WPC# NtwHX=-YL( qSy 7f%{ceGKFjo>r3)8Av{b'T\dX\z,&N>N\ bf nEo]24دSƒ{> n5DB;tk4jz(JLv,-S?_ R:!ޮsIА@|͏JdS<;T^u# bn57?]A,Elx O^]8$x龆HWIE;`9P{,c !X\i;S|E!Հa M>0KqmDu X̷֟Rw<7ʫ7dv3Ϻ+`]蝎$D8a--$/i1tL5(1vN8/VjxB<b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 0c~EUN 1111111111 1u 72- 1_ 72b 0     B   0( D3 D- 0K,, ASw 0 0D4 AxHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0ݩ+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular^p+:i+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|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)!i)(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.#1.- -(|G2$ !.8Tdd d 8         0  X24X d(|3$ !.8Tdd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Tdd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Nd d8     __)8/XXdd 8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @44October16,2001Session $ XX) #)XX#  LINDADARLENE_MUSICK_Ԁv.CALVINLESLIE_MUSICK_XX)  " @  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforSullivanCounty  " @ No.C7219Hon.JohnS._McLellan_,III.,Judge      `     h FILEDDECEMBER4,2001    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200101140_COA_ԄR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   TheTrialCourtgrantedpartiesadivorce,dividedmaritalproperty,andawardedalimony.The (x partieshaveappealedonissuesofevidence,divisionofmaritalproperty,thegrantingofalimony, d andwifesattorneysfees.Weaffirm. P #)XXv#XX) Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.   HerschelPickensFranks#)X|#XX.),J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,#)XE#XX.)  _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,#)X#XX.)ԀJ.,joined. t ThomasC._Jessee_,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,forAppellant. L DavidS.Haynes,Bristol,Tennessee,forAppellee. $ t @66' OPINION #)XX#XX)Ԉ #$#    ` Inthisdivorceaction,followingtrial,theTrialCourtgrantedthewifeadivorceon &!& thegroundsofinappropriatemaritalconduct,withprimarycustodyofthesontothemother.The '"' Courtorderedanequalsplitofthepersonaltyinthemaritalresidenceandthehusbandsapartment, p(#( anddeterminedthemaritalresidencehadavalueof$215,000.00,andorderedthehousetobesold \)$) withtheproceedsdivided80%tothewifeand20%tothehusband.Thewifewasawardedher H*%* motorvehicle,andthehusbandwasawardedhisjeepwithitsattendantdebt.TheCourtfoundthat 4+&+ thehusbandsshareofhisbusinesshadapremaritalvalueof$108,750.00,andthatitwascurrently  ,p', worth$190,000.00,whichmadetheincreaseinmaritalvalueof$81,250.00asmaritalproperty,  -\(- _whichwasawardedtothehusband.     ` TheCourtdeterminedthehusbandsnetincomewas$2,100.00permonth,andset  childsupportat$441.00.TheCourtfurtherfoundthewifewaseconomicallydisadvantagedrelative t tothehusband,butshehadacollegedegreeandcouldberehabilitated.Thewifewasawarded ` rehabilitativealimonyof$1,500.00amonthfortwoyears,andthen$1,000.00permonthfortwo L  years,andthen$500.00permonthforoneyear.TheCourtultimatelyrefusedtoawardthewife 8  attorneysfees,notingthattheCourthadtakenattorneysfeesintoconsiderationwhenallocating $ t toher80%oftheproceedsofthesaleofthemaritalresidencetothewife.Subsequently,themarital  ` residencewassoldfor$189,000.00,andwegrantedthewifesmotiontoconsiderthisfactonappeal.  L     ` Theissuespresentedonappealareasfollows: $   #(Uh83!"3"  0  0` (#(#32Uh  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Washusbandsbusinessproperlyvaluedbythetrialcourtand/ortheexperts?3!݌  (# (# Ќ  "3"  0  0` (#(#32Uh  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Didthetrialcourterrinitspropertyanddebtclassificationanddistribution? 3c݌  (# (# Ќ  "3"  0  0` (#(#3_2Uh  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Shouldthecourthaveconsideredhusbandsdissipationofassets? 3_݌\ (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#4.0 ` (#` (#Didthetrialcourterrinorderinghusbandtopayalimonytowife,andshould 4 thatalimonyhavebeeninfuturoratherthanrehabilitative?  p (# (#  0  0` (#(# ` (#` (# "3"  0  0` (#(#32Uh  4  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Didthetrialcourterrinfailingtoawardwifeherattorneysfeesand H expenses?3݌4 (# (# Ќ  "3"  0  0` (#(#3'2Uh  5  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Isthewifeentitledtoattorneysfeesandcostsonappeal?3't݌  (# (# Ќ  #)XX #XX)   ` ThehusbandarguesthatthebusinesswasnotproperlyvaluedbytheTrialCourt  becauseneitheroftheexpertstenderedbythepartiesfollowedtheSupremeCourtsdirectionin  Blasingamev.AmericanMaterials,Inc.,654S.W.2d659(Tenn.1983).InBlasingame,theCourt l wasfacedwiththeissueofhowtoproperlyvaluethestockofadissentingstockholder,anddecided X  tofollowtheDelawarerulerequiringtheuseofthreemethods,marketvalue,assetvalue,and D! investmentorearningsvalue.Id.Thehusbandarguesthathisownexpertdidnotcomplywiththese 0"  requirements,andweagree.ButhusbandscounselwasawareoftheBlasingamecase,asevidenced #l! byhiscommentsinthetrialtranscript,andmoreover,husbandsexpertadmittedthatheand $X" husbandscounselhaddiscussedit.Sincethehusbandhadtheopportunitytopresentanyevidence $D # hechoseontheissueattrial,heisboundbytheevidencehepresented.Wattersv.Watters,959 %0!$ S.W.2d585(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).AlsoseeTenn.R.App.P.36(a). &"%    ` WifeagreesthathusbandsexpertdidnotfollowtherequirementsofBlasingame,and (#' asksthisCourttobaseitsfindingonherexpertsvalueofthebusiness.Itappearsthewifesexpert )$( didcomplymorecloselywiththerequirementsofBlasingame,butwifesexpertadmittedthathis |*%) valuedidnotaccountforanyreallossesduetothefire,pollutiondamage,andotherissueswhich h+&* hadaneffectonthebusinesssvalue.Thus,whileneitherexpertsopinionwasproblemfree,the  testimonydidprovidetheCourtwithareasonablerangeofvalueforthehusbandsinterestinthe  business,andthecourtwasfreetoassignavaluewithinthatrange.Kochv.Koch,874S.W.2d571  (Tenn.Ct.App.1993);Brockv.Brock,941S.W.2d896(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).AlsoseeKinardv. t Kindard,986S.W.2d220(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthe ` TrialCourtsfindingastothehusbandsinterestinthebusiness. L     ` BothpartiesarguetheCourterredinitsdistributionofassets.Additionally,thewife $ t arguestheTrialCourterredinvaluingthemaritalresidence.  `    ` Valuationofanassetisaquestionoffact,Kinard,andthepartiesareboundbythe  8  evidencetheypresented,andtheTrialCourtsfindingofvaluecomestothisCourtwitha $  presumptionofcorrectness.Kinard.      ` Theonlyevidencepresentedastothevalueofthehousewasthetestimonyofthe   parties.TheCourtsdeterminationoftheissuewasbasedonthepartiescredibility,andtheTrial   Courtdecidedtoacceptthehusbandsassessmentofthevalue.ButthewifearguesthattheCourt p shouldtakenoticeofthepostjudgmentfactthatthehouseonlysoldfor$189,000.00.TheSupreme \ Court,however,hasmadeitclearthatpostjudgmentfactsrelatingtodisputedissueswhichthe H partyseekstorelitigateafterthetrialwillnotbeconsidered.Duncanv.Duncan,672S.W.2d765 4 (Tenn.1984).AlsoseeWadev.Wade,897S.W.2d702(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Ontheseauthorities,  p itisnotappropriatetoconsiderthepostjudgmentfactofthesellingpriceofthehouse.Theparties  \ chosetopresenttheCourtwithonlytheirownopinionsastothevalueofthehome,andtheCourts H rulingwaswithintherangeoftheevidence.TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrial 4 Courtsfinding.Tenn.R.App.P.Rule13(d).      ` WifearguesthattheCourterredinclassifyingcertaindebtsincurredbythehusband  asmaritalproperty,aswellasfundsspentbythehusband.Wefindtheseissuestobewithoutmerit.  SeeMondelliv.Howard,780S.W.2d769(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).     ` OurstandardofreviewoftheTrialCourtspropertyvaluationanddistributionisde X  novowithapresumptionofcorrectness,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Mondelli,and D! weconcludetheTrialCourtsdistributionwasalmostequal,althoughitslightlyfavoredthewife, 0"  whichwefindtobeequitable.SeeEllisv.Ellis,748S.W.2d424(Tenn.1988). #l!    ` ThehusbandarguesthattheTrialCourterredinawardingalimonytothewife, $D # becausehedoesnothavetheabilitytopay.TheTrialCourtdeterminedthehusbandsearningswere %0!$ approximately$2,100.00permonth,andconsideringthestatutoryfactorscontainedinTenn.Code &"% Ann.365101(d)(1),wefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsaward. '#& Moreover,thestatuteclearlyexpressesthereisapreferenceforrehabilitativealimony,where (#' alimonyisfeasible.Longv.Long,968S.W.2d292(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Weaffirmtheawardof )$( alimony. |*%)  h+&*    ` Finally,thewifearguesthattheTrialCourterredinfailingtoawardherattorneys  fees.Attorneysfeesawardsindivorceactionsaretypicallyviewedasanadditionalawardof  alimony,andtheTrialJudge,indenyinganawardofattorneysfees,statedthathehadtakenthe  sameintoconsiderationwhenawardingthewifeagreatershareofthemaritalestate.Aswehave t noted, Ifthefinaldecreeawardswifesufficientfundsoutofwhichherneedsandcounselfeescan ` bereasonablymet,thenanawardofattorneysfeesisinappropriate.Wadev.Wade,897S.W.2d L  702,719(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Wealsodeclinetoawardthewifesattorneysfeesonappeal. 8     ` WeaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,withthecostoftheappeal  ` assessedonehalftoeachparty.  L  #)XX{#XX)   `     h     _________________________      `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J.