WPCr !@m1{6t X9hJKf(RxEv<`ՍGa \]g?KxGda˘_5kߠJ"J[nmIXZ>b/+aM,Էm4)$36 C'UIhݬ؃'\GƥF⪃M t5 ;ʫ"]v?4k0|J8G9R+쫊0U7l9kE~onpa,vY͵E4+sMXVl%Ґ5ͅUʱy!QJ H}9]`,u$ j5,Zq,\{d릨 hrɈ@d|w>7EŽ6W1!8T}ƭYAћ>kבns@}'mNmVS1F! wasfoundtobemaritalproperty,aswellastheentirevalueofCompany.WifesCondowasfound *z tobeseparateproperty.Weaffirminpart,reverseinpart,modifyandremand. f   #XXXXk##DXXk#XXD Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmedinpart; B Reversedinpart;Modified;andRemanded  2   #DXR #XX.DDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andHollyK.Lillard,J.,joined.  DavidE.CaywoodandCynthiaL.McLendon,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,James !  SpencerOakley. "! JamesO.ParkerandSamBlaiss,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,PatsyHillOakley. b$# 7  OPINION #DXXf #XXD B&!% #DXX~ #XXDXkXXX     In1997,PatsyOakleyfiledaComplaintforDivorceagainstJamesOakley,herhusband "(r#' oftwentytwoyears.Ms.Oakleyhadbeenahomemakerforthedurationofthemarriage,though )^$( shewasinvolvedinthebuyingandsellingofantiquesonanirregularbasis.Mr.Oakleywasthe )J%) ownerandoperatorofOakleyFrames,aframingbusiness.Thecouplehadtwochildren,one *6&* beingaminoratthetimeofthedivorce. +"'+   ,(,   AtthetimetheComplaintforDivorcewasfiled,thecoupleownedvariousassets.In   additiontoOakleyFrames,Mr.Oakleyownedasubstantialstockportfolioandtworesidential  properties.Mr.Oakleyhadinheritedmostoftheseassetsin1986uponthedeathofhismother. #  1      ׀  Ms.OakleyownedacondominiuminFlorida.ThispropertyhadbeenpurchasedinJuly,1997, t withmoneyfromaMerrillLynchaccount.ThisaccountcontainedfundsMs.Oakleyhad ` inheritedfromhermotherandaunt.However,Ms.Oakleyhadmadeadownpaymentforher L  condofromMerrillLynchfundswhichsheinitiallyplacedintoajointmaritalcheckingaccount. 8    ThetrialcourtfoundthattheappreciationofMr.Oakleystworesidentialpropertiesand  ` OakleyFramersweremaritalproperty.Inaddition,thecourtfoundMs.Oakleywasentitledto  L  25%oftheappreciationofherhusbandsstockportfolio.Ms.OakleywasawardedherFlorida  8  condominiumasseparateproperty.Inaddition,Ms.Oakleywasawarded$375permonthin $  alimony infuturo ,$1000permonthfor48monthsasrehabilitativealimony,and$65,000in   alimony insolido .Thisappealfollowed.       Theissues,asweperceivethem,areasfollows: p  (h83"3"  8  3E2h  I  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrinawardingMs.Oakleybothalimony infuturo , H rehabilitativealimonyandalimony insolido of$65,000?3E~݌4` `  Ќ   (uh88! !"3"  8  3p2uh  II  .3  0`     Didthetrialcourterrinitsdivisionofmaritalpropertythroughitsaward  \ toMs.Oakleyof25%ofMr.Oakleysstocksandsecurities,its H classificationoftheappreciationofseveralrealpropertiesinMemphisand 4 OakleyFramersinitsentiretyasmaritalproperty,anditsfindingthata   FloridacondominiumrecentlypurchasedbyMs.Oakleywasseparate   property?3p݌` `  Ќ    Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourts  rulingis denovo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly, l wemaynotreversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceof X  theevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R. D! App.P.13(d).Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo 0"   withnopresumptionofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis, #l! Timm,FurenandGinsburg,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). $X"   AlimonyAward %0!$   8   ` Ifanawardofrehabilitativealimonyisjustifiedbytheparties' '#& circumstances,atrialcourtinitiallyshouldawardrehabilitativealimonyonly.An (#' awardofrehabilitativealimonypursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.365101mustbe )$( predicateduponafindingthattherecipientcanbeeconomicallyrehabilitated.  Onceawarded,rehabilitativealimonymaybemodifiediftherecipient'sprospects  foreconomicrehabilitationmateriallychange.Ifrehabilitationisnotfeasible,the  trialcourtmaythenmakeanawardofalimonyinfuturo.Accordingly,a t concurrentawardofbothtypesofalimonyisinconsistent.Atthetimeofthe ` decree,atrialcourtmustnecessarilyfindthattherecipientofalimonyeithercan L  beorcannotberehabilitatedalthoughthatdeterminationissubjecttolater 8  modification.Allowingconcurrentawardsofalimonyinfuturoandrehabilitative $ t alimonywouldrequireatrialcourttoengageinanactofclairvoyance.Thetrial  ` courtwouldnotonlyberequiredtoanticipatethedurationnecessaryfor  L  rehabilitationbutwouldalsoberequiredtoanticipatethefutureneedsofaspouse  8  who,ithasbeendetermined,canberehabilitated.$     Crabtreev.Crabtree ,16S.W.3d356,360(Tenn.2000).     Inthiscase,Ms.Oakleywasawardedbothalimony infuturo andrehabilitativealimony.   Clearly,asstatedin Crabtree ,theseawardsareinconsistentwitheachother.Asthetrialcourt p foundthatMs.Oakleycouldberehabilitated,thecourterredwhenitawardedMs.Oakley \ alimony infuturo .However,itisclearfromourreviewoftherecordthatMs.Oakleylacksany H healthinsuranceunderthedivorcedecree.Ms.Oakleyhassuggestedthatthetrialcourtsaward 4 ofalimony infuturo wasmostlikelyintendedtoprovidesuchhealthinsuranceasMs.Oakley  p testifiedduringthetrialthat$375wasthecost [f]orhealthinsurance. #  2      ׀  \   Uponourreviewoftherecord,weagree.Anawardforhealthinsuranceisspecifically 4 allowedundersection365101(f)(1)oftheTennesseeCodewhichstates: [t]hecourtmayalso   directapartytopaythepremiumsforinsuranceinsuringthehealthcarecostsoftheotherparty.   Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(f)(1)(Supp.2000).Takingthisstatuteandthesituationofthe  partiesintoaccount,weherebyreversethetrialcourtsawardofalimony infuturo .Instead,we  modifythetrialcourtsawardofrehabilitativealimonyupwardbytheamountof$375permonth  toreflectthecostsofMs.Oakleyshealthinsurance.Thisportionoftherehabilitativealimony l awardwillcontinueuntilMs.OakleybecomeseligibleforMedicareoruntilsuchtimeasMs. X  Oakleyisabletoobtainhealthinsurancethroughheremployment. D!   Mr.OakleyhasalsoarguedthatthetrialcourterredinawardingMs.Oakleyalimony in #l! solido .However, [b]othintermsoflogicandthepurposesofalimony,wethinkitclearthat $X" alimony insolido isnotinconsistentwithaconcurrentawardofrehabilitativealimony. Burlew $D # v.Burlew ,40S.W.3d465,472(Tenn.2001).ӀInaddition, [p]rovidedthatthetrialcourt %0!$ considersthepurposesofalimony...andthespecificfactorslistedinthestatute,Tenn.Code &"% Ann.36Ӏ5101(d),ithaswidediscretionindeterminingtheappropriateaward. Id. (citing '#&   Crabtree ,16S.W.3dat360).Uponourreviewoftherecord,wecannotstatethatthetrialcourt (#' hasabuseditswidediscretioninthismatter.Asaresult,thetrialcourtsawardofalimony in  solido intheamountof$65,000toMs.Oakleyisherebyaffirmed.     MaritalProperty  t     Section364121(b)(1)oftheTennesseeCodestates: L  ! ! (888   ` (A)"Maritalproperty"meansallrealandpersonalproperty,bothtangible $ t andintangible,acquiredbyeitherorbothspousesduringthecourseofthe  ` marriageuptothedateofthefinaldivorcehearingandownedbyeitherorboth  L  spousesasofthedateoffilingofacomplaintfordivorce,exceptinthecaseof  8  fraudulentconveyanceinanticipationoffiling,andincludinganypropertyto $  whicharightwasacquireduptothedateofthefinaldivorcehearing,andvalued   asofadateasnearasreasonablypossibletothefinaldivorcehearingdate.Inthe   caseofacomplaintforlegalseparation,thecourtmaymakeafinaldispositionof   themaritalpropertyeitheratthetimeofenteringaorderoflegalseparationorat   thetimeofenteringafinaldivorcedecree,ifany.Ifthemaritalpropertyisdivided p aspartoftheorderoflegalseparation,anypropertyacquiredbyaspouse \ thereafterisdeemedseparatepropertyofthatspouse.Allmaritalpropertyshallbe H valuedasofadateasnearaspossibletothedateofentryoftheorderfinally 4 dividingthemaritalproperty. p   8   ` (B)"Maritalproperty"includesincomefrom,andanyincreaseinvalue  \ duringthemarriageof,propertydeterminedtobeseparatepropertyinaccordance H withsubdivision(b)(2)ifeachpartysubstantiallycontributedtoitspreservation 4 andappreciation,andthevalueofvestedandunvestedpension,vestedand   unvestedstockoptionrights,retirementorotherfringebenefitrightsrelatingto   employmentthataccruedduringtheperiodofthemarriage.   8   ` (C)"Maritalproperty"includesrecoveryinpersonalinjury,workers'  compensation,socialsecuritydisabilityactions,andothersimilaractionsforthe  following:wageslostduringthemarriage,reimbursementformedicalbills l incurredandpaidwithmaritalproperty,andpropertydamagetomaritalproperty. X   ` (D)Asusedinthissubsection,"substantialcontribution"mayinclude,but D! % C %C<notbelimitedto,thedirectorindirectcontributionofaspouseashomemaker, 0"  wageearner,parentorfamilyfinancialmanager,togetherwithsuchotherfactors #l! asthecourthavingjurisdictionthereofmaydetermine.$X"   TennCodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(Supp.2000), asamendedby 2001Tenn.Pub.Acts274. %0!$    h+&* A.AwardofStocksandSecurities       Itisundisputedbythepartiesthatthestocksandsecuritiesunderdisputeinthiscasewere  Mr.Oakleysseparateproperty. #  3      ׀Inaddition,thepartiesagreethatneitherpartydirectly t contributedtotheincreaseinvalueofthesesecurities.Thetrialcourtagreed,specificallyfinding ` thatthesestocksandsecuritieshadappreciatedduetomarketforces notfromanyappreciable L  contributionbyMs.Oakley,andwere separatepropertythat[had]appreciatedinvalue.Even 8  aftermakingthesefindingshowever,thetrialcourtstillawardedMs.Oakleytwentyfivepercent $ t ofthesecuritiesappreciation.Thisawardwasinerror.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthese  ` securitieswereseparatepropertyinwhichMs.Oakleyhadmadenoappreciablecontribution.  L  Thus,undersection364121(b)(1)oftheTennesseeCode,Ms.Oakleywasnotentitledtoany  8  portionoftheirappreciation.Asaresult,weherebyreversethetrialcourtsawardtoMs.Oakley $  oftwentyfivepercentofMr.Oakleysseparatestocksandsecurities.     B.RealProperties inMemphis      8   ` Whetheraspousehasmadeasubstantialcontributiontothepreservation t andappreciationoftheotherspouse'sseparatepropertyisaquestionoffact. ` Substantialcontributionsarenotlimitedtodirectcontributionsbutalsoinclude L indirectcontributionssuchas"homemaker,wageearner,parentorfamily 8 financialmanager."Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(C).Aspouse's $t contributionsmustberealandsignificantinordertobesubstantial.However, ` theyneednotbemonetarilycommensuratetotheappreciationintheseparate L property'svalue,normusttheyrelatedirectlytotheseparatepropertyatissue. 8  Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,167(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).$    WrightMillerv.Miller ,984S.W.2d936,94344(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).    UnlikeitsfindingsaboutMr.Oakleyssecurities,thetrialcourtmadenospecific  determinationthatMs.OakleydidnotcontributetothepreservationandappreciationofMr. p OakleysrealpropertyinMemphis.Throughitsrulingthattheappreciationoftheseproperties \  wasmaritalproperty,thetrialcourt,bynecessity,foundthatMs.Oakleydidcontributetotheir H! preservationandappreciation.Asthetrialcourtsrulingthattheappreciationismaritalproperty 4"  isafindingoffact,itmayonlybereversedbythiscourtifitiscontrarytothepreponderanceof  #p! theevidence.Uponourreviewoftherecord,  wecannotsaythatthisfindingiscontrarytothe  $\" preponderanceoftheevidence,andthusweaffirmthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthe $H # appreciationofMr.OakleysrealpropertyinMemphiswasmaritalproperty. %4!$  )$(    C.OakleyFramers       ThetrialcourtfoundthatOakleyFramerswasseparatepropertyofMr.Oakley.  However,thetrialcourtawardedMr.Oakleyonlyseventyfivepercentofthetotalvalueof t OakleyFramers,findingthatMs.Oakleyhadmadeasubstantialcontributiontoitspreservation ` andappreciation.Mr.OakleyarguesthatMs.Oakleydidnotmakesuchcontributionseither L  throughworkingatthebusinessorasahomemakerandparent.Assuch,heasksthiscourtto 8  reversethetrialcourtsdecisioninthismatter.Asstatedabove, [w]hetheraspousehasmadea $ t substantialcontributiontothepreservationandappreciationoftheotherspouse'sseparate  ` propertyisaquestionoffact. Id. Thus,wemaynotreversethetrialcourtsdecisiononthis  L  matterunlessitiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.Uponourreview,wecannot  8  saythatthetrialcourtsfindingthatMs.Oakleymadeasubstantialcontributiontothe $  preservationandappreciationofOakleyFramersiscontrarytothepreponderanceofthe   evidence. #  4           However, any increaseinvalue duringthemarriageof,propertydeterminedtobe   separateproperty...[canbeconsideredmaritalpropertyonly]ifeachpartysubstantially p contributedtoitspreservationandappreciation.TennCodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(B)(Supp. \ 2000)(emphasisadded). Thus,itisclearthatMs.Oakleyisentitledonlytothe increasein H value ofOakleyFramersfromthetimeMr.Oakleyreceivedthebusiness.Thetrialcourtwasin 8 errorthroughitsdeterminationthattheentirevalueofOakleyFramerswasmaritalproperty. (x OnlytheappreciationofOakleyFramersduringthemarriagewasmaritalpropertythatcouldbe d properlydividedbythecourt. P   Uponreviewingtherecordbeforeus,wecannotdeterminetheinitialvalueofOakley ( FramersatthetimeitbecameMr.Oakleysproperty.@ #  5      ׀Assuch,weareunabletodeterminethe  exactamountwhichOakleyFramersappreciatedduringthemarriage.Asaresult,wehereby  reversethetrialcourtsfindingthattheentirevalueofOakleyFramerswasmaritalpropertyand  remandtothetrialcourtfordeterminationoftheamountoftheappreciationduringthemarriage.  ThisappreciationistheonlypartofthetotalvalueofOakleyFramersthatshouldbeusedinthe t divisionofmaritalproperty.  `   $#t!   D.FloridaCondominium   Y  Uponourreviewoftherecord,wenotethatthetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthatMs.  Oakleys Floridacondominiumwasseparateproperty. Forthereasonsalreadydiscussedabove, t thiscourtmaynot reversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothe d preponderanceoftheevidence.Uponourreviewoftherecord,wecannotstatethatthetrial P  courtsdeterminationinthismatteriscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.Asaresult, <  weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatMs.OakleysFloridacondominiumisseparate ( x property.   d   Conclusion  <   \  Insummary,wereversetheawardofalimony infuturo ,modifytherehabilitative   alimony,affirmthealimony insolido ,reversethetrialcourtsdecisiontoawardWifeaportion   ofHusbandsseparatepropertyconsistingofstocksandsecurities,affirmthedecisionthatthe   increaseintherealpropertyismaritalproperty,affirmthedeterminationthattheFloridacondois   WifesseparatepropertyandaffirmthedecisionthatWifemadeasubstantialcontributiontoany t increaseinthevalueofthebusiness.Onremand,adeterminationmustbemadeastothevalue ` ofthebusinessatthetimeHusbandacquiredit.Thiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtfora L divisionofmaritalpropertyinaccordancewiththisopinion. 8   Costsonappealaretaxedequallytoappellant,JamesSpencerOakley,andappellee,Patsy ` HillOakley,andtheirsureties,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  L  #XXXXk #   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE