ÿWPCÀ ÌXÐëÁöë° CV×Vw»?æÍUö v'g2{ë`n L&È:ab±ë’ ¹i°äü’드ÓcÌUñÞôn‘l°tEDAÆŠò´%yÔÞ Õ?z I| b¡[ÉÊ|±Ñ6Ñ€5ƒ бã',„ª&'‰>v^céwï±hov ]µ ÒL’Üó‡°bþ·Ý¤wÙª„‡Û»âÃ]³æYÜB ¸oô3‘3¡%c8ð¥¼Zš¾;¨lI…®-Ù=½‚ýð$?œþ‘´«ôkÏn+ï•Cæ½Û`Ò¦­ž ¥0^ï˜Ë ~°‘är~3ê¾òZp¸Rc”D¥‘2M`ä?V—~€Æ­mÊß–TØ0VñI­d€¿ªÂtˆb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»‰xe-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-ê: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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2 Ð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôuò»»Ô d(|3Š$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Š$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q­»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Q­»»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îDQ­ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Q­»îîD #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€22,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼Q­ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Q­»XX!ô#ÔPATRICIA€ANNE€Ô_ÔRIDGEWAYÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€JIMMY€CLARKE€KIMBALLòòóóÔ‡X!X»¼Q­Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€144339„2€€€€€€Daryl€Ô_ÔFanslerÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€NOVEMBER€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02577„COA„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€sole€issue€for€our€review€in€this€divorce€case€is€whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€ordering€theÐ xÈ  ÐAppellant,€Jimmy€Clarke€Kimball€(ð ðHusbandðð)€to€pay€alimony€òòin€futuro€óóin€the€amount€of€$1,000€perÐ d´ Ðmonth€to€the€Appellee,€Patricia€Anne€Ô_ÔRidgewayÔ_Ô€€(ð ðWifeðð).€€We€find€that€the€Chancellor€properlyÐ P  Ðconsidered€the€applicable€statutory€factors€and€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€hisÐ <Œ Ðdecision€to€award€alimony€òòin€futuro€óórather€than€rehabilitative€alimony.€€Consequently,€we€affirm€theÐ (x ÐChancellorððs€judgment.Ð d ÐÓçÓÌò òÔ_ÔTenn.R.App.P.Ô_Ô€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed;€CauseÐ ì< ÐRemandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Q­»àX!”#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼Q­ÔHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ ° ÐòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌJerrold€L.€Becker,€Knoxville,€for€the€Appellant,€Jimmy€Clarke€KimballÐ tÄ ÐÌJohn€P.€Ô_ÔValliantÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Knoxville,€for€the€Appellee,€Patricia€Anne€Ô_ÔRidgewayÔ_ÔÐ L œ ÐÓhÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Q­»XX!—#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼Q­ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Q­»XX!§ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X!X»¼Q­Ôà  àThe€parties€were€married€on€December€2,€1978.€€On€September€8,€1999,€Wife€filed€thisÐ ü#L# Ðaction€for€divorce.€€After€hearing€the€proof,€the€Chancellor€granted€Wife€a€divorce€on€the€groundsÐ è$8 $ Ðof€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€parties€have€one€child,€born€March€15,€1986.€€The€ChancellorÐ Ô%$!% Ðordered€that€the€parties€continue€the€custody€arrangement€in€place€at€the€time€of€trial,€which€providedÐ À&"& Ðthat€the€child€stay€with€the€Husband€nine€days€per€two„week€period,€and€with€the€Wife€the€remainingÐ ¬'ü"' Ðfive€days.€€Regarding€the€marital€property€division,€the€Chancellor€held€ð ðthat€given€all€circumstancesÐ ˜(è#( Ðin€this€case€and€considering€the€duration€of€the€marriage€an€equitable€division€of€the€property€wouldÐ „)Ô$) Ðbe€an€equal€division€of€property.ðð€The€Chancellor€ordered€Husband€to€pay€Wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóóÐ p*À%* Ðin€the€amount€of€$1,000€per€month.€€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ýC ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€òòin€futuro€óóalimony€award€was€erroneous,€and€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âevidence€supported,€at€most,€a€short„term€rehabilitative€alimony€award.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àWe€review€the€Trial€Court's€findings€of€fact€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedingsÐ tÄ Ðbelow,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€"unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise."€Ð `° ÐTenn.€R.App.€P.€13(d);€see€also€òòHass€v.€Knightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.1984).€€There€is€noÐ L œ Ðpresumption€of€correctness€with€regard€to€the€trial€court's€conclusions€of€law,€and€those€conclusionsÐ 8 ˆ Ðare€reviewed€òòde€novoóó.€€òòJahn€v.€Jahnóó,€932€S.W.2d€939€(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€Trial€Court€has€broad€discretion€in€determining€an€award€of€alimony.€€òòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€409€(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).€€This€wide€discretion€includes€the€decision€as€to€whether€an€awardÐ è 8  Ðof€alimony€should€be€rehabilitative€or€òòin€futuroóó.€€òòCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€356€(Tenn.€2000).Ð Ô$  ÐThe€decision€is€factually€driven€and€requires€a€balancing€of€the€factors€listed€in€T.C.A.€36-5-101(d).€Ð À  ÐòòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409€(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).€€€Accordingly,€this€Court€is€not€inclined€to€alterÐ ¬ü  Ða€trial€court's€award€of€alimony€unless€it€is€unsupported€by€the€evidence€or€is€contrary€to€the€publicÐ ˜è  Ðpolicy€embodied€in€the€applicable€statutes.€€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€913€S.W.2d€163€(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€an€alimony€award,€the€Trial€Court€is€required€to€consider€the€followingÐ \¬ Ðfactors,€codified€at€T.C.A.€36-5-101(d)(1):Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(d)(1)€It€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€a€spouse€who€isÐ  p Ðeconomically€disadvantaged,€relative€to€the€other€spouse,€beÐ  \ Ðrehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€the€granting€of€an€order€forÐ øH Ðpayment€of€rehabilitative,€temporary€support€and€maintenance.€Ð ä4 ÐWhere€there€is€such€relative€economic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitationÐ Ð  Ðis€not€feasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€including€thoseÐ ¼  Ðset€out€in€this€subsection,€then€the€court€may€grant€an€order€forÐ ¨ø Ðpayment€of€support€and€maintenance€on€a€long-term€basis€or€until€theÐ ”ä Ðdeath€or€remarriage€of€the€recipient€except€as€otherwise€provided€inÐ €Ð Ðsubdivision€(a)(3).€€Rehabilitative€support€and€maintenance€is€aÐ l¼ Ðseparate€class€of€spousal€support€as€distinguished€from€alimony€inÐ X ¨ Ðsolido€and€periodic€alimony.€€In€determining€whether€the€granting€ofÐ D!” Ðan€order€for€payment€of€support€and€maintenance€to€a€party€isÐ 0"€  Ðappropriate,€and€in€determining€the€nature,€amount,€length€of€term,Ð #l! Ðand€manner€of€payment,€the€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors,Ð $X" Ðincluding:Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financialÐ Ì&"% Ðresources€of€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,€profitÐ ¸'#& Ðsharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€other€sources;Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðopportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€Ô_ÔandÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€necessity€of€a€party€to€secure€further€education€and€training€toÐ ° Ðimprove€such€party's€earning€capacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Мì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;ÐL œ` x` x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limited€to,Ð $ t Ðphysical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitating€disease;Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seekÐ è 8  Ðemployment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€be€custodianÐ Ô$  Ðof€a€minor€child€of€the€marriage;ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangibleÐ ˜è  Ðand€intangible;Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€asÐ \¬ Ðdefined€in€ðð€36-4-121;ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€theÐ  p Ðmarriage;Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€andÐ ä4 Ðintangible€contributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€and€homemakerÐ Ð  Ðcontributions,€and€tangible€and€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€toÐ ¼  Ðthe€education,€training€or€increased€earning€power€of€the€other€party;€Ð ¨ø Ðà ¸ àà  àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€itsÐ €Ð Ðdiscretion,€deems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€andÐl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,Ð D!” Ðas€are€necessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.€€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àOur€Tennessee€courts€have€repeatedly€noted€that,€ð ðwhile€all€of€the€above€factors€must€beÐ $X" Ðconsidered€in€arriving€at€a€decision€regarding€Ô_ÔspousalÔ_Ô€support,€the€two€most€important€factors€areÐ ô$D # Ðthe€demonstrated€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse€and€the€Ô_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€spouseððs€ability€to€pay.ðð€òòHopkinsÐ à%0!$ Ðv.€Hopkinsóó,€an€opinion€of€this€Court€filed€in€Knoxville€on€October€23,€2002€(citing€òòÔ_ÔAndertonÔ_Ô€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐÔ_ÔAndertonÔ_Ôóó,€988€S.W.2d€675€(Ô_ÔTenn.Ct.AppÔ_Ô.€1998);€internal€quotation€marks€omitted);€òòRobertson€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐRobertsonóó,€76€S.W.3d€337€(Tenn.€2002).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Wife€holds€a€doctorate€degree€in€clinical€psychology,€and€she€owns€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðincorporated€private€psychological€practice.€€In€1998,€Wife€was€diagnosed€with€Ô_ÔfibromyalgiaÔ_Ô,€andÐ h+¸&* Ðshe€testified€that€as€a€result€of€the€effects€of€this€disease,€she€was€forced€to€reduce€the€number€of€herÐ ° Ðworking€hours.€€Wife€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Jay€Henderson€Ô_ÔWarrickÔ_Ô,€her€treating€physician.€Ð œì ÐDr.€Ô_ÔWarrickÔ_Ô€testified€that€although€Wife€is€presently€able€to€continue€her€clinical€psychology€Ð ˆØ Ðpractice,€her€medical€condition€does€cause€ð ðsome€degree€of€impairment€virtually€every€day.ðð€€Dr.Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔWarrickÔ_Ô€stated€that€Wife€has€a€history€of€flare„ups€of€her€Ô_ÔfibromyalgiaÔ_Ô,€which€would€reasonablyÐ `° Ðrequire€her€to€cut€back€on€her€practice.€€Wife€testified€that,€with€Husbandððs€encouragement,€she€cutÐ L œ Ðher€clinical€working€hours€to€about€20€per€week€after€her€diagnosis.€€In€September€of€1999,€afterÐ 8 ˆ Ðfiling€for€divorce,€she€increased€her€hours€to€about€30€per€week.€€Ð $ t Ðà  àÌà  àWife€earned€$36,000€in€gross€income€for€the€years€1998€and€1999.€At€trial€she€filed€anÐ ü L  Ðaffidavit€of€her€corporationððs€monthly€income€and€expenses,€which€shows€a€total€net€income€of€$13Ð è 8  Ðper€month.€€Wife€draws€a€monthly€salary€of€$2,500€from€the€corporation.€€Her€affidavit€of€personalÐ Ô$  Ðmonthly€income€and€expenses€shows€a€deficit€of€$904€per€month.€€We€agree€with€the€Chancellor€thatÐ À  ÐWife€has€demonstrated€a€need€for€support.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àHusband,€a€pediatrician,€does€not€dispute€that€he€has€the€ability€to€pay€alimony.€€He€testifiedÐ „Ô  Ðthat€his€current€yearly€salary€income€is€$125,000€and€that€he€also€makes€$1,200€per€month€in€rentalÐ pÀ Ðincome.€The€record€supports€the€implicit€finding€that€Husband€has€the€ability€to€pay€the€$1,000€perÐ \¬ Ðmonth€alimony€ordered€by€the€Chancellor.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€must€determine€whether€Wifeððs€rehabilitation€is€feasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevantÐ  p Ðstatutory€factors.€€The€Chancellor€found€as€follows€in€this€regard:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€clear€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔRidgewayÔ_Ô€is€not€enjoying€anything€near€theÐ ä4 Ðstandard€of€living€she€enjoyed€during€the€course€of€this€marriage.€Ð Ð  ÐFurthermore,€given€her€current€illness€and€the€unlikelihood€that€sheÐ ¼  Ðwill€ever€be€able€to€increase€her€current€earnings,€she€is€not€likely€toÐ ¨ø Ðever€a€achieve€a€standard€of€living€remotely€close€to€that€which€sheÐ ”ä Ðenjoyed€during€the€marriage.€.€.Given€the€ages€and€potential€earningÐ €Ð Ðcapacities€of€the€parties€and€their€potential€for€acquiring€assets€in€theÐ l¼ Ðfuture€and€giving€consideration€to€the€fact€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔRidgewayÔ_Ô€has€beenÐ X ¨ Ðessentially€forced€from€this€marriage€through€no€fault€of€her€own€theÐ D!” ÐCourt€is€of€the€opinion€that€this€is€an€appropriate€case€for€alimony€òòinÐ 0"€  Ðfuturoóó€and€orders€that€alimony€[is]€to€be€set€in€the€amount€of€$1000Ð #l! Ðper€month.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌWe€agree€that€rehabilitation€of€the€Wife€is€not€feasible€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€At€the€time€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðtrial,€Wife€was€nearly€fifty„six€years€old.€€She€has€reached€the€pinnacle€of€educational€training€forÐ Ì&"% Ðher€career,€but€due€to€the€effects€of€Ô_ÔfibromyalgiaÔ_Ô,€she€is€physically€unable€to€work€full€time.€€OurÐ ¸'#& Ðreview€of€the€other€relevant€statutory€factors,€as€discussed€above,€also€supports€this€conclusion.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àHusband€argues€on€appeal€that€the€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€ð ðserves€to€punish€theÐ |*Ì%) Ð[Husband]€rather€than€to€assist€the€[Wife].ðð€€He€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€inappropriately€placedÐ h+¸&* Ðgreater€weight€on€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€36-5-101(d)(1)(K),€the€ð ðrelative€fault€of€the€partiesðð€factor.€€Alimony€hasÐ ° Ðnever€been€intended€by€our€legislature€to€be€punitive,€nor€is€it€intended€to€be€an€award€for€virtue.Ð œì ÐòòLancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671€S.W.2d€501€(Ô_ÔTenn.Ct.AppÔ_Ô.€1984);€òòÔ_ÔGaskinsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGaskinsÔ_Ôóó,€an€unreportedÐ ˆØ Ðopinion€of€this€Court€filed€in€Knoxville€on€November€29,€2001.€€However,€the€plain€language€of€theÐ tÄ Ðstatute€authorizes€a€trial€court€to€consider,€in€accordance€with€the€other€statutory€factors,€the€relativeÐ `° Ðfault€of€the€parties.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àRegarding€this€factor,€the€Chancellor€found€that€the€Husband€had€been€involved€in€anÐ $ t Ðextramarital€affair€for€over€fifteen€years.€€He€introduced€his€paramour€into€the€family€as€a€closeÐ  ` Ðfriend€and€the€partiesðð€child€came€to€refer€to€her€as€an€ð ðaunt.ðð€€Husband€admitted€that€on€at€least€oneÐ ü L  Ðoccasion,€he€falsely€told€his€Wife€that€his€relationship€with€the€other€individual€was€not€sexual.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðrevelation€of€the€truth€of€this€matter€was€a€precipitous€factor€in€ending€the€partiesðð€marriage€of€someÐ Ô$  Ðtwenty„two€years.€€We€have€carefully€reviewed€the€Chancellorððs€judgment€in€this€case,€and€find€thatÐ À  Ðhe€did€not€give€undue€weight€to€the€relative€fault€of€the€parties.€€We€believe€his€order€of€òòin€futuroóóÐ ¬ü  Ðalimony€in€this€case€was€not€an€attempt€to€punish€Husband,€but€rather€was€based€on€a€review€of€allÐ ˜è  Ðthe€relevant€statutory€factors€and€a€finding€of€legitimate€need€on€Wifeððs€part.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€Chancellor€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remandedÐ \¬ Ðfor€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Dr.€Jimmy€Clarke€Kimball€andÐ H˜ Ðhis€surety.€Ð 4„ ÐÌÌ€Ìà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE