WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1u 0dv UB % U6" U>X B) DC AMU*Oy Bv~v. D3 0@4 AOt 0D D/ Bڃ"3|x($ UUDDDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-"C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  $$   YYY FILED$X October30,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.$AppellateCourtClerk  dPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva &&&&'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\\RA'\7XXdd7  R#%"A1-j|`  `@R ̛@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION ̛̜MACKMULLINS,    )C/ANO.03A019705CH00153      )  Appellant,   )HAMBLINCHANCERY      )v.      )HON.THOMASR.FRIERSON,II,      )CHANCELLORLILLIANJ.MULLINS,   )      )AFFIRMEDAND  Appellee.   )REMANDED̛̜PAULG.WHETSTONE,P.C.,Morristown,forAppellant.̜J.RANDALLSHELTON,Morristown,forAppellee.̛̜@ OPINION ̛̜        Franks,J.̛̜ X   Inthisdivorceaction,bothhusbandandwifehaveraisedissuesonappeal.  ThehusbandinsiststhatitwasimproperfortheTrialJudgetoorderthehusbandtopaythewifesCOBRAinsurancepremiumsandtopayaportionofherattorneysfees,sincethepartieshadannouncedtotheCourtthatthewifewouldnotseekalimony.  ThedivorcecasewastriedonOctober21,1996,andthepartiesstipulatedgroundsfordivorcepursuanttoT.C.A.364129.ThewifesCounterComplaintinitiallyaskedforalimonyinsolido,alimonyinfuturo,andtemporaryspousalsupport.ThehusbandscounselinhisOpeningStatementinformedtheCourtthatthepartieshadagreedthatthewifewouldnotseekalimony.Husbandscounselwasawarethatthewifewasseekingattorneysfeesandobjectedtoanysuchaward.IntheCourtsDecree,thehusbandwasrequiredtopayCOBRApremiumsonbehalfofthewifefortwentyfourmonthsandtopayaportionofherattorneysfeesintheamountof$500.00.TheChancelloralsodeterminedthatthemaritalresidence,includingthevalueofLillianMullinsdownpaymentof$18,000.00wasmaritalproperty.TheChancellordeterminedthat$60,000.00ofnetequityexistedinthehomeandthewifewasawardedtheproperty,butshewasrequiredtopay$12,969.00tothehusbandforhisinterest.  InawardingtheCOBRApayments,thechancellor interpretedcounselsrepresentationstomeanthatbothpartieswaivedanyrequestforperiodicorinsolidoalimony,buttheotherissuesofattorneysfeesandmaintenanceofCOBRAhealthinsuranceremainedinacontestedstatus.ThepartiesrepresentationsmadeattriallendsupporttotheChancellorsinterpretation.  TheappellantarguestheChancellorsawardofattorneysfeeswasimproperbecausetheissueofalimonywaswaived,andhenotesthatattorneyfeeawardsaretreatedasalimony.GilliamvGilliam,776S.W.2d81,86(Tenn.App.Ϝ1988),andindecidingwhethertoawardattorneysfees,thetrialcourtshouldgenerallyconsultthesamestatutoryfactorsusedindeterminingalimonyawards.Houghlandv.Houghland,844S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.App.1992);SeeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(1996).  Theattorneyforhusbandinhisopeningstatementsaid: TheCourtofAppealshasopinedtimeandtimeagainthatthatsjustanotherformofalimony,andIdontthinkthatoughttoapplyifhesnotseekingalimony.Healsostatedthat [W]ewillobjecttothepaymentofanyattorneyfees.  Duringtrial,thewifetestifiedastotheamountoffeesincurredandherinabilitytopay.Shewascrossexaminedonthisissue,andbasedontheconductofbothparties,theChancellorproperlydeterminedthattheissueofattorneysfeeswasacontestedissuefortrial.Thepartiesconductdemonstratesthatthewaiverwasnotintendedtoapplytoattorneysfees.Accord,Doverv.Dover,821S.W.2d593,595(Tenn.App.1991).(ACourtmayawardattorneysfeesforthespousesattorneywhoactstoprotectthepartyseconomicinterest).  ThehusbandcitesouropinioninKempv.Kemp,1988WL116368at*3(Tenn.App.)thatCOBRAcoverage isadditionalalimony.  ThehusbanddidnotobjectwhenthewiferequestedCOBRAcoverage.ThehusbandtestifiedthathehadcalculatedthecostofprovidingCOBRAcoverageandthewifetestifiedthatshewaswillingtogiveupsomeofherequityinotherassetstobalancetheCOBRAcoverage.TheChancellorproperlyconcludedthatthisissueremainedcontested.Theseissuesareresolvedagainstthehusband.  ThewifequestionstheproprietyofthedistributionofthemaritalestatebytheChancellor.  TheChancellorproperlydeterminedthatthewifespremaritalfundswerepartofthemaritalestate.Thisjurisdiction isadualpropertyjurisdictionbecauseitsdivorcestatutesdrawadistinctionbetweenmaritalandseparateproperty.Batsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,856(Tenn.App.1988).TheChancellordeterminedthatthehome,includingthevalueofthewifespremaritalinvestment,wasmaritalproperty.TheChancellorsaidthat [b]ymeansoftransmutation,arebuttalpresumptionhasarisenthatMrs.Mullinsintendedagifttothemaritalestate.TherecordsupportstheChancellorsdeterminationthattransmutationoccurred.Severalcaseshaveappliedthedoctrine.Batsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849(Tenn.App.1988);McClellanv.McClellan,873S.W.2d350(Tenn.App.1994);Barnhillv.Barnhill,826S.W.2d443(Tenn.App.1991).  Inthiscase,thepropertywasplacedsolelyinthewifesname.Anintegralpartofthedoctrineoftransmutationistheintentoftheparties.SeeBatson.Thereisampleevidencetosupportthepresumptionthatthewifeintendedthehometobeagifttothemarriage.Thepartieswerecohabitatingatthetimeofpurchase.Althoughcohabitationmaynotalonebesufficienttoinvoketransmutation,thepartieslookedforahousetogetherandjointlymadethedecisiontopurchasethehome.Moreover,theOctober1,1980realtycontractlistsbothpartiesasbuyers,whichsuggeststhepartiesviewedthepurchaseasajointenterprise.ThepartiesapparentlybelievedthattheAppellantspreviousbankruptcywouldhinderobtainingfinancingifhisnamewasincludedasapurchaser.Thus,theChancellorconcludedthatthewifespurposeintakingsoletitletothehomewasnottokeepitasseparateproperty,buttoobtainfinancingmoreeasily.TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheChancellorsfinding.  ThewifealsoclaimsthattheChancellorerredinnotdividingthe$3,762.00cashvalueofthehusbands$50,000.00AmericanIncomelifeinsurancepolicy.WecanfindnobasisintherecordtodisturbtheChancellorsawardingthelifeinsurancetothehusband.SeeKincaidv.Kincaid,912S.W.2d140,142(Tenn.App.1995);Loydv.Loyd,860S.W.2d409,411(Tenn.App.1993).Wegenerallydonotdisturbatrialcourtsdivisionunless thedistributionlacksproperevidentiarysupportorresultsfromanerroroflaworamisapplicationofstatutoryrequirementsandprocedures.Thompsonv.Thompson,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.App.1990).Nosucherrorappearsintherecord.  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremanded,withthecostoftheappealassessedonehalftoeachparty.@        __________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________̜CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̛___________________________̜Hon.WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.̛