WPCU ># tUN % 0(w@4;O^ff 0lh 0Df 0Jfd hf hl hr 0Tx 0^ 0h* 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d 0@o D3 B AQ P 0D 0DZ D/ B U> B)( DCQ AM U*  fB)D3<aoYaav~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ gUhijklmnoӀ{B\J#d3|x{\((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123    2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    $$$$'dxd d*+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd* 1C << G<  9p`(Arial !/  +"  33   YYY FILED3X October14,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.3AppellateCourtClerk % Line 8 d6666'ddTABLE_A O !/   $       ThetrialcourtalsoorderedtheHusbandtoberesponsibleforpayingdebtsof$18,000fortheHusbands1992GMCtruckand$24,700forP&MAutoPartsnewcomputersystem.ThesedebtsarenotincludedinthelistofdebtsassignedtotheHusbandbecausethetrialcourtappearstohaveconsideredthesedebtswhenitassignedvaluestothetruckandtoP&MAutoParts.Similarly,themortgageonthemaritalhomedoesnotappearonthelistofdebtsassignedtotheWife.TABLE_BTABLE_CPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . /  \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON @ _______________________________________________________ ) ELMERLEWISSIDES , ) ShelbyCountyCircuitCourt̜*R241A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ) No.148278R.D.̀Plaintiff/Appellee. ) )VS. ) C.A.No.02A019611CV00277 ) PEGGYLUESIDES , ) )̀Defendant/Appellant. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofShelbyCountyatMemphis. HonorableRobertA.Lanier,Judge DarrellD.Blanton ,CAUSEY,CAYWOOD,TAYLOR,McMANUS&BAILEY,Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendant/Appellant. KayFareseTurner ,Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellee.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  FARMER,J. CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) SUMMERS,Sp.J. :(Concurs)̛  ` ` XӜ DefendantPeggyLueSides(Wife)appealsthefinaldecreeofdivorceenteredbythetrialcourtwhichdistributedthepartiesmaritalpropertyandawardedtheWifealimonyandattorneysfees.Weaffirm. ThepartieshadbeenmarriedforovertwentyfiveyearswhentheyseparatedinFebruary1995.Nochildrenwerebornofthemarriage.AtthetimeofthedivorcetrialinJuly1996,bothpartieswerefiftyoneyearsofage.Plaintiff/AppelleeElmerLewisSides(Husband)ownedandoperatedanautopartsstoreinCollierville,Tennessee,whichheacquiredintheearly1980's.In1995,theyearpriortothepartiesdivorce,theHusbandsadjustedgrossincomefromthestorewas$51,898.TheHusbandsaverageannualincomefortheyears1991through1995was$41,679. Incontrast,theWifecontributednoincometothepartiesmarriageintheyearpriortothepartiesdivorce.TheWifeformerlyworkedatWREGTelevisioninMemphis,wheresheearnedapproximately$20,000peryearatthetimeofherresignationin1987.TheWiferesignedbecauseshewas totallyburnedout;however,theWifepresentednoevidenceofanyhealthproblemsoranyotherimpedimentwhichwouldpreventtheWifefromobtainingcomparableemployment.In1990,theWifebegan ExpressionsofElegance,afloraldesignandhomedecoratingbusinesswhichsheoperatedoutofthemaritalhome.Althoughthebusinessearnedasmallprofitinitsfirstfewyearsofoperation,inthelasttwoyearspriortothetrial,1994and1995,thebusinessoperatedatalossofseveralthousanddollarsperyear. ThepartiesdisagreementsovertheWifesbusinessled,atleastinpart,tothedemiseofthemarriage.InaconversationbetweenthepartiesinJuly1994,theWifeagreedtoquitoperatingthebusinessifitfailedtoshowaprofitbytheendoftheyear.Althoughthebusinessshowedlossesofover$3,000thatyear,theWifecontinuedtooperatethebusiness,despiteherpromisetotheHusband.TheHusbandobjectedtotheWifescontinuedoperationofthebusinessbecause,inadditiontofailingtocontributefinanciallytothemarriage,theWifehaddepletedmuchofthepartiessavingsinordertofundthebusiness.In1991,thepartieshadapproximately$25,000inamoneymarketaccountwithPeoplesBank.By1995,muchoftheaccounthadbeendepleted.TheHusbandalsokeptseveralthousanddollarsinthepartiesfreezerfromwhichtheWifeconstantlyborrowedbutneverrepaid. Initsfinaldecreeofdivorce,thetrialcourtorderedtheHusbandtopayrehabilitativealimonytotheWifeintheamountof$600permonthforaperiodofthirtysix(36)monthsandtopay$2,000towardstheWifesattorneysfees.Thetrialcourtdistributedthepartiespropertyasfollows:*5768 d, dd,6 dd,6 dd+      ASSET     WIFE     HUSBAND    Guncollection       $200    P&MAutoParts       $150,000    1992GMCtruck(equity)       Ӏ$(9,290)    Bassboat       $2,000    Goldring       $300    Silverchain       $50    Lifeinsurance(cashvalue)       $11,619    Maritalresidence(equity)    $32,700       NewYorkTimesstock    $35,371       Furniture    $10,000       1984PontiacGrandPrix    $3,000       1983Dodgevan    $2,500       SlaydenBankaccount    $2,200       Snapperlawnmower    $1,000       Powermower    $100       Burialplots    $1,000       ExpressionsofElegance    $25,000       WREGretirementaccount    $12,177       1993PlymouthVoyagervan    $12,500       Moneymarketaccount    $4,000        TOTALASSETVALUES    $141,548    $154,879  Thetrialcourtorderedthepartiestoassumethefollowingmaritaldebts: 9   *576: d, dd,6 dd,6 dd+      LIABILITY     WIFE     HUSBAND    PeoplesBankofCollierville       $7,000    PeoplesBankofCollierville       $4,000    Wifesbrother    $1,700       BoatmensBank    $5,854       Bean&Ison    $5,300       BrewerDetectiveService    $3,413       Suitexpenses    $278       Attorneysfees    $13,122       CrestarVisa    $2,587       CitibankVisa    $8,669       AdvantaVisa    $7,326       HouseholdBankVisa    $7,248       BankoneVisa    $4,847        TOTALLIABILITIES    $60,344    $11,000     TOTALASSETVALUES    $141,548    $154,879     TOTALNETASSETS    $81,204    $143,879  Onappeal,theWifepresentsthefollowingissuesforthiscourtsreview:8  1. DidtheTrialCourterrinitsvaluationofHusbandsbusiness,P&MAutoParts?8  2. DidtheTrialCourterrinitsvaluationofWifesbusiness,ExpressionsofElegance?8  3. DidtheTrialCourterrinitsdivisionofmaritalpropertyandallocationofmaritaldebtbymakinganinequitabledivisionpursuanttoT.C.A.364121?8  4. DidtheTrialCourterrbyonlyawardingWifealimonyintheamountof$600.00permonthforaperiodof36monthsinlightofthefactorsfoundinT.C.A.365101?8  5. DidtheTrialCourterrbyonlyawardingWife$2,000.00ofherattorneyfees? WefirstconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlyvaluedtheHusbandsbusiness,P&MAutoParts,at$150,000.Attrial,theWifesexpert,CharlesMichaelIson,testifiedthat,inhisopinion,P&MAutoPartswasworth$170,000.Ison,acertifiedpublicaccountant,arrivedatthisvaluebyusingaweightedcombinationoftheassetvaluemethodandtheearningsvaluemethod.Isonappliedafifteenpercent(15%)discountforlackofmarketability,inasmuchasP&MAutoPartsisasoleproprietorship,andhealsodiscountedtheaccountsreceivablesandinventoryby$10,000toaccountforanyuncollectibleaccountsorobsoleteinventory.Isondidnotusethemarketvaluemethodbecausehewasunabletodiscoveranycomparablesalesinthearea. Incontrast,theHusbandtestifiedthathisbusinesswasworthonly$100,000.Insupportofthisopinion,theHusbandtestifiedthathedidnotownthebuildinginwhichthestorewaslocated;thatthebuildingslandlordhadadvisedtheHusbandthattherentwouldincreasesubstantiallyinthenexttwoorthreemonths;thattheHusbandrecentlyhadincurredaliabilityofalmost$25,000topurchaseanewcomputersystemforthestore;andthattheHusbandknewofasimilarstoreinMoscow,Tennessee,whichtheownerhadbeenunabletosell.TheHusbandalsonotedthattwocompetitors,NAPAandAutoZone,operatedmuchlargerpartsstoresnearby.The SuperNAPAStorehadopenedjustsixmonthspriortotrial. Thetrialcourt,initsdiscretion,wasfreetoplaceavalueonthepartiesmaritalassets,includingtheHusbandsbusiness,aslongassuchvaluewaswithintherangeofcompetentevidencesubmitted. Wallacev.Wallace ,733S.W.2d102,107(Tenn.App.1987).Inthisregard,theHusband,astheownerofP&MAutoParts,wasqualifiedtogiveanopinionastothevalueofthebusiness. See  Blackburnv.Murphy ,737S.W.2d529,532(Tenn.1987); Stateexrel.Smithv.LivingstonLimestoneCo. ,547S.W.2d942,943(Tenn.1977); Pricev.AllstateIns.Co. ,614S.W.2d377,379(Tenn.App.1981).InlightoftheHusbandstestimony,weconcludethatthetrialcourtsvaluationofP&MAutoPartswaswithintherangeofcompetentevidencesubmittedbythepartiesand,thus,shouldbeaffirmed. See  Kochv.Koch ,874S.W.2d571,57677(Tenn.App.1993)(affirmingtrialcourts$200,000valuationofHusbandssoleproprietorshipbusinesswhereHusbandtestifiedbusinesswasworth$105,000,HusbandsCPAtestifiedbusinesswasworth$177,160,andbusinesssbalancesheetshowednetassetvalueinexcessof$300,000). AsforthetrialcourtsvaluationoftheWifesbusiness,however,weagreewiththeWifescontentionthattheevidencefailstosupportthe$25,000valueplacedonthebusinessbythetrialcourt.ThetrialcourtswrittenopinionindicatesthattheHusbandspretrialmemorandumwasthesourceofthisfigure,butnoevidencewasintroducedattrialtosupportthisvalue.TheHusbandtestifiedthat,inhisopinion,theWifesbusinesswasworth$25,000.Laterinhistestimony,however,theHusbandadmittedthatheknewnothingabouttheWifesbusiness,andthetrialcourtruledthathistestimonyonthisissuewasinadmissible.TheWifetestifiedthat,inheropinion,thebusinesswasworthonly$14,500basedonthevalueofthebusinessscurrentinventoryandsupplies.Itwasundisputedthat,inthetwoyearspriortotrial,thebusinessmadenoprofitsand,infact,incurredlossesofover$8,500. DespitethetrialcourtserrorinevaluatingtheWifesbusiness,weconcludethatthetrialcourtsdistributionofthepartiesmaritalpropertywasequitableunderthecircumstancesofthiscase. See  Terrellv.Terrell ,No.02A019610CV00254,1997WL576536,at*4(Tenn.App.Sept.18,1997).Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretionindividingmaritalestates,andtheirdecisionsareaffordedgreatweightonappeal. Fisherv.Fisher ,648S.W.2d244,246(Tenn.1983); Harringtonv.Harrington ,798S.W.2d244,245(Tenn.App.1990).Althoughthetrialcourtsdistributionofthemaritalpropertymustbeequitable,thereisnorequirementthatthedivisionbeequal. Wordv.Word ,937S.W.2d931,933(Tenn.App.1996); Batsonv.Batson ,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.App.1988). ValuingtheWifesbusinessat$14,500,insteadof$25,000,wouldresultinthefollowingdistributionbythetrialcourt:*576; d, dd,6 dd,6 dd+         WIFE     HUSBAND     TOTALASSETVALUES    $131,048    $154,879     TOTALLIABILITIES    $60,344    $11,000     TOTALNETASSETS    $69,704    $143,879 Althoughthedivisionofmaritalpropertyneednotbeequal,wenotethattheinitialdistributioneffectedbythetrialcourtawardspropertyofroughlycomparablevaluetotheparties.TheWifewasawarded$131,048,orfortysixpercent(46%),ofthemaritalpropertywhiletheHusbandwasawarded$154,879,orfiftyfourpercent(54%). Thedistributiondoesnotbecomeunevenuntiltheliabilitiesareconsidered.Nevertheless,weconcludethatthetrialcourtactedwithinitsdiscretioninassigningthelistedliabilitiestotheWife.Over$30,000oftheseliabilitiesconstitutedcreditcarddebtwhichtheWifeincurredafterthepartiesseparation.ThisdebtwasincurredduringatimewhentheHusbandwaspayingsubstantialsupportonbehalfoftheWife.InadditiontopayingtemporarysupporttotheWifeintheamountof$500permonth,theHusbandwasresponsibleforpayingthe$779housenoteonthemaritalresidenceinwhichtheWifewasliving,utilitiesandCablevisionforthemaritalresidence,automobileinsuranceandrepairs,medicalinsuranceandnoncoveredmedicalexpenses,andburialinsurance.Similarly,over$25,000oftheWifesliabilitieswereincurredafterthepartiesseparationandrelatedtothependingdivorceaction,suchasdetectivefees,attorneysfees,andexpertwitnessfees.ThetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthattheWifehad incurredunusuallyhighattorneysfeesinlightoftherelatively modestmeansoftheparties.Moreover,wenotethattheWifeincurredadebtofover$3,400toadetectiveservicebutdidnotpresentanydetectivesaswitnessesattrial.Underthesecircumstances,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinallocatingthesedebtstotheWife. ThetrialcourtsunequaldistributionofmaritalpropertyisfurthersupportedbythecourtsfindingthattheWifehaddepletedmaritalassets.Indistributingthepartiesmaritalproperty,thetrialcourtwasrequiredtoconsider, interalia ,the contributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation,appreciationordissipationoftheproperty.T.C.A.364121(c)(5)(1996).Here,thetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthattheWifehad depletedmaritalpropertythroughinvestmentinherlosingbusiness.Accordingly,thetrialcourtproperlyconsideredthisfactorinawardingtheHusbandagreatershareofthemaritalestatethantheWife. See  Storeyv.Storey ,835S.W.2d593,598(Tenn.App.1992); Terrellv.Terrell ,No.02A019610CV00254,1997WL576536,at*5(Tenn.App.Sept.18,1997). WealsoaffirmthetrialcourtsawardofrehabilitativealimonytotheWifeinsteadofperiodicor infuturo alimony.Thegeneralassemblyhasexpressedtheintent thataspousewhoiseconomicallydisadvantaged,relativetotheotherspouse,berehabilitatedwheneverpossiblebythegrantingofanorderforpaymentofrehabilitative,temporarysupportandmaintenanceasopposedtoperiodicorlongtermalimony.T.C.A.365101(d)(1)(1996).Iftheevidenceshowsthatrehabilitationisnotfeasible,trialcourtsstillmayawardperiodicorlongtermalimony. Id. Inthepresentcase,however,noevidencewaspresentedtoshowthattheWifecouldnotberehabilitated.Atthetimeoftrial,theWifewasfiftyoneyearsofageandinapparentgoodhealth.TheHusbandtestifiedthattheWifesufferedfromnohealthproblemswhichwouldpreventherfromfindingworkcomparabletoherformerpositionwithWREGTelevision,andtheWifefailedtorebutthistestimony.TheWifeearnedapproximately$20,000peryearatWREGTelevision,andthetrialcourtfoundthattheWifecurrentlyhadanearningcapacityofapproximately$24,000peryear.Underthesecircumstances,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinawardingtheWiferehabilitativealimonyforaperiodofthirtysixmonthstoprovidetimefortheWifetobecomeselfsustaining. See  Storeyv.Storey ,835S.W.2d593,597(Tenn.App.1992); Loriav.Loria ,No.01A019609CH00441,1997WL107170,at*3(Tenn.App.Mar.12,1997). InlightofthetrialcourtsfindingastotheWifesearningability,wealsoaffirmtheamountofalimonyawarded. Theproprietyofawardingalimonyaswellastheamountdependsupontheuniquefactsofeachcase. Campanaliv.Campanali ,695S.W.2d193,197(Tenn.App.1985).Forthisreason,theamountofalimonyawardedinadivorcecaseislargelywithinthetrialcourtsdiscretion,andthiscourtwillnotinterferewiththetrialcourtsrulingexceptuponaclearshowingofabuseofthatdiscretion. Lyonv.Lyon ,765S.W.2d759,76263(Tenn.App.1988).Aftercarefullyreviewingtherecord,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindeterminingtheamountofalimonyawardedinthiscase. Finally,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontorequiretheHusbandtocontributeonly$2,000towardstheWifesattorneysfees.Aswiththetrialcourtsdecisiontoawardrehabilitativealimony,thedecisiontoawardattorneysfees,andtheamountthereof,werewithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourtandwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthecourtsdecision. Houghlandv.Houghland ,844S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.App.1992); Storeyv.Storey ,835S.W.2d593,597(Tenn.App.1992).Aspreviouslyindicated,thetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthatthefeesrequestedbytheWifewere unusuallyhighgiventheparties modestmeans,andthecourtappearedtoquestionthenecessityforincurringallofthesefees.WeadditionallynotethattheWifewasawardedsignificantassetsinthefinaldivorcedecreeand,asfoundbythetrialcourt,shehasanearningcapacityofapproximately$24,000peryear.Accordingly,weconcludethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdecisiontoawardtheWifeonly$2,000ofherattorneysfees. See  Thompsonv.Thompson ,797S.W.2d599,605(Tenn.App.1990); Walkerv.Walker ,656S.W.2d11,15(Tenn.App.1983), overruledonothergroundsby Seesselv.Seessel ,748S.W.2d422(Tenn.1988); seealso  Connorsv.Connors ,594S.W.2d672(Tenn.1980). Thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheWife,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      ____________________________________      FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________SUMMERS,Sp.J.(Concurs)