ H˜ Ðmotion€to€amend€her€Complaint,€and€awarded€her€a€divorce€on€the€ground€of€adultery.€€Mr.€MillerÐ 4„ Ðwas€allowed€to€keep€the€marital€home,€and€made€solely€responsible€for€the€mortgage.€€Both€partiesÐ  p Ðwere€awarded€their€own€bank€accounts€and€their€own€retirement€and€pension€benefits,€except€thatÐ  \ ÐMr.€Millerððs€401(k)€account€was€to€be€divided€equally€between€the€parties,€by€a€Qualified€DomesticÐ øH ÐRelations€Order€if€necessary.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€judge€found€that€the€wife€was€in€need€of€support,€and€that€she€was€not€capableÐ ¼  Ðof€economic€rehabilitation€because€of€her€age€and€her€physical€condition.€€The€judge€accordinglyÐ ¨ø Ðordered€the€husband€to€pay€$700€a€month€as€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€He€also€awarded€the€wife€herÐ ”ä Ðattorney€fees,€in€the€amount€of€$8,000.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@××$ìàò òIII.€Alimonyó óˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àMr.€Miller€contends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€his€wife€alimony€òòinÐ 0"€  Ðfuturoóó.€€He€asserts€she€does€not€need€support€because€her€expenses€are€low.€€He€also€notes€theÐ #l! Ðexpress€legislative€preference€for€rehabilitative€alimony,€and€argues€that€his€former€wife€should€goÐ $X" Ðto€work€to€satisfy€her€unmet€needs.€€He€concludes€that€her€economic€situation€warrants€at€most€aÐ ô$D # Ðtemporary€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony,€in€an€amount€less€than€$700€per€month.€€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔà  àAlimony€or€spousal€support€is€authorized€by€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1),Ð ¸'#& Ðwhich€gives€courts€discretion€to€order€ð ðsuitable€support€and€maintenance€of€either€spouse€by€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðother€spouse€.€.€.€according€to€the€nature€of€the€case€and€the€circumstances€of€the€parties.€.€.€.ðð€òòóóÔ#†XÑXXXÑ£)#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ€Ô#†XÑXXXÑD+#ÔòòóóÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔThereÐ )à$( Ðare€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€spousal€support€decisions,€and€such€determinations€require€a€ð ðcarefulÐ |*Ì%) Ðbalancingðð€of€the€relevant€factors.€€òòAnderton€v.€Andertonóó,€988€S.W.2d€675,€682„83€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð h+¸&* Ð1998).€Ô#†XÑXXXÑ+#Ô€In€determining€whether€to€award€support€and€the€nature,€amount€and€length€of€such€support,Ð ° Ðthe€court€is€to€consider€all€relevant€factors,€including€those€enumerated€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð œì Ð101(d)(1).׃j×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô‡XÑXXXÑÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àDecisions€regarding€the€entitlement€to€spousal€support,€as€well€as€the€amount€and€durationÐ `° Ðof€spousal€support,€hinge€on€the€unique€facts€of€each€case,€and€the€court€must€weigh€and€balance€allÐ L œ Ðrelevant€factors.€€òòRobertson€v.€Robertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€337,€338€(Tenn.€2002).òòóó€€Among€these€factors,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€two€considered€to€be€the€most€important€are€the€disadvantaged€spouseððs€need€and€the€obligorÐ $ t Ðspouseððs€ability€to€pay.€€òòRobertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€at€342;€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€€730€(Tenn.Ð  ` Ð2001);òò€Manis€v.€Manisóó,€49€S.W.3d€295,€304€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòÔ#†XÑXXXÑ4.#ÔAnderton€óó988€S.W.2d€at€682Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1998)Ô‡XÑXXXÑÔ.€€Of€these€two€factors,€the€disadvantaged€spouseððs€need€is€the€thresholdÐ è 8  Ðconsideration,€and€the€next€consideration€is€Ô#†XÑXXXÑŽ1#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔthe€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€to€provide€support.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€òòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,Ð ° Ð50Ô#†XÑXXXÑ^2#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ)€(Tenn.€CtÔ#†XÑXXXÑl3#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ.€App.€1989)).Ô#†XÑXXXѹ3#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ€€The€concept€of€Ô#†XÑXXXÑ 4#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔrelative€economic€disadvantage€incorporates€theÐ œì Ðprinciples€of€need€and€ability€to€pay.Ô#†XÑXXXÑ\4#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔÐ ˆØ ÐÔ#†XÑXXXÑ5#ÔÌà  àÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔAmong€the€statutory€factors€to€be€Ô#†XÑXXXÑl5#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔconsidered€in€deciding€whether€to€award€alimony€are:€Ô#†XÑXXXÑÐ5#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔtheÐ `° Ðrelative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financial€resources€of€each€party;€the€relativeÐ L œ Ðeducation€and€training€of€each€party;€the€ability€and€opportunity€and€necessity€of€each€party€to€secureÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuch€education€and€training€in€order€to€improve€such€partyððs€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ô#†XÑXXXÑG6#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔÐ $ t ÐÔ#†XÑXXXÑû7#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔand€the€assets€of€each€party,€whether€they€be€separate€assets€Ô#†XÑXXXÑR8#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔor€marital€property€awarded€in€theÐ  ` Ðdivorce.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)Ô#†XÑXXXÑÒ8#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ.Ô#†XÑXXXÑx9#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ€Ô#†XÑXXXÑ»9#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ€These€factors€are€relevant€to€the€determinations€ofÐ ü L  Ðrelative€economic€disadvantage€as€well€as€need€and€ability€to€pay.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWhere€relative€economic€disadvantage€exists,€the€legislature€has€expressed€a€preference€forÐ À  Ðrehabilitative€alimony€over€long„term,€open„ended€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€Ô#†XÑXXXÑþ9#ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð ¬ü  Ð101(d)(1)Ô‡XÑXXXÑÔ;€òòÔ#†XÑXXXÑá;#ÔRobertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€at€339„40;Ô‡XÑXXXÑÔ€òòBurlewóó€òòv.€Burlewóó,€40€S.W.3d€465,€470€(Tenn.€2001);Ð ˜è  ÐòòCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€358€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€purpose€of€an€award€of€rehabilitativeÐ „Ô  Ðalimony€is€to€encourage€a€divorced€spouse€to€become€self„sufficient.€€òòRobertson,€óó76€S.W.3d€at€339„Ð pÀ Ð40;€òòBurlewóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€471;€òòCrabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€at€360.Ô#†XÑXXXÑJ<#Ô€€Rehabilitative€alimony€is€appropriateÐ \¬ Ðwhere€the€spouse€is€economically€disadvantaged,€but€where€rehabilitation€is€possible€by€the€grantÐ H˜ Ðof€ð ðrehabilitative,€temporary€support€and€maintenance,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),€or€whereÐ 4„ Ðit€is€needed€to€provide€temporary€income€to€support€the€disadvantaged€spouse€during€the€post„Ð  p Ðdivorce€economic€adjustment.€€òòRobertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€at€340„41.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€a€disadvantaged€spouse€can€be€rehabilitated€with€short„term€support,Ð ä4 Ðthe€court€is€to€consider€ð ðevery€relevant€factor.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€340.€€Neither€the€standard€of€living€the€partiesÐ Ð  Ðenjoyed€during€the€marriage€nor€the€income€or€earning€potential€of€the€other€spouse€can€be€used€asÐ ¼  Ðthe€sole€or€determinative€factor.€òò€Idóó.;€òòCrabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€at€359.€€Where,€considering€all€theÐ ¨ø Ðrelevant€factors,€rehabilitation€is€not€possible,€the€courts€should€not€refrain€from€awarding€long„termÐ ”ä Ðsupport€when€that€support€is€appropriate€under€the€statutory€factors.€€òòRobertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€at€341„Ð €Ð Ð42.€€The€statutory€preference€for€rehabilitative€support€does€not€entirely€displace€other€forms€ofÐ l¼ Ðsupport.€òò€Idóó.;€òòAndertonóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€682.€€The€support€statute€itself€provides€for€the€grant€of€anÐ X ¨ Ðaward€of€support€on€a€long„term€basis€ð ðwhere€there€is€such€relative€economic€disadvantage€andÐ D!” Ðrehabilitation€is€not€feasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð 0"€  Ð101(d)(1).€€The€purpose€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€to€provide€financial€support€to€a€spouse€who€cannotÐ #l! Ðbe€rehabilitated.€òò€Burlewóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€470„71.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Mr.€Miller€does€not€dispute€that€his€former€wife€is€economically€disadvantagedÐ à%0!$ Ðrelative€to€his€own€situation.€€The€record€shows€that€the€wifeððs€current€income€from€Social€SecurityÐ Ì&"% Ðis€only€$573€per€month,€or€$6,876€per€year.€€In€contrast,€Mr.€Miller€earns€well€over€$50,000€per€year,Ð ¸'#& Ðmore€than€seven€times€as€much.€€At€age€57,€he€can€continue€to€work€and€generate€a€good€income€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€number€of€years.€€When€he€finally€retires,€he€will€receive€a€$1341€per€month€pension€check€fromÐ )à$( Ðâ âGeneral€Motors,€as€well€as€Social€Security.€€He€also€has€time€to€make€additional€contributions€to€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ð401(k)€that€he€will€not€have€to€share€with€his€former€wife.€€He€lives€in€a€three„bedroom€house,€whileÐ ° Ðshe€is€in€a€one„bedroom€government„subsidized€apartment.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àBruce€Miller€disputes€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€wife€ð ð...€was€not€capable€ofÐ tÄ Ðrehabilitation€based€on€her€age,€the€fact€that€she€had€previously€retired€and€her€prior€job€history.ðð€Ð `° ÐThe€Court€found€that€ð ðwhile€the€Wife€might€be€able€to€work€part„time€or€for€a€few€hours€toÐ L œ Ðsupplement€her€income,€that€she€could€not€support€herself.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€the€trial€court€has€set€forth€itsÐ 8 ˆ Ðfactual€findings€in€the€record,€we€will€presume€the€correctness€of€those€findings€so€long€as€theÐ $ t Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€them.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3dÐ  ` Ð721,€733€(Tenn.€2001);€òòCrabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€at€360.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àBased€on€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÐ Ô$  Ðagainst€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€To€find€otherwise,€we€would€have€to€turn€a€blind€eye€to€the€realitiesÐ À  Ðof€the€modern€workplace€in€order€to€find€that€a€sixty„four€year€old€woman€who€is€not€in€the€best€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðhealth,€and€who€possesses€limited€skills,€would€be€able€to€re„enter€the€workforce€after€an€absenceÐ ˜è  Ðof€a€number€of€years,€and€obtain€a€job€that€pays€her€a€living€wage.€€Under€the€circumstances€presentÐ „Ô  Ðin€this€case,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€wife€is€not€capable€of€rehabilitation.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€trial€courts€have€broad€discretion€to€determine€whether€spousal€support€is€neededÐ H˜ Ðand,€if€so,€its€nature,€amount€and€duration.€€òòBurlewóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€470.€€Appellate€courts€are€generallyÐ 4„ Ðdisinclined€to€second„guess€a€trial€courtððs€spousal€support€decision€unless€it€is€not€supported€by€theÐ  p Ðevidence€or€is€contrary€to€public€policies€reflected€in€applicable€statutes.€€òòBoganóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€733;Ð  \ ÐòòKinard€v.€Kinardóó,€986€S.W.2d€220,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Our€role€is€to€determine€whetherÐ øH Ðthe€award€reflects€a€proper€application€of€the€relevant€legal€principles€and€that€it€is€not€clearlyÐ ä4 Ðunreasonable.€€òòBoganóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€733.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWhile€the€retirement€and€other€assets€awarded€to€Ms.€Miller€might€provide€her€with€aÐ ¨ø Ðcushion,€she€would€be€required€to€deplete€those€assets€in€order€to€maintain€herself.€€In€addition,€justÐ ”ä Ðas€the€economic€factors€justify€the€support€awarded,€so€do€the€other€relevant€factors€such€as€Ms.Ð €Ð ÐMillerððs€substantial€contribution€to€the€marriage.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony.Ð l¼ ÐÌà@ùù"ìàò òIV.€Attorney€Feesó óˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àMr.€Miller€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€ordered€him€to€pay€his€wifeððsÐ #l! Ðattorney€fees,€because€the€property€division€left€her€with€enough€cash€to€pay€her€own€attorney.€€WhileÐ $X" Ðour€opinions€may€have€sometimes€seemed€to€imply€that€an€award€of€attorney€fees€in€a€divorce€caseÐ ô$D # Ðis€only€appropriate€when€the€division€of€marital€property€has€left€one€of€the€parties€without€sufficientÐ à%0!$ Ðfunds€to€pay€such€fees,€we€believe€it€is€more€correct€to€say€that€an€award€of€attorney€fees€can€beÐ Ì&"% Ðappropriate€when€the€obligee€spouse€does€not€have€sufficient€funds€to€pay€the€attorney€fees€òòandóó€toÐ ¸'#& Ðmeet€his€or€her€needs.€€òòSeeóó€òòKoja€v.€Kojaóó,€42€S.W.3d€94,€100€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòKinardóó,€986Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.2d€at€236;€òòFranklin€v.€Franklinóó,€746€S.W.2d€715,€719€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).Ð )à$( ЇÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔà  àHistorically,€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€divorce€cases€was€based€on€the€theory€that€theÐ ° Ðwife€was€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€because,€where€the€husband€provided€the€onlyÐ œì Ðfinancial€support€to€the€family,€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€divorce€cases€allowed€the€wife€accessÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€court€system.€€Ô#†XÑXXXÑòX#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔIn€more€recent€years,€it€has€become€well€settled€that€an€award€of€attorneyððs€feesÐ tÄ Ðin€divorce€cases€is€considered€alimony€or€spousal€support,€generally€characterized€as€alimony€òòinÐ `° Ðsolidoóó.€€òòYount€v.€Yountóó,€91€S.W.3d€777,€783€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002);òò€Miller€v.€Milleróó,€81€S.W.3d€771,Ð L œ Ð775€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòWilder€v.€Wilderóó,€66€S.W.3d€892,€894€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€A€numberÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€cases€cite€as€the€basis€for€attorneyððs€fees€as€an€award€of€alimony€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð $ t Ð101(a)(1),€which€authorizes€courts€to€order€ð ðsuitable€support€and€maintenance€of€either€spouse€byÐ  ` Ðthe€other€spouse€.€.€.€according€to€the€nature€of€the€case€and€the€circumstances€of€the€parties.€.€.€.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòMitts€v.€Mittsóó,€39€S.W.3d€142,€147€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€912€S.W.2d€155,Ð è 8  Ð160„61€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòGilliam€v.€Gilliamóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€Ô#†XÑXXXѼZ#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àBecause€attorneyððs€fees€are€considered€alimony€or€spousal€support,€an€award€of€such€fees€isÐ ¬ü  Ðsubject€to€the€same€factors€that€must€be€considered€in€the€award€of€any€other€type€of€alimony.€€òòYountóó,Ð ˜è  Ð91€S.W.3d€at€783;€òòLindsey€v.€Lindseyóó,€976€S.W.2d€175,€181€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Therefore,€theÐ „Ô  Ðstatutory€factors€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)Ô#†XÑXXXÑ?_#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ€are€to€be€considered€in€a€determinationÐ pÀ Ðof€whether€to€award€attorneyððs€fees.€€òòLangschmidt€v.€Langschmidtóó,€81€S.W.3d€741,€751€(Tenn.Ð \¬ Ð2000)Ô#†XÑXXXÑQa#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ;òò€Kincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Ô#†XÑXXXÑNb#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àAs€with€other€forms€of€spousal€support,€the€need€of€the€spouse€requesting€the€award€ofÐ  p Ðattorneyððs€fees€is€the€single€most€important€factor,€and€the€obligor€spouseððs€ability€to€pay€is€also€anÐ  \ Ðimportant€consideration.€€òòMilleróó,€81€S.W.3d€at€775;€òòHazard€v.€Hazardóó,€833€S.W.2d€911,€917€(Tenn.Ð øH ÐCt.€App.€1991).€€Courts€have€held€that€in€determining€whether€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€as€spousalÐ ä4 Ðsupport,€the€most€important€factors€are€the€real€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse,€a€demonstratedÐ Ð  Ðfinancial€inability€to€obtain€counsel,€and€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€to€pay.€€òòWilderóó,€66€S.W.3dÐ ¼  Ðat€895;€òòCranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€at€50.€€In€a€recent€opinion,€the€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€the€holdingÐ ¨ø Ðin€òòFoxóó€òòv.€Foxóó,€657€S.W.2d€747,€749€(Tenn.€1983),€that€Ô#†XÑXXXÑØb#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔan€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€ð ðis€conditionedÐ ”ä Ðupon€a€lack€of€resources€to€prosecute€or€defend€a€suit€in€good€faith€.€.€.ðð€and€that€such€an€award€isÐ €Ð Ðto€ensure€access€to€the€courts.€€òòLangschmidtóó,€81€S.W.3d€at€751Ô#†XÑXXXÑÚf#Ô.Ð l¼ ÐÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔÌà  àAn€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€as€alimony€is€considered€to€be€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court€òòMilleróó,€81€S.W.3d€at€776;òò€Loyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€413€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)Ô#†XÑXXXÑ9h#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ.€Ð 0"€  ÐConsequently,€such€an€award€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€if€that€discretion€is€not€abused.€€òòYountóó,Ð #l! Ð91€S.W.3d€at€783;€òòGarfinkle€v.€Garfinkleóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòLyon€v.€Lyonóó,Ð $X" Ð765€S.W.2d€759,€762„63€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€Although€other€standards€of€review€have€beenÐ ô$D # Ðexpressed€in€some€cases,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€made€it€clear€thatÔ#†XÑXXXÑfi#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔ€ð ð[t]he€allowance€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðattorneyððs€fees€is€largely€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€the€appellate€court€will€not€interfereÐ Ì&"% Ðexcept€upon€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.ðð€€òòAaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€411€(citing€SòòtoreyÐ ¸'#& Ðv.€Storeyóó,€835€S.W.2d€593,€597€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€and€òòCrouch€v.€Crouchóó,€53€Tenn.€App.€594,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð606,€385€S.W.2d€288,€293€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964)).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÔ#†XÑXXXÑ|k#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔÐ |*Ì%) ÐÔ#†XÑXXXѺm#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔà8  àUnder€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€ð ðwill€be€upheld€so€longÐ ° Ðâ âas€reasonable€minds€can€disagree€as€to€the€propriety€of€the€decision€made.ðð€€A€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€abuses€its€discretion€only€when€it€ð ðapplies€an€incorrect€legal€standard,€orÐ ˆØ Ðreaches€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€or€that€causes€an€injustice€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€party€complaining.ðð€€The€abuse€of€discretion€standard€does€not€permit€theÐ `° Ðappellate€court€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌòòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€omitted).€Ð $ t ÐÔ#†XÑXXXÑn#ÔòòóóÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Ms.€Miller€obviously€does€not€have€enough€monthly€income€to€pay€theÐ ü L  Ðfees.€€Consequently,€she€would€have€to€significantly€deplete€the€assets€that€she€was€awarded€in€orderÐ è 8  Ðto€pay€$8,000€in€attorney€fees.€€We€do€not€believe€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€itÐ Ô$  Ðprotected€her€assets€by€ordering€Mr.€Miller€to€be€responsible€for€those€fees.€€Consequently,€we€affirmÐ À  Ðthat€award.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMs.€Miller€also€argues€that€we€should€award€her€the€attorney€fees€she€has€incurred€inÐ „Ô  Ðresponding€to€Mr.€Millerððs€appeal.€€We€believe€her€argument€is€well„taken,€since€the€same€reasoningÐ pÀ Ðthat€supports€the€award€of€attorney€fees€at€trial€remains€applicable,€and€since€she€would€not€haveÐ \¬ Ðincurred€those€fees€if€Mr.€Miller€had€not€chosen€to€appeal€the€alimony€award.€€We€therefore€orderÐ H˜ ÐMr.€Miller€to€pay€his€former€wifeððs€attorney€fees€on€appeal€after€the€trial€court€determines€the€correctÐ 4„ Ðamount.Ð  p ÐÌò òà@‹‹)ìàV.ó óˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€CourtÐ Ð  Ðof€Williamson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion,€including€a€determinationÐ ¼  Ðof€the€attorney€fees€on€appeal€that€Mr.€Miller€should€be€obligated€to€pay.€€The€costs€on€appeal€areÐ ¨ø Ðtaxed€to€the€appellant,€Bruce€L.€Miller.Ð ”ä ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE