WPC' RRe&"&Pg!:zj6y T2"uof̫:RD <6 koV2<5[Fy=cx``xmqMl큸(،pi ~&Iq^X;3F`H0 W'O΀צ&v?Xn4š92uxK3Y Ka6q.Ы3Fh]w2Տ_\2$\tE{aB#@[VVyi$o ӑ3{|S^둼#DhJh! *|xko{HNM~vٿp'QO˯`Qy5 D8wg(b-9Vp׳;ES;,g)%t3l>Vŀ}A?4`bpOp YMӘVH1  YH؅KA۴:vj7bv B^:F# h UNs % 0( UF UP5 UF  0 l 0 D UFMw@42UF(4nUF8UF }fUF)"?aw" 6UF8UF?UFEUF+!U:q!q! 0D!!! D3" B"" A####UF#(#UF$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$% 0Kj%j%j%j%j% D+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% AO%/&/& 0D& D/9' Bh'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h' 0N'HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<(M 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    1     XXXX :,X XT.C.A.364101(3)providesasfollows: `    8 ` Thefollowingarecausesofdivorcefromthebondsofmatrimony: ` `  @%***  8 ` (3)Eitherpartyhascommittedadultery. ` `  @%***((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <Q 9Z .Courier New Regular DDUUEӀUUw#% B3|x (  $    2    XXXX_XXWhilethetrialcourtfoundanetmaritalestateof$16,428,thefigure `  usedinthisopinion$11,687trackstheessentiallyundisputedfacts.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular *  $    3    XXXX_XXAtthetimeofthehearing,thepartiesotherchildChristopher `  Josephwas21yearsoldandhadattendedAuburnUniversityforthreeyears.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular .  $    10    XXXX_XXThetrialcourtsfindingthatHusbandhadengagedinayearanda  halflong,adulterousrelationshipwithacoworkerissupportedbytheevidence.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular s  $    4    XXXX_XXWerecognizethatthetrialcourtsjudgmentstatesthat theparties `  shallsharetheresponsibilityofcaringfortheirminorchild,butthereisnoreasontobelievethatthechildwill,infact,spendhalfofhistimewith  ` Husband.TheGuidelinesfocusonwhereachildisactuallyliving,andnotonthelegallabelsuchasjointcustodydecreedbyacourt.See ,  Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.02(6).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  ,      `       `  %X% XXX%e  X%X%   Ad FILED%X% X %e   November9,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.%  X%X%AppellateCourtClerk  ,  $    5    XXXX_XXUnderthe incomesharesapproach,thechildsupportobligationofthe `  obligorisbaseduponananalysisthatfocusesonthepartiesrelativeearnings.See,e.g., Saleemv.Saleem ,494S.E.2d883,886(Va.App.1998);  `  Finkv.Fink ,462S.E.2d844,853(N.C.App.1995);and Voishanv.Palma ,609 |  A.2d319,321(Md.1992).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    6     XXXX _X XThebasictheoryunderlyingtheGuidelinesisthatachildisentitled `  toshareintheobligorsstandardoflivingasestablishedbythatparentsincome,regardlessofthechildsminimumneeds. Nashv.Mulle, 846S.W.2d  ` 803,805(Tenn.1993).<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    7    "XXXX"_X"X$22,436isto4.35monthsas$61,892isto12months.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    8    xXX1_xThechartaccompanyingtheGuidelinesreflectschildsupportof$757 `  foronechildforamanearningagrossmonthlyincomeof$5,000.#x1_b##XMXxC#Ԁ$XXXXM$_X$X$761isto   $5,028as$757isto$5,000.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5++++'dxd d)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    9    3XXXX3_X3XWhileWifehasmoreeducationthanHusband,hisworkexperienceis  almostcertaintoproducemoreincomethanWifeseducationdegree.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular( $ Figure  1  'dxd'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd>$"Small Circle"0  !  ݛP XXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7FjXXdd7POOar*<,(j 8` `@EQ ` ttx$P rߛ@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS P  @$ATKNOXVILLE̜GARYWAYNEROBERTSON, h     )C/ANO.03A019711CV00511 \     `     h     )   ` PlaintiffAppellee,    ) X     `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )v.   `     h     )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE 6    `     h     )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT    `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )LORIVANHOOSERROBERTSON,    ) `    `     h     )HONORABLEW.NEILTHOMAS,III,   ` DefendantAppellant.  )JUDGE   ForAppellant    h     ForAppellee %  LEROYPHILLIPS,JR.   h     SHERRYB.PATY &l" Phillips&Caputo   h     Paty,Rymer&Ulin,P.C. 'B# Chattanooga,Tennessee h     Chattanooga,Tennessee h($ @$XFXXX w XXFOPINION    wXX  Ԉ 4*3 AFFIRMEDINPART ^:09 O` P   MODIFIEDINPARTO` P   REVERSEDINPARTO` P   REMANDED `     h      p      x Susano,J. `  O` P        ` Thisisadivorcecase.ThetrialcourtgrantedLoriVanhooserRobertson( Wife)adivorceonthegroundsetforthatT.C.A.364101(3)  #  1      ;awardedthepartiesjointcustodyoftheir  X М16yearoldson;orderedGaryWayneRobertson( Husband)topayWifechildsupportof$387permonthplus21%ofpartofHusbandsfutureincreasesinnetincome;awardedWiferehabilitativealimonyof$250permonthfor12months,beginningwiththemonthofOctober,1997;dividedthepartiespropertyanddebts;deniedWifesrequestforattorneysfees;andmadeotherdecreesnotrelevanttoaresolutionoftheissuesnowbeforeus.Wifeappealed,raisingissuesthatpresentthefollowingquestionsforourreview:  8 ` 1.Isthetrialcourtsdivisionofthepartiesmaritalassetsandmaritaldebtsequitable? ` `    8 ` 2.DidthetrialcourterrinawardingjointcustodyratherthanjointcustodywithprimarycustodyinWife? ` `    8 ` 3.DidthetrialcourterrindeviatingfromtheChildSupportGuidelines? ` `    8 ` 4.IsWifeentitledtoperiodicalimonyinfuturo x'$ ratherthantherehabilitativealimonyawardedbythetrialcourt? ` `    8 ` 5.Ifrehabilitativealimonyisappropriate,isthetrialcourtsawardof$250permonthfor12monthsadequate? ` `    8 ` 6.IsWifeentitledtoanawardagainstHusbandforherreasonableattorneysfees,bothatthetriallevelandonthisappeal? ` `   1&(0 P,  @ I.DivisionofPropertyandDebts 6     ` Atrialcourtisvestedwithbroaddiscretionindividingmaritalproperty. Kincaidv.Kincaid ,912S.W.2d140, D 142(Tenn.App.1995).Theexerciseofthatdiscretionwillnotbedisturbedonappealunless thedistributionlacksproperevidentiarysupportorresultsfromanerroroflaworamisapplicationofstatutoryrequirementsandprocedures. Thompsonv.Thompson ,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.App.1990).A L trialcourtstaskistodividemaritalpropertyinanequitablefashion,seeT.C.A.364121(a)(1),givingdueregardtothe  factorssetforthatT.C.A.364121(c).   ` Trialcourtshavetheauthoritytoapportionmaritaldebtsinthesamewaytheydividethemaritalestate,i.e.,in !t anequitablemanner. Mahaffeyv.Mahaffey ,775S.W.2d618,623 #4 (Tenn.App.1989).Ifequitable,debtsshouldfollowtheassetstowhichtheyarerelated. Mondelliv.Howard ,780S.W.2d769, '# 773(Tenn.App.1989).   ` Theevidenceinthiscasepertainingtopropertyanddebts,practicallyallofwhichwasstipulatedorotherwiseagreedtobytheparties,reflectsthefollowingregardingthepartiesmaritalpropertyandmaritaldebts:̜  2\)1 Oa,  ћ  Maritalresidence,lessmortgage(netvalue)  $26,300 `    HusbandsTVAretirement     p     43,823 4    1986FordBronco h      p     3,200     1994ToyotaCamryLE,lessdebt(netvalue)  (1,623)  |   1984GMCS15truck h      p     1,800  P   FurnishingswithWife     p     3,915  $   FurnishingswithHusband     p     3,255 X   Rustythedognovaluegiven p     _______ ,    `     h      p     $80,670  Less:Otherdebts h      p     68,983 H    Netmaritalestate h      p     $11,687  #  2       P     `     h      p     =======Thetrialcourtdividedthemaritalpropertyandmaritaldebtsasfollows:   `     h   Wife   Л  Maritalresidencesubjecttomortgage    $26,300 D   1994ToyotaCamryLEsubjecttodebt    (1,623) x   FurnishingswithWife     p     3,915 L   Portionofotherdebts     p     (22,081)      `     h      p     $6,511   `     h      p     =======   ` Husband  # Л  HusbandsTVAretirement     p     $43,823 $l!   1986FordBronco h      p     3,200 %@"   1984GMCS15truck h      p     1,800 t&#   FurnishingswithHusband     p     3,255 H'$   Rustythedog  Portionofotherdebts     p     (46,902) (& Л   `     h      p     $5,176   `     h      p     =======   ` Asisobviousfromtheabove,thepartieswereburdenedwithsubstantialdebt.Thetrialcourtcarefullyassignedthepartiesvariousobligationssoastomatchthemwiththeassetstowhichtheywereassociated.Thepartiesdebtsthatwerenotrelatedtospecificassetsweredividedinafashionthatgavedueregardtohowandwhythedebtswerecreated. 7-7 Ї   ` Wifeaskedthetrialcourttoawardherthehouse,andthecourtcompliedwithherrequest.SheaskedforthefullequityinthehouseinlieuofherinterestintheTVAϜretirement.ShesuggestedthattheTVApensionbeawardedtoHusband.WhileHusbandwasawardedtwovehicles,oneofthemtheBroncowasnotoperable.   ` WifecomplainsthatHusbandreceivedadisproportionateshareofthemaritalassets;butthisfact,whiletrue,begsthequestion.Therealissueiswhetherthetrialcourtequitablydividedthenetassetsoftheparties,i.e.,maritalassetsless  maritaldebts.ItisabundantlyclearthatthedivisionofthenetassetsisfairandequitabletoWife.Thisisparticularly X trueinviewofthefactthatHusbandwas saddledwith$46,902oftheparties otherdebtsof$68,983.ThisequitabledistributiontoWifecanalsobeseeninthefactthatshereceived55.7%ofthenetmaritalassets. $     ` Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyandmaritaldebts.SeeRule  )& 13(d),T.R.A.P.Wefindnoabuseofthetrialcourtsdiscretion.@$II.Custody /x&.    ` Thetrialcourtawardedthepartiesjointcustodyoftheirminor  #  3      כchild,JoshuaDavid,whowas16yearsoldasofJune 4+4 2,1997,thedateofthehearingbelow.Asofthatdate,Joshua 60-6 hadbeenpassedtohisjunioryearinhighschool.Thetrialcourtsjudgmentonthesubjectofcustodyislimitedtothefollowing:  8 ` Thepartiesaregrantedjointcustodyoftheirminorchild,JoshRobertsonandthepartiesshallsharetheresponsibilityofcaringfortheirminorchildandshallcooperatewitheachotherinthisregardforthebestinterestofthepartiesminorchild. ` `  Thejudgmentdoesnotaddressthesubjectofthechildsprimaryresidenceorvisitationtimeswiththeotherparent.   ` Inthiscase,itisclearthatthepartiesminorchildhadlivedwithWifefromthedateofthepartiesseparationuptothedateofthehearing.Thereisnoproofintherecordindicatingthatthisisgoingtochange.  #  4      כInviewofthis,and d! inordertomemorializethesituationasitexistedatthetimeofthehearing,weagreewithWifethatthetrialcourtsjudgmentshouldbemodified,effectivethedateofitsentryOctober8,1997toreflectthatthepartiesareawardedjointcustodywithprimaryresidentialcustodybeingwithWife.Inviewofthechidsage,wedonotbelieveitisnecessaryorappropriate,inthiscase,tosetforththespecificsofthechildsvisitationwithHusband.Thereisreasontobelieve,basedontherecordbeforeus,thatfatherandsoncanandwillfinda comfortlevelastotheirtimetogether.ThereisnothingintherecordtoindicatethatWifeisinclinedto 3<*3 interferewiththisrelationship,andsheisadmonishednottodoso.@xx!III.ChildSupport X    ` Onthesubjectofchildsupport,thejudgmentprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` [Husband]shallpayto[Wife]thesumof$658.00permonthaschildsupportthroughSeptember,1997basedonhisannualgrossincomeof$52,000.00peryeardirectlyto[Wife].BeginningOctober,1997,[Husbands]childsupportobligationwillbe$387.00permonth.The$387.00permonthchildsupporttobepaidby[Husband]iscalculatedbytakingthedifferencebetween[Husbands]presentbasesalaryof$52,000.00and[Wife]santicipatedbasesalaryof$22,000.00andsettingtheamountbasedontheguidelinesaftertakingthedifferenceinthesetwo(2)salaries. ` `    8 ` Totheextentthat[Husbands]grossincomeexceedstheamountof$52,000.00,childsupportwillbeincreasedbytwentyonepercent(21%)oftheincreaseinnetincomepriortoSeptember,1997andtwentyonepercent(21%)oftheincreasedifferenceinthenetincomesofthepartiesafterthatdate. ` `  Wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtsapproachincraftingthechildsupportawardiserroneousasamatteroflaw;and,furthermore,thatitisbasedonafindingoffactthatiscontrarytotheweightoftheevidence.@tt)A.   ` ChildsupportisaddressedextensivelyatT.C.A.365101.Insubsection(a)(1)ofthatstatute,thecourtisdirectedto setaspecificamount[ofchildsupport]. 8L/9 (Emphasisadded).Insubsection(a)(2)(A)ofthesamecodeprovision,thefollowingcanbefound:  8 ` Courtshavingjurisdictionofthesubjectmatterandofthepartiesareherebyexpresslyauthorizedtoprovideforthefuturesupportofaspouseandofthechildren,inpropercases,byfixingsome t  definiteamountoramounts...T ` `  (Emphasisadded).Theseprovisionsclearlyreflecttheintentofthelegislaturethatchildsupportbesetinadefinitedollaramount.Seetheunreportedcaseof Lovanv.Lovan ,C/ANo. ` М01A019607CV00317,1997WL15223(CourtofAppealsatNashville,January17,1997).   ` Inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourtsetaspecificamountofsupport$658permonththroughSeptember,1997,andthereafter$387permonthbutitthenawardedadditionalchildsupportbasedonapercentage,i.e.,21%,ofanamounttobe $  determinedinthefuture.Itisclearfromtheapplicablestatuteandcaselawthatthisapproachdoesnotconformtothelegislativemandate.   ` Inthe Lovan case,thetrialcourtorderedtheobligor x,#* topay$1,783permonthaschildsupportfortwominorchildrenbasedonamonthlyincomeof$8,000.Itfurtherdirectedthathepaytheobligee,asadditionalchildsupport,32%ofanyincomeinexcessof$96,000peryear.Invacatingthechildsupportawardbasedonfutureincreasesinincome,thiscourtsaidthefollowing:  08.8   8 ` Webelievethatthetrialcourtexceededits authorityinorderinganautomaticadjustmentinchildsupportbaseduponapercentageofthehusbandsfutureincomeasdeterminedbyhisincometaxreturn.Whilethechildsupportguidelinescreatearebuttablepresumptionastothecorrectamountofchildsupport,basedupontheobligorsincome,Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(2)(A)onlyauthorizesthecourtstoprovideforthefuturesupportofaspouseorofthechildren ...byfixingsomedefiniteamountor H  amountstobepaidinmonthly,semimonthlyorweeklyinstallments,orotherwise,ascircumstancesmaywarrant.... ` `    8 ` Suchadefiniteobligationprovidesthedependentchildrenwithapredictableamountofsupport,andenablestheobligortoshoulderaknownburden.Iftheobligorsincomeshouldincreaseordecreasesubstantially,theneitherpartymayapplytothecourtforamodificationofthechildsupportobligation.Inviewoftheexistenceofawellestablishedmechanismforadjustmentofchildsupport,thecourtsaction,althoughwellintentioned,amountstoanextensionofitsauthoritybeyondthemandateofthelegislature. ` `  1997WL15223at**45.(Emphasisin Lovan ).Tothesameeffect p! istheunreportedcaseof Smithv.Smith ,C/ANo.01A019705CH 8# 00216,1997WL672646(CourtofAppealsatNashville,October29,1997)whereinapaneloftheMiddleSectionofthiscourtdisapprovedofachildsupportawardcalculated,inpart,basedon 32%ofanyfuturebonusorcommissionoftheobligor.1997WL672646at**1.   ` ThetrialcourtintheinstantcaseerredwhenitpartiallybasedthechildsupportawardonapercentageofaportionofHusbandsfutureincreasesinincome.̜  50,5 KVE ћ@tt)B.   ` WealsofindthatthetrialcourterredwhenitϜestablishedchildsupportbaseduponthepartiesrelativeearnings.Whilethisapproachsometimesreferredtoasthe incomesharesapproachhasbeenadoptedinsomestates  #  5      כ,it H  hasnotbeenadoptedinTennessee.TheChildSupportGuidelines( Guidelines)contemplatethatsupportwillbecalculatedbasedsolelyupontheincomeofthe parentwithwhomthechild(ren)donotprimarilylive.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.03(1).ItisclearthattheincomeoftheparentwithwhomthechildrenlivedoesnotplayapartinthecalculationcontemplatedbytheGuidelines:  8 ` Thechildsupportawardisbasedonaflatpercentageoftheobligorsnetincomeasdefinedinparagraph(4)belowdependingonthenumberofchildrenforwhomsupportisbeingsetintheinstantcase.Whiletheincomeoftheobligee #  shouldnotbeconsideredinthecalculationoforasareasonfordeviationfromtheguidelinesindeterminingthesupportawardamount,theformula & # presumesthattheobligeewillbeexpendingatleastanequalpercentageofnetincomeasthatoftheobligorforthesupportofthechildrenforwhomsupportissought. ` `  Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.03(2).(Emphasisadded).  #  6      כ ,-#+ WhilethetrialcourtisauthorizedtodeviatefromtheGuidelinescalculatedchildsupport,seeT.C.A.365101(e)(1), |0'/ itmustdosoinawaythatisconsistentwiththedeviationprinciplesfoundintheGuidelines.See Jonesv.Jones ,930   S.W.2d541,545(Tenn.1996).   ` ItisclearthatacourtispermittedtomakeadownwarddeviationfromtheGuidelinescalculatedsupportifanobligor demonstratesthathe/sheisconsistentlyprovidingmorecareandsupervision...thancontemplatedbytheGuidelines.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.04(1)(b);butthisprovisiondoesnotauthorizeadeviationintheinstantcasebecausethereisabsolutelynoevidencetoindicatethatthenecessaryfactualpredicateispresenthere.Onthecontrary,theevidencetendstosupportaconclusionthatHusbandiswithhissonlessthantheamountoftimecontemplatedbytheGuidelines.   ` Thereissimplynoevidenceinthiscasesupportingadownwarddeviation.See Jones ,930S.W.2dat544546. $  @tt)C.   ` ThetrialcourtdeterminedthatthechildsupportanalysisshouldbebaseduponafindingthatHusbandsgrossannualincomewas$52,000,hisannualsalaryforregularhours.Wefindandholdthatthisdeterminationiscontrarytotheweightoftheevidence.   ` HusbandhadworkedattheTennesseeValleyAuthority( TVA)for20plusyears.Fortheperiod19931996,inclusive,hisannualgrossTVAincome,includingovertime,had 8.8 beenasfollows: 9`0: Ї   ` 1993    h     $50,960 `     ` 1994    h     54,341 4     ` 1995    h     62,397      ` 1996    h     76,333  | HisgrossincometoMay11,1997,was$22,437.   ` In1995,Husbandearnedovertimepayofapproximately$12,000;in1996,hisovertimeamountedtoapproximately$25,000.Hetestifiedthathehadsome650hoursofovertimein1996.Heindicatedthatthisfigurewasunusuallyhighbecauseofovertimeworkheperformedinconnectionwithaseverepoweroutage.Hedidnotexpectthatmuchovertimeinthefuture;however,heacknowledgedthathehadworked90hoursofovertimeinthefirstfivemonthsof1997.   ` Husbandestimatedthathewouldhave$250ofmonthlyovertimeinthefuture.   ` ThetrialcourtdeterminedthatitwasappropriatetofixHusbandschildsupportbasedsolelyonhisregularsalaryof$52,000.Itthenfixedchildsupport,utilizinganapproachthatwehavefoundtobelegallyflawedintwoseparaterespects.   ` UndertheGuidelines,overtimeisincludedinthedefinitionof grossincome.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.03(3)(a). Variableincomesuchas...overtimepay...shouldbeaveragedandaddedtotheobligorsfixedsalary.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.03(3)(b).   ` Werecognizethattheremaybecaseswhereovertimeinthepastshouldnotbefactored intothemixinestablishingan <:0; obligorsnetincome.Forexample,iftheevidenceclearlyreflectsthattheobligorwillnotbeearningovertimeinthefuture,itwouldbeunjusttobasechildsupportonafigurethatincludessuchovertime.Inthosecases,itisappropriatetosetchildsupportbasedontheknown,predictableincome.Ifunexpectedovertimeislaterexperiencedbytheobligorandresultsina significantvariance,seeT.C.A.365101(a)(1), P  asdefinedbytheGuidelines,thecourtistheninaposition,onpetitiontomodify,toincreasethepreviouslysetamountofchildsupport.   ` Intheinstantcase,itappearsthatovertimeisafairlypredictablepartoftheobligorsincomestream.Hemaynotexperienceovertimetotheextentthathedidin1996,butthereiseveryreasontobelievethathewillworkacertainamountofovertimeinthefuture.Infact,heacknowledgedattrialthathewasworkingsomeovertimein1997.Whilethistestimonyiscredibleandsupportedintherecord,wecannotaccepthistestimonythathewasonlyearningapproximately$250permonthinovertimepay.Theevidenceindicatesotherwise.   ` WebelievethatthereareatleasttwoapproachestoaccuratelycalculateHusbandsanticipatedincome,includingovertime.Inthefirstapproach,webeginbyobservingthathehadworked90hoursofovertimeinthefirstfivemonthsof1997.Atthatrate,hecouldexpecttowork216hoursforthefullyear.216hoursis33%oftheovertimehoursworkedin1996,i.e.,650hours.Onethirdofhis1996overtimepay,i.e., 06,6  $25,000,is$8,333.Whenthisisaddedtohisbasepayof 7.8 $52,000,weareleftwithananticipatedannualgrossincomefromTVAof$60,346.    ` ThesecondapproachfocusesonHusbandstestimonythatheearned$22,436throughMay11,1997.Hisearningsof$22,436,includingovertime,throughthefirst4.35monthsoftheyear, H  extrapolateoutto$61,892peryear.!  #  7       h     ` Webelieveitisappropriatetousethelesserofthesetwofigures,i.e.,$60,346.Thisbreaksdowntoagrossincome ` of$5,028permonth.TheGuidelinescalculatedchildsupportforamanearningatthisrateofgrosspayis$761permonth.#@  #  8      ׀This h isthecorrectamountofchildsupportinthiscase,andthereisnobasisforadownwarddeviation.ThetrialcourtsjudgmentismodifiedtoreflectthatHusbandschildsupportobligationis$761beginningwiththemonthofSeptember,1997.0   0(#(#  @$(#(#IV.Alimony %X"    ` Thetrialcourtawardedrehabilitativealimonyof$250permonthfor12months.Thisapparentlywasbased,atleastin *h!( part,onthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatHusbandsearningcapacitywas$52,000grossperyear.Wefindandholdthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatrehabilitativealimonyof$250permonthfor12monthsisaproperandadequateawardinthiscase. 4p+4    ` Theissueofalimonyisonethataddressesitselftothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt. Loydv.Loyd ,860   S.W.2d409,412(Tenn.App.1993). Thedecisionisfactuallydrivenandrequiresabalancingofthe[statutory]factors. Id . x at412.SeeT.C.A.365101(d)(1).Ofallthefactorsinthe @ statute,need,abilitytopay,andrelativefaulthavebeenidentifiedasthemostimportant. Bullv.Bull ,729S.W.2d673, H  675(Tenn.App.1987).Wewillnotsecondguessthetrialcourtunlessthereisashowingofanabuseofdiscretion. Aaronv.   Aaron ,909S.W.2d408,411(Tenn.1995).     ` Therelevantstatute,T.C.A.365101,clearlyreflectsabiasinfavorofrehabilitativealimony. Id .at  subsection(d)(1);butitisalsoclearthatrehabilitativeϜalimony,ascontrastedtoperiodicalimonyinfuturo,isonly h! favoredinthosecaseswhererehabilitationisfeasible. Id . (#    ` Thealimonyanalysisbeginswiththethresholddeterminationofwhetherornotthespouserequestingalimonyis economicallydisadvantaged,relativetotheotherspouse. Id . ) & МIftherequestingspousedoesnotfitwithinthisdescription economicallydisadvantaged,relativetotheotherspouseheorsheisnotentitledtospousalsupportandthealimonyinquirygoesnofurther.   ` Intheinstantcase,itisclearthatWifeis economicallydisadvantagedvisavisHusband.Hehas 5@,4 demonstratedtheabilitytoearnatleastinthe$60,000plusrange.In1996,heearned$76,333.Hisjobseemsrelatively 9/8 secure.Ontheotherhand,Wife,whodelayedhercareerinordertoserveashomemaker,wife,andparent,isjustnowgettingϜstarted,attheageof42,inherchosenfieldofeducation.ShestartedthatcareerinAugust,1997,atanannualgrosssalaryof$22,500.Priortothat,shehadonlyworkedasanondegreed,substituteteacherforfourorfiveyears,earningsome$3,000$4,000peryear.ShereceivedherdegreeineducationinDecember,1996,aftercompletingsomethreeandahalfyearsofundergraduatecollegewithaperfect4.0gradepointaverage.ItisclearthatWifewantstoworkandplanstowork.   ` SinceWifeis economicallydisadvantaged,relativeto[her]spouse, id .,wenextturntothequestionofwhether @ rehabilitationis feasibleinconsiderationofallrelevantfactors,includingthosesetoutin[T.C.A.365101(d)(1)]. Id .Inordertoanswerthisquestion,wemustfirstanswer X" another shorthandquestion:Rehabilitatedtowhat?Webelieveitisclearthatthisquestion,inthiscase,mustbeansweredinthecontextof [t]hestandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage.T.C.A.365101(d)(1)(I).Inthis20yearplusmarriage,thepartiesenjoyedastandardoflivingthatwasfundedbyanaboveaverageincomeintherangeof$62,000$76,000inthelasttwoyearsofthemarriageplustheborrowingpowerassociatedwithincomeatthatlevel.   ` Werecognizethatnoteveryeconomicallydisadvantagedspouseisentitledtoalimony.Thisistrueregardlessofwhethersuchaspousecanorcannotberehabilitated.Inthefinalanalysis,thequestionofwhethersuchaspouseisentitledtoalimony,and,ifso,inwhatamountandforwhatduration, 9H0: dependsuponacarefulweighingofthefactorssetforthinT.C.A.365101(d)(1)(A)(L).Forexample,theremaybeacasewheretherelativefaultoftherequestingspouseissoegregiousastomilitateagainstanyspousalsupport;orsuchastowarrantanawardofspousalsupportinanamountlessthanthatrequestedorneeded.Inanygivencase,allrelevantfactorsmustbeconsideredindeterminingwhetheranawardofalimonyisappropriate.   ` WhenWifespresenteconomicsituationismeasuredagainstthepartiesstandardoflivingestablishedduringtheirϜrelativelylongmarriage,itisclearthatWife,byherownefforts,cannotevenremotelyapproachherprioreconomicposition.Thisbeingthecase,wefindthatWifecannotberehabilitatedascontemplatedbyT.C.A.365101(d)(1).Hence,wenowturnourattentiontothesubjectofalimonyinfuturo. 8"    ` Inviewofherrelativelysmallsalaryandherpreseparationlifestyle,Wifehasademonstratedneedforalimony.WhileHusbandhasbeenburdenedwithsubstantialdebt,webelievethathehastheabilitytopaysomeperiodicalimonyinfuturo, *8!( albeitnotenoughtocompletelyreturnWifetoherpriorstandardofliving.Theamountdecreedinthisopinionwill,however,allowWife tomorecloselyapproachherformereconomicposition, Aaron ,909S.W.2dat411. P1'0    ` ThetrialcourtsjudgmentismodifiedtoprovidethatHusbandwillpayperiodicalimonyinfuturoattherateof$250 h6-6 permonthbeginningwiththemonthofOctober,1997,saidalimonytocontinueatthatratesolongasHusbandisobligatedtopay 9p0: KV`   KV`   KV`   KV`   KV`   childsupport;andtofurtherprovidethat.In񛀜inthemonthfollowingthelastmonthforwhichhehasachildsupportobligation,hisperiodicalimonyinfuturoobligationwillincreaseto$600per 8 P month.ThisobligationwillcontinueuntiltheremarriageofWifeorthedeathofeitherparty,whicheverofthesethreeeventsoccursfirst.   ` InsettingWifesentitlementtoperiodicalimonyin   Мfuturowithoutadefiniteterminationdate,wehaveconsidered Xp   [t]herelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancialresourcesoftheparties,seeT.C.A.365101(d)(1)  atfactor(A); [t]herelativeeducationandtrainingofthepartiesandtheincomethateachcanexpectinthefuture, id .at (@ factor(B)2  #  9      ; [t]hedurationofthemarriage22yearsplus,   id .atfactor(C);thepartiesageseach42yearsold, id .at   factor(D);thepartiesstandardoflivingduringtheirmarriage, id .atfactor(I);theirrelativecontributionstothe $   marriage, id .atfactor(J);andtheegregiousfault  #  10      כofHusband %" whichhasdeprivedwifeofherstandardofliving, id .atfactor '$ (K).Thesematters,takentogether,militateinfavorofperiodicalimonyinfuturowithoutadefiniteendingdate. + "( ̜  p.%, E`   @xx!V.AttorneysFees p.%,    ` Wifeseeksattorneysfees,bothforservicesrenderedatthetrialcourtlevelandonthisappeal. (5@,4 E`      ` Anawardofattorneysfeesattrialcanbebasedonanumberofrationales.   ` Thecourtsofthisstatelongagorecognizedtheirauthoritytoawardlegalexpensesinchildsupportcases. Graham  v.Graham ,140Tenn.328,33435,204S.W.987,989(1918).The h  recoveryofattorneysfeesincustodymattersisalsoauthorizedbystatute.T.C.A.365103(c).Thestatutespecificallyprovidesthatsuchanawardis inthediscretionof[the]Ϝcourt. Id . (    ` Legalexpensescanalsobeawardedinthenatureofalimony. Doverv.Dover ,821S.W.2d593,595(Tenn.App.1991). @ Inawardingfeesunderthisapproach,thecourtshouldconsiderthefactorssetforthatT.C.A.365101(d)(1)(A)(L). Kincaid ,912S.W.2dat144.Theprimaryfocusisonwhetherthe "X requestingspousehastheabilitytopayhisorherownfees;Ϝand,ifnot,whethertheotherspousehastheresourcestodoso. Houghlandv.Houghland ,844S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.App.1992). 'p$ Decisionspertainingtotheawardingoffeesasalimonyaddressthemselvestothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,andwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlesstherehasbeenanabuseofthatdiscretion. Lyonv.Lyon ,765S.W.2d759,76263(Tenn.App. .0%, 1988).   ` Anappellatecourtisauthorizedtoawardattorneysfeesinadivorcecaseforlegalservicesrenderedonappeal.See Seatonv.Seaton ,516S.W.2d91,93(Tenn.1974).Seealso  6-6 Raganv.Ragan ,858S.W.2d332,33334(Tenn.App.1993). 8`/8 Ї   ` WefindandholdthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninfailingtoawardWifeattorneysfees.Becauseofthedifferenceinthepartiesincomes,andinviewofthefactthatHusbandsmisconductwasthecauseofthisdivorceandresultinglitigation,webelievethatitisappropriatethatHusbandpayatleastsomeportionofWifeslegalexpenses.WealsobelievethatWifeisentitledtofeesonthisappealastheprevailingparty,saidfeestobesetbythetrialcourt.Onremand,thetrialcourtwillsetfeestobepaidbyHusbandinsuchamountasitmayfindjust. Seaton ,516S.W.2dat9394; H  Folkv.Folk ,357S.W.2d828,82829(Tenn.1962).  @hh#VI.Conclusion      ` Thetrialcourtsdecreesregardingcustody,childsupport,andalimonyaremodified.ThetrialcourtsjudgmentwithrespecttoWifesrequestforattorneysfeesisreversed.Inallotherrespects,thejudgmentisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee.Onremand,thetrialcourtwillmodifyitsjudgmenttoincorporatethechangesreflectedinthisopinion,andwilldeterminethelegalfeestowhichWifeisentitled.̜   `     h   ________________________________   `     h   CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̛̜CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________DonT.McMurray,J. 9`0: