WPC] 3u%Eo'I/Eo4[>O~jʅ~`]yo}`sS{-e;r-cZIr4#S yE_ _1n;{`||`[߳rb_Ծľi8^Ud>'T;I?% m:HQ@x*UO"\AZgT!=: 0; 0< 0< 0= 0> 0? 0x@ 02A 02B 06B 0:2C 0YlC 0_C 0 $D 0.E 0F B*H D/H 0I D/K 0DK 06L 0HL 0:PM 0^M 0M 0<N 1eOU6tO BOU>O 0P D5P D-P 0K QU*VQ ASQQ 0R 0D=S AS 1u,T 72T &T T & U UD/U/UsW [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\c/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularo=/:i+003|x 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.wptU\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 / R$      1    _ThefarmwasonRichmondShopRoad,thesamestreetasthecouplesprimaryresidence.Forthesakeof  clarity,werefertothispropertyasLannomFarm.(#$  0    R$      4    _SS STennesseeCodeAnnotated364121(b)definestheterms: S    T"#$%&'()(03b?+ ` hp x X?8  W(1)(A) Maritalpropertymeansallrealandpersonalproperty,bothtangibleandintangible, j acquiredbyeitherorbothspousesduringthecourseofthemarriageuptothedateofthefinal . divorcehearingandownedbyeitherorbothspousesasofthedateoffilingofacomplaintfor  divorce....f   Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(A)(Supp.2002).#W# S }  8  S A  S?+ ` hp x X?W(2) Separatepropertymeans:    8  #Wx#% d %d WԀ(A)Allrealandpersonalpropertyownedbyaspousebeforemarriage...% e #W'#%eW;[and]    #W#W8  S e Ԁ#W<#% f %fW(B)Propertyacquiredinexchangeforpropertyacquiredbeforethemarriage.... e   Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(2)(A)(B)(Supp.2002).#W#W ,|   S#W#(hH  Z(Times New Roman  R$      3    _Thatsectionprovides:  8  (c)Inmakingequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactors 8 including:L   8      8  (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;   8      8  (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills,employability,earningcapacity,estate,  \ financialliabilitiesandfinancialneedsofeachoftheparties;    8      8  (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyone(1)partytotheeducation,trainingorincreased X   earningpoweroftheotherparty; l    8      8  (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionsofcapitalassetsandincome;    8      8  (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation,appreciation,depreciationor ,|  dissipationofthemaritalorseparateproperty,includingthecontributionofapartytothemarriage @  ashomemaker,wageearnerorparent,withthecontributionofapartyashomemakerorwageearner   tobegiventhesameweightifeachpartyhasfulfilleditsrole;x    8      8  (6)Thevalueoftheseparatepropertyofeachparty;P   8      8  (7)Theestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthemarriage;   8      8  (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivisionofpropertyistobecome ` effective;$   8      8  (9)Thetaxconsequencestoeachparty,costsassociatedwiththereasonablyforeseeablesaleofthe \ asset,andotherreasonablyforeseeableexpensesassociatedwiththeasset; p   8      8  (10)Theamountofsocialsecuritybenefitsavailabletoeachspouse;and   8      8  (11)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.0    Tenn.CodeAnn.36-4-121(c)(Supp.2002).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  - -(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dI)1dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      (|G2$ !.8edXXd8         0  2 0CommentB  "#$%&'() 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3B$ !.8edXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3B$ !.8edXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)bi)SP;1eca000045f07SDU_5SP;424e0000ad683 : R$      6    _Wifearguesthatthetrialcourterredinconsideringevidenceofapartnershippriortothemarriageasthebasis  forfindingcomminglingandtransmutation.Weconcludethatthetrialcourtsdecisionwouldhavebeenpropereven t withouttheconsiderationofthisfactor.Therefore,webelievethecourtsconsiderationofapremarriagepartnership, 8 iferror,washarmless.  R$      7    _Wifealsoassertsthatthiswasashorttermmarriageand,consequently,thetrialcourtshouldhaveattempted  toputthepartiesinthesamefinancialpositionastheywereinbeforethemarriage. SeeBatsonv.Batson ,769S.W.2d t 849,859(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)(determiningthatafiveyearmarriagewasshortindurationand,therefore,thecourt : shouldputthepartiesinapremarriagefinancialsituation).Wedisagree.Consideringthelengthofthismarriageand N thepartiestreatmentoftheassetsasmarital,thetrialcourtwasnotcompelledtodividethemaritalassetsinthesame  mannerasitwouldforamarriageofshortduration. Seeid.  RAINES COAHighersLannomMcBrien ExhBookoutFulbrightt]his t]heBatsonrebuttableHofer R$      2    _Thedivisionofpersonalpropertyisnotatissueinthisappeal. R$      5    _HusbandssonlivedinthemobilehomelocatedontheRichmondShopRoadpropertyforaperiodoftime. !.8edd8     _  e8SXXdd8  @ eINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#e #Ԉ &   July9,2003Session L XSXe #eXXS#MARCIAANNRAINESv.JIMMYRAYRAINESXSXe  J @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuit0 @ CourtforWilsonCounty  J @@No.3642DVClaraW.Byrd,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200201952_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember3,2003   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisadivorcecaseinvolvingthedivisionofmaritalproperty.In1988,thehusbandmovedinto x  thewifeshouse.Thepartiesmarriedin1992andremainedmarriedfortenyears.Duringthattime, d thepartiessoldthewifeshouseandboughtanewhomewiththeproceeds.Thenewhomewas P purchasedinthenamesofboththehusbandandthewife.In2002,thepartiesdivorced.Thetrial < courtfoundthatthepartiespropertyhadbecomesocommingledthatvirtuallynoneofitcouldbe (x consideredseparateproperty,anddividedthemaritalassetsevenly.Thetrialcourtalsoallocated d tothewifealargerportionofamaritaldebttothewifesmother.Fromthatdecree,thewifenow P appeals.Weaffirm,findingthattheevidenceclearlysupportsthetrialcourtsfindingof < comminglingandtransmutationofproperty,andfindingnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourts ( allocationofthemaritaldebt.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed     #eXSh#XSX.eHollyM.Kirby,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers,J.,andDavid t R.Farmer,J.,joined. ` FrankLannom,Lebanon,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MarciaAnnRaines. 8!  ShawnMcBrien,Lebanon,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JimmyRayRaines. #`"   OPINION #eXXS #XSXe $8 $ #eXXS #XSXe    In1988,Petitioner/AppellantMarciaAnnRaines XSXXXS( Wife)andRespondent/AppelleeJimmy &"& RayRaines( Husband)beganlivingtogetherinWifeshouseat5556RichmondShopRoad '"' ( RichmondShopRoadhome).Whentheybeganlivingtogether,bothpartiesownedrealand (#( personalproperty.InadditiontotheRichmondShopRoadhome,Wifeownedthethirtyfiveacres )$) uponwhichitwassituated.Thehomeandtheacreagewerevaluedatapproximately$129,300,and p*%* Wifeowednomortgageontheproperty.#XSXX XS] # XSXXXS# eX XS # XSX eHusbandhelpedtomakeimprovementsontheRichmond \+&+ ShopRoadproperty.#XSXX XS##eXXS# ee XSX eWifealsoownedamobilehomeontheRichmondShopRoadland,house H,', furnishings,personalitems,andavehicle. 4-(-e _  Whenthepartiesbeganlivingtogether,Husbandownedahouseat126BlairLane,valued  at$109,000,witha$50,000mortgage.AfterHusbandmovedinwithWife,herentedtheBlairLane  houseandusedtheproceedstoreducethedebtontheproperty.Inaddition,Husbandhad$25,000  incash,a$6,000retirementaccount,awholelifeinsurancepolicyworth$4,200,andvarioustools t andequipment.HusbandalsoownedasmallrentalpropertyonTaterPeelerRoad,whichhesold ` byaninstallmentagreement.The$250monthlyinstallmentpaymentswereusedbybothpartiesfor L  livingexpenses.#XSXX XS# XSXXXS# eX XS# XSX e 8    InFebruary1992,WifeandHusbandweremarried.Aftertheybeganlivingtogether,but  ` priortotheirmarriage,thepartiespurchasedcowstobekeptontheacreageonwhichtheRichmond  L  ShopRoadhomewaslocated.BothWifeandHusbandcontributedtothepurchaseofthecows.  8  Pigswerekeptonthepropertyaswell.Whentheanimalsweresold,theproceedswenttowardthe $  partieslivingexpensespriortoandduringtheirmarriage.     InMay1995,thepartiesboughtaneightyfouracrefarmonwhichtoputtheircattle.This   farmisreferredtoas LannomFarm. #  1      ׀InordertoobtainthedownpaymentforLannomFarm,the   partiesborrowed$25,000fromWifesmother,MargaretSpears( Spears).Later,thepartiessold p thefarm.TheentireproceedsofthesalewerenotusedtorepaythedebttoSpears;instead,the \ partiesloaned$10,779toWifesson,Phillip.Inanunrelatedtransaction,thepartiesborrowedan H additional$6,500fromSpears.InlookingatthedebtstoSpears,thetrialcourtfoundthat,atthe 4 timeofthedivorceproceedings,$15,000wasowedonthefarmloan,and$2,000wasowedonthe  p smallerloan,foratotalof$17,000owedtoSpears.#XSXX XS# XSXXXS# eX XS # XSX e  \   InapproximatelyDecember1996,WifeandHusbandboughtanewhomeat302EastSpring 4 Street( EastSpringStreethome).InordertopurchaseandmakeimprovementsontheEastSpring   Streethouse,thepartiesborrowedapproximately$70,000againsttheRichmondShopRoad   property.Thatloanwasmadeinthenameofbothparties,andthetitletotheEastSpringStreet  housewasputinboththeirnames.AftertheimprovementsweremadetotheEastSpringStreet  house,thepartiessoldtheRichmondShopRoadhomeandpaidoffthe$70,000loanwithpartof  theproceeds.Theremainderoftheproceeds,about$22,000,wasputintorepairingandrenovating l theEastSpringStreethouse.Aftertherenovation,therewerenoloansontheEastSpringStreet X  property. D!   AtsomepointaftertherenovationoftheEastSpringStreethomewascompleted,theparties #l! obtaineda$50,000homeequityloanagainstthehouseinordertoconsolidateunrelateddebtsthe $X" partieshadacquired.Later,inarefinancingarrangement,the$50,000equityloanwasremovedfrom $D # theEastSpringStreethouseandplaceduponHusbandsBlairLanerentalproperty. %0!$ #XSXX XSj# XSXXXS# eX XS# XSX e '#&   OnOctober11,2001,Wifefiledapetitionfordivorcebasedon,amongotherthings,  inappropriatemaritalconduct.OnDecember12,2001,Husbandfiledananswerandcounterclaim  fordivorce,alsobasedongroundsofinappropriatemaritalconduct.ThecasewenttotrialonApril  18andMay24,2002.BothWifeandHusbandtestifiedattrialregardingthecircumstancesrelating t tothegroundsfordivorceandthedivisionofmaritalproperty.OnJuly11,2002,thetrialcourt ` enteredafinaldecreegrantingadivorcetobothWifeandHusband,basedontheinappropriate L  maritalconductofbothparties. 8    Onthatdate,thetrialcourtalsodividedthemaritalproperty.Withtheexceptionoftwo  ` parcelsofrealestatenotatissueinthisappeal,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatvirtuallyallofthereal  L  propertyo #  2      ׀ownedbythepartieswasmaritalproperty,findingthat therealpropertiesoftheparties  8  havebecomesocomingledthatnoCourtcouldhavekeptitseparate....Thetrialcourtfound $  specificallythat therehasbeenanequalcontributionduringthemarriagebybothparties, that   bothpartiesweregainfullyemployed[,]andthatbothpartiescontributedequallytothemarriage   financially.Consequently,themaritalpropertywasdividedevenly.Asforthe$17,000debtto   Spears,thetrialcourtallocatedtoWifethe$10,779thatwasborrowedtoloantohersonPhillip,and   dividedtheremaining$6,221indebtequallybetweentheparties.Fromthatorder,Wifenow p appeals. \   Onappeal,Wifearguesthatshewasentitledtoagreaterproportionofthemaritalassets, 4 becausethevalueofherestateatthetimeofthemarriagewasgreaterthanHusbands,andbecause  p thepartiescomminglingofassetspriortotheirmarriageshouldnothavebeenconsideredinthe  \ propertydistribution.Shealsoassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavedividedthe$17,000debtto H Spearsevenlybetweentheparties,ratherthanburdeningherwiththeentire$10,779loanforthe 4 benefitofhersonPhillip.     Theclassificationofpropertyaseitherseparateormaritalpropertyisaquestionoffact. See  Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,167(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).#XSXX XS #XSXXXSTherefore,thetrialcourtsfindings  withrespecttopropertyclassificationarerevieweddenovo,accompaniedbyapresumptionof  correctness,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. SeeBrooksv.Brooks ,992 l S.W.2d403,404(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Questionsoflawarerevieweddenovo,with X  nopresumptionofcorrectness. Nelsonv.WalMartStores,Inc. ,8S.W.3d625,628(Tenn.1999). D! Atrialcourtisaffordedwidediscretionindividingmaritalproperty,anditsdistributionwillbe 0"  given greatweightonappeal. See Fordv.Ford ,952S.W.2d824,825(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). #l! Thetrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertywillnotbedisturbedonappealunlessitlacks $X" evidentiarysupportorresultsfromanerroroflaworamisapplicationofthestatutoryrequirements. $D #  SeeThompsonv.Thompson ,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.Ct.App.1990). %0!$   Thefactorstobeconsideredinmakinganequitabledivisionofmaritalpropertyaresetforth  inTennesseeCodeAnnotated364121(c)(Supp.2002). #  3      #XSXXXS],# XSXXXSԀAlthough#XSXX XSR2#XSXXXSthereisapresumptionthat   maritalpropertyisownedequally,thereisnopresumptionthatmaritalpropertyshouldbedivided  equally. See Bookoutv.Bookout ,954S.W.2d730,731(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Thus,anequitable t divisionofthemaritalpropertyneednotbeanequaldivisionoftheproperty. Seeid. Thegoalis ` todividetheassetsinafairandequitablemanner. Fulbrightv.Fulbright ,64S.W.3d359,366 L  (Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Eachcaseinvolvingthedivisionofmaritalpropertymustbedecidedonits 8  ownuniquesetoffactsandcircumstances. SeeWadev.Wade ,897S.W.2d702,717(Tenn.Ct. $ t App.1994).  `   Wifearguesthatthetrialcourterredinitsdistributionofmaritalpropertybecauseitdidnot  8  giveproperweighttothefactthat,whenthepartiesmarried,Wifesestatewasmuchlargerthanthat $  ofHusband.Shenotesthat,atthetimeofthemarriage,sheseparatelyownedtheRichmondShop   Roadproperty,worth$129,300,andmaintainsthat [t]hispropertywasheldseparatealltheway  throughthesaleofthepropertyin1997.ShealsoclaimsthatthepurchaseoftheEastSpringStreet  housecanbetracedtothesaleoftheRichmondShopRoadproperty.Thesefacts,Wifeargues,  establishthattheRichmondShopRoadhomeaswellasthepropertyacquiredinexchangeforthat t property,i.e.theEastSpringStreethouse,wereherseparateproperty.Tenn.CodeAnn.364 ` 121(b)(2).Wifearguesthatanequitablepropertydivisiondepends,inpart,ontwofactors, [t]he L  valueoftheseparatepropertyofeachpartyand [t]heestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthe 8  marriage. See Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(6)and(7).Inlightofthosefactors,sheargues,the $ t trialcourterredinfindingthattherealpropertywasmaritalpropertybasedoncomminglingof  ` funds,andindividingthemaritalpropertyevenly.  L    Tennesseeisa dualpropertystate,becauseitclassifiespropertyaseither maritalproperty $  or separateproperty. #  4      ׀ SeeBatsonv.Batson ,769S.W.2d849,856(Tenn.Ct.App.1988);Tenn.   CodeAnn.364121(Supp.2002).Thedistinctioniscritical,becausepropertyclassifiedas    maritalisdivideduponthedissolutionofamarriage,whereaspropertyclassifiedas separateis   generallynotsubjecttodivision. Smithv.Smith ,93S.W.3d871,876(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).   Consequently,thetrialcourtmustdeterminethenatureofthepartiespropertybeforeitcanmake p anequitabledistributionbetweentheparties. Id. 󀀀 \   Separatepropertycanbecomeapartofthemaritalestateifthepartiestreatitassuch.This 4 isaccomplishedunderthedoctrinesofcomminglingandtransmutation  :  p 8  Tworelateddoctrinesofcommunitypropertyhavemadetheirappearanceinthe H maritalpropertycases.Thefirstoftheseiscommingling,accordingtowhichseparate 4 propertybecomesmaritalpropertyifinextricablymingledwithmaritalpropertyor   withtheseparatepropertyoftheotherspouse.Iftheseparatepropertycontinuesto   besegregatedorcanbetracedintoitsproduct,comminglingdoesnotoccur.The  seconddoctrineisthatoftransmutation.Thisoccurswhenseparatepropertyis  treatedinsuchawayastogiveevidenceofanintentionthatitbecomemarital  property.Onemethodofcausingtransmutationistopurchasepropertywithseparate  fundsbuttotaketitleinjointtenancy.Thismayalsobedonebyplacingseparate  propertyinthenamesofbothspouses.Therationaleunderlyingbothofthese  doctrinesisthatdealingwithpropertyinthesewayscreatesarebuttablepresumption t ofagifttothemaritalestate.Thispresumptionisbasedalsoupontheprovisionin ` manymaritalpropertystatutesthatpropertyacquiredduringthemarriageis L  presumedmarital.Thepresumptioncanberebuttedbyevidenceofcircumstancesor 8  communicationsclearlyindicatinganintentthatthepropertyremainseparate.$ t    Id. at878(quoting Hoferv.Hofer ,No.02A019510CH00210,1997WL39503,at*3-4(Tenn.  L  Ct.App.Feb.3,1997)(quoting2HomerH.Clark,TheLawofDomesticRelationsintheUnited  8  States16.2at185(1987)#eXXS #XSXe#XSXXXS2#XSXXXS).Therefore,iftheparties inextricablymingletheirseparateproperty $  withmaritalpropertyorwiththeirspousesseparateproperty,thentheseparatepropertybecomes   maritalproperty. Id. Inaddition,separatepropertyistransmutedintomaritalpropertyiftheparties   treatitasmaritalproperty.Transmutation maybedonebyplacingseparatepropertyinthenames   ofbothspouses. Id.      WifesargumentisrootedinherseparateownershipoftheRichmondShopRoadproperty \ atthebeginningofthemarriage.Shearguesthat,becausesheownedthathomeseparatelybefore H themarriage,andbecausetheproceedsfromthesaleofthathomefundedthepurchaseoftheparties 4 secondmaritalhomeonEastSpringStreet,thenthetrialcourterredinfindingthatthepropertyhad  p  becomesocomingledthatnoCourtcouldhavekeptitseparate....Wifesargument,however,  \ ignoresthepartiestreatmentofthepropertybothbeforeandafterthemarriage.Aftertheparties H married,atnotimedidWifeseektoprotectherseparateownershipineithertheRichmondShop 4 RoadhomeortheEastSpringStreethome.Onthecontrary,theundisputedevidenceattrialshows   thatHusbandandhissonmadeseveralimprovementstoboththeRichmondShopRoadhomeand   theEastSpringStreethome. #  5      ׀OntheRichmondShopRoadhome,Husbandandhissoninstalled  andrepairedfences,cuttrees,enclosedthebackporchtomakearoom,addedadeckonthebackof  thehouse,removedadeckfromthefrontofthehouse,andputonanewroof.Inaddition,Wifeand  Husbandusedmaritalfundstobuyandsellcowsandpigskeptontheproperty,andthususedthe l propertyforthemutualbenefitofbothparties.hT #  6      #eXXSH#XSXe#XSXXXS[H#XSXXXSԀ#eXXSQ#XSXe#XSXXXSQ#XSXXXSMoreover,inaclassiccaseoftransmutation,the X  EastSpringStreethomewaspurchasedinthenamesofbothWifeandHusband,withnoprovision D! thatitshouldbeconsideredasWifesseparateproperty.ItisundisputedthatWifeandHusband 0"  togethercontributedtotherenovationsoftheEastSpringStreethouse.Underthesecircumstances, #l! theevidenceclearlysupportsthetrialcourtsconclusionthatthepartiesrealpropertywasso $X" commingledthatitcouldnotbedeemedseparateproperty.#eXXS/R#XSXe $D #   Wifealsoarguesthat,eveniftheEastSpringStreethomeshouldbeconsideredmarital  property,thetrialcourterredinfailingtoconsiderthesizeofherestateatthebeginningofthe  marriage,ascomparedtothesizeofHusbandsestateatthattime.j #  7      ׀#XSXXXSqR#XSXXXS#eXXSU#XSXeShearguesthat,underthe  reasoningemployedin Brockv.Brock ,941S.W.2d896(Tenn.Ct.App.1996),theextenttowhich t apartycontributestothewealthofthemarriageshouldbeconsideredindetermininghowthemarital ` estateshouldbeequitablydivided. SeeBrock ,941S.W.2dat901.Fromourreviewoftherecord, L  thetrialcourtgavedueconsiderationtothisfactor,andconsiderednumerousotherpertinentfacts 8  aswellinmakingthedistributionofmaritalpropertyinthiscase.Consideringtherecordasawhole, $ t wecannotconcludethatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindeterminingtodividetheparties  ` assetsequally. See Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(Supp.2002).  L    Finally,Wifearguesthatthetrialcourterredin#XSXXXSV# XSXXXSitsdivisionofmaritaldebt.Shecontendsthat $  thetrialcourtshouldhavedividedthe$17,000debttoSpearsevenlybetweentheparties,ratherthan   burdeningherwiththeentire$10,779loantohersonPhillip.Shecitestotestimonyattrial   indicatingthatWifeandHusbandregularlygavefinancialassistancetoHusbandschildrenaswell   astoWifeschildren.ShealsopointsoutthatHusbandacknowledgedthatthetotaldebttoSpears   belongedtobothWifeandHusband.#XSXX XS=[##eXXS9W#XSXeXSXXXSInresponse,HusbandclaimsthatWifeindicatedthatshe p would fixitupwith[Spears]andletPhillippay[Spears]the$10,000backforthe$10,000weowe \ her,andarguesthatitwasequitabletoholdWiferesponsibleforcollectingthemoneyfromherson H topaybackSpears.#eXXS]#XSXe#XSXXXS^# 4   ThetrialcourtapparentlycreditedHusbandstestimonythatthepartieshadagreedthat  \ WifessonPhillipwouldrepaySpearsthe$10,000thatthepartiesborrowedfromhertoloanto H Philip.EventhoughHusbandcandidlyacknowledgedthatbothpartiesborrowedthemoney,ifthe 4 partiesunderstoodthatPhilipwouldrepayit,allocatingaportionofthatdebttoHusbandwouldput   himinthepositionofeithertryingtopersuadePhilliptopaySpearsortorepayithimself.The   remainderofthedebttoSpears,theportionnotloanedtoPhillip,wasdividedevenlybetweenthe  parties.Underthecircumstances,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourtsallocationofthe  maritaldebt.Thus,thetrialcourtsoveralldivisionofmaritalproperty,includingitsdivisionof  martialdebt,mustbeaffirmed. l   D!    Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsaretobetaxedagainsttheAppellant,  MarciaAnnRaines,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.     `     h     ___________________________________ L     `     h     HOLLYM.KIRBY,JUDGE#eXXS_#