ÿWPCÍ K2‡šæªÛ_ýÚyßèv.¢>¢@=YËJ¯(]{þÆ*6*ÈÖìEމég"G'VðÙA¿JŽq¸J}€‡¹þ"^"„ŸôjdÿG!¤¥=Û¬`Ò´¼*Îsí£ûbŒÓ·› c{ƒ1áalÛŸ¾:ÝÙиºáQËnØ;j„˜Rk?1Š=:Ãl†S5,csW­}¡–ÒlËÀ!uåÿ=ç/(ó™Ð7‰i„_$,ÛdÌj-YDÄÝu‚X R dt|M•Kù^O67]»[…3­¼£GÉß¾bÕÙl0¯Gl„È^8hÄ«Ûæœp 17UN6²lÒœ‚z ú\#%¦K{ ¥üC“ÄP|vV›%+o³*¯Tß8ˆK²‹óé™>øùì 8õ}žÁS’ P§r/ÑùÙƒÉâ^ Š£ˆJ¸E ¾ƒ÷CUÔ Ö$OÊUÖLAË õ‡| Öׯ^à“”-¼tTäilÀŒ¤6>û§u)< $C÷uaЬ¢Š¸r®ÛÚJG-%Ü2ʼnje‘lf£ì&€ˆ–éÆÿ?º‡ÔR“ÞpÝÂØ‰TsÝi)þuÆšŽ5˜QñˆÀ޲ßdƒW U‡ÜZRJEIÚ$ % #Á 0ˆÕ UN] ^ « w· 4» zÏ ÒI  * m, C ÆK ÆÆ×ÆNcccEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 0ëoooo BZZ 0¤w D3 D-N 0K{{ A\ÆÆ" 0¤è 0DŒ A«ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ D5{ B°»˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular›xv) -vn) œGRA~@¶Ÿ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G26$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥Åò»»Ô d(|3¿^$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`Nþÿ<<Cÿÿ xdðƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿^$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK€€€€)ûÿ!dxdxüÿP PdÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€AAXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÜÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îîÜ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€10,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XAAX»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXAAó#ÔMARK€A.€SAMMARTANOòòóó€v.€HELEN€SAMMARTANOÔ‡XAAX»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„25574€€€€€€H.€Denmark€Bell€and€Russell€Heldman,€ChancellorsÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00415„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€22,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€divorce€case,€the€defendant/wife€appeals€complaining€of€an€inequitable€division€of€maritalÐ xÈ  Ðassets,€an€inadequate€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€and€the€denial€of€attorney€fees.€€As€modifiedÐ d´ Ðherein,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€Ð P  ÐÓÅÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð (x ÐAffirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXAAe#ÔÔ‡XAAX.¼ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòòò€óóBòòENóó€H.€CòòANTRELLóó,€P.J.,€M.S.òòóóóó€òòòòóóóóandÐ ì< ÐPòòATRICIAóó€J.€CòòOTTRELLóó,€J.,€€joined.Ð V ÐÌBill€Easterly,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Helen€Ô_ÔSammartanoÔ_Ô.Ð Þ. ÐÌJoanie€L.€Abernathy,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔSammartanoÔ_Ô.€Ð ¶ ÐÌÌÓ§Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXAAÖ#ÔÔ‡XAAX»¼ÔÐ z Ê ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼»XXAA" #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XAAX»¼Ôà  àMark€Ô_ÔSammartanoÔ_Ô€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Helen€Ô_ÔSammartanoÔ_Ô€(ð ðWifeðð)€were€married€in1983€andÐ R"¢! Ðdivorced€in€April€1999.€€They€had€no€children.Ð >#Ž" ÐÌà  àIn€the€early€years€of€the€marriage,€Husband€attended€night€school€attaining€a€degree€inÐ %f $ Ðcomputer€science.€€Wife€attained€an€associates€degree€from€a€college€in€Pennsylvania€and€workedÐ &R!% Ðinitially€as€a€medical€secretary.€€The€parties€moved€to€Tennessee€in€1994€when€Husband€acceptedÐ î&>"& Ða€job€with€Arenda€Health€Corporation.€Ð Ú'*#' ÐÌà  àThe€parties€enjoyed€a€relatively€high€standard€of€living€which€included€a€4000€square€footÐ ²)%) Ðhome€in€Franklin,€Tennessee,€expensive€jewelry€and€frequent€travel.€€Husbandððs€income€over€the€lastÐ ž*î%* Ðfive€years€of€the€marriage€ranged€from€an€annual€salary€of€$100,000€in€1994€to€$140,000€in€1998€andÐ Š+Ú&+ Ð1999.€€Husband€changed€jobs€in€October€1996,€moved€to€an€apartment€in€Cleveland,€Ohio,€and€flewÐ v,Æ', Ðhome€to€Franklin€on€weekends.€€The€parties€separated€on€March€13,€1998,€and€in€August€1998,Ð b-²(-ý ÐHusband€accepted€employment€in€Reading,€Pennsylvania€with€the€Landau€Group.€€Following€theÐ ° Ðseparation€of€the€parties,€Wife,€in€June€1998,€left€the€marital€home€in€Franklin€to€live€with€her€sisterÐ œì Ðin€Atlanta,€Georgia.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€proof€established€that,€at€the€time€of€the€separation€of€the€parties€on€March€13,€1998,Ð `° ÐHusband€packed€his€belongings€and€drove€to€Cleveland,€Ohio.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Wife€abandonedÐ L œ Ðthe€marital€home€to€live€with€her€sister€in€Atlanta,€Georgia.€€Subsequent€to€the€separation,€HusbandÐ 8 ˆ Ðbecame€intimate€with€one€Mary€Fisher€in€Cleveland,€and€in€August€1998,€Husband€and€Ms.€FisherÐ $ t Ðbegan€living€together€in€Reading,€Pennsylvania.€€Husband€testified€to€several€sources€of€friction€inÐ  ` Ðthe€€marriage€including€Wifeððs€desire€for€expensive€jewelry,€her€behavior€at€public€functions,€andÐ ü L  Ðan€incident€involving€a€homosexual€male€guest€in€the€marital€home€clad€only€in€his€underwear.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€a€divorce€to€Wife€on€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€andÐ À  Ðthe€order€granting€the€divorce€was€entered€April€5,€1999.€€Final€judgment€in€the€case€was€withheldÐ ¬ü  Ðuntil€May€21,€1999,€from€which€Wife€appeals.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWifeððs€first€issue€on€appeal€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€make€an€equitable€divisionÐ pÀ Ðof€the€marital€assets€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„4„121€(1996)€when€it€failedÐ \¬ Ðto€consider€Husbandððs€òòpendente€liteóó€payments€made€from€marital€property€and€his€frequent€flyerÐ H˜ Ðmiles.€€The€record€indicates€gross€marital€property€valued€at€$302,575€consisting€of€the€equity€in€theÐ 4„ Ðmarital€residence,€three€automobiles,€retirement€accounts,€bank€accounts,€and€household€goods€andÐ  p Ðfurnishings.€€In€dividing€this€marital€property,€the€trial€court€awarded€Husband€marital€propertyÐ  \ Ðvalued€at€$151,400€and€awarded€Wife€marital€property€valued€at€$151,175.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€construing€distribution€of€marital€property€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€36„4„121,Ð Ð  Ðcertain€rules€are€clear.Ð ¼  Ð1)à  àFault€is€not€a€factor€that€is€to€be€considered.€€òòFisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244€(Tenn.€1983.€Ð ¨ø Ð2)à  àOwnership€of€marital€property€is€presumptively€equal.€€òòSalisbury€v.€Salisburyóó,€657€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð761€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).Ð €Ð Ð3)à  àThe€test€is€not€whether€the€division€of€marital€property€is€equal,€but€whether€or€not€it€isÐ l¼ Ðequitable.€€òòWord€v.€Wordóó,€937€S.W.2d€931€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð X ¨ Ð4)à0  àGreat€weight€is€given€on€appeal€as€to€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€dividing€marital€assets,Ð D!” Ðand€such€division€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€misapplication€of€the€statutory€requirements.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòWade€v.€Wadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€702€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).Ð#l!(#(# ÐÌà  àThe€parties€also€had€marital€debts€totaling€$46,314.€€These€debts€included€mortgage€paymentsÐ ô$D # Ðon€the€marital€home€for€April€and€May€1999,€credit€card€debts,€medical€bills€of€Wife,€and€a€loan€onÐ à%0!$ Ðan€automobile.€€These€marital€debts€were€allocated€by€the€court€$39,514€to€Husband€and€$6,800€toÐ Ì&"% ÐWife.€€Thus,€the€total€net€value€of€marital€property€for€distribution€was€$256,261€with€the€courtÐ ¸'#& Ðawarding€$111,886€(44%)€to€Husband€and€$144,375€(56%)€to€Wife.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€the€same€authority€under€Code€section€36„4„121€to€apportion€marital€debtsÐ |*Ì%) Ðas€it€has€to€apportion€marital€assets,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€this€respect€will€not€beÐ h+¸&* Ðdisturbed€on€appeal€except€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòCutsinger€v.€Cutsingeróó,€917€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€1995).Ð œì ÐÌà  àWife€asserts€that€a€$20,000€gift€from€her€mother€helped€the€parties€to€buy€their€first€home€andÐ tÄ Ðthat€such€gift€was€separate€property€rather€than€marital€property.€€The€record€showed€that€their€firstÐ `° Ðhome€was€purchased€as€tenants€by€the€entirety€for€$60,000€and€sold€for€$105,000.€€Their€secondÐ L œ Ðhome€was€purchased€as€tenants€by€the€entirety€for€$130,000€and€sold€for€$175,000.€€Their€third€homeÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€purchased€as€tenants€by€the€entirety€for€$190,000€and€sold€for€$219,000.€€The€marital€home€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€parties€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€had€been€purchased€in€tenancy€by€the€entirety.€€ð ðWhen€spousesÐ  ` Ðacquire€real€property€as€joint€tenants,€a€Ô_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption€exists€that€the€purchasing€spouseÐ ü L  Ðmade€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate.€€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€452€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);Ð è 8  ÐòòBatson€v.€Batson,óó€769€S.W.2d€849,€858€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).ðð€€òòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ð140,€142€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€record€discloses€no€evidence€of€any€effort€by€Wife€to€separate€this€alleged€$20,000€giftÐ ˜è  Ðas€separate€property€until€the€divorce€hearing€in€this€case.€€From€our€review€of€the€entire€record,€weÐ „Ô  Ðcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€inherent€in€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€presumption€of€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate€was€not€overcome.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWife€further€complains€that€the€arrangement€agreed€to€by€the€parties€for€òòpendente€liteóó€supportÐ 4„ Ðat€a€rate€of€$3,000€per€month€beginning€November€1,€1998,€was€actually€funded€by€her€sale€ofÐ  p Ð$26,000€worth€of€stock€that€was€marital€property.€€The€record€does€not€show€that€Wife€expended€theÐ  \ Ðtotal€$26,000€sale€price€of€the€stock€in€issue€for€her€own€support€and€maintenance,€and€herÐ øH Ðaccounting€for€her€expenditures€from€this€stock€sale€left€much€to€be€desired€as€to€her€duty€under€theÐ ä4 Ðagreed€order€to€ð ðpreserve€the€asset€to€the€extent€possible.ðð€€In€its€final€judgment,€the€trial€court€madeÐ Ð  Ðwhat€it€considered€to€be€an€equitable€distribution€of€marital€assets€under€which,€when€marital€debtÐ ¼  Ðis€taken€into€consideration,€Wife€received€more€than€an€equal€share€of€the€total€marital€estate.€€WeÐ ¨ø Ðcannot€say,€on€this€record,€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€its€distribution€of€maritalÐ ”ä Ðproperty.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€last€assertion€by€Wife€as€to€inequitable€distribution€of€marital€property€concerns€theÐ X ¨ Ðfailure€of€the€trial€court€to€divide€the€frequent€flyer€miles€accumulated€by€Husband.€€This€matter€isÐ D!” Ðraised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€and€the€trial€court€cannot€be€faulted€for€failure€to€consider€frequentÐ 0"€  Ðflyer€miles.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€next€issue€on€appeal€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€rehabilitativeÐ ô$D # Ðalimony.€€In€this€respect€we€find€from€the€record€that€the€award€by€the€trial€court€is€inadequate€bothÐ à%0!$ Ðas€to€amount€and€length€of€time.€€The€two€most€critical€factors€in€the€determination€of€alimony€underÐ Ì&"% ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101€(1999)€are€the€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouse€andÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€ability€to€pay€by€the€other€spouse.€€òòLancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671€S.W.2d€501,€503€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1984).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àWife€is€presently€48€years€of€age€and€has€been€absent€from€the€work€force€for€a€number€ofÐ ° Ðâ âyears.€€A€return€to€the€work€force€demands€improvement€of€her€skills€and€continuation€of€herÐ œì Ðeducation.€€As€to€the€ability€of€Husband€to€pay,€he€has€a€net€monthly€income€of€$7,219.48€and€hasÐ ˆØ Ðbeen€relieved€of€the€necessity€of€paying€the€first€and€second€mortgage€on€the€former€maritalÐ tÄ Ðresidence.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€thus,€modified€to€increase€rehabilitative€alimony€fromÐ `° Ð$1,000€per€Ô_Ômonth,Ô_Ô€as€awarded€by€the€trial€court,€to€$2,000€per€month€for€a€period€of€24€months,Ð L œ Ðbeginning€June€1,€1999€and€terminating€May€1,€2001.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€last€issue€asserted€by€Wife€is€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€require€Husband€to€pay€herÐ  ` Ðattorney€fees.€€Wife€received€a€substantial€portion€of€liquid€marital€assets,€and€we€cannot€find€fromÐ ü L  Ðthis€record€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€decision€made€by€the€trial€court€to€requireÐ è 8  Ðeach€party€to€pay€their€respective€attorney€fees.€€òòUmstot€v.€Umstotóó,€968€S.W.2d€819€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1997).€Ð À  ÐÌà  àAs€modified€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€costs€on€appeal€areÐ ˜è  Ðassessed€equally€to€the€parties.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ  \ ÐÌÌÌà  àÌà  à