ÿWPCã Ôµ«yWÙsÍò騧±ùkrò„® {E@#MqK xÁÁxÆGÆ“cÅtìnåˆÿ†ötCÓØ‹m§¹¸Üc^]R2vR—ƒêñï,ùü|Y{ÃKex0$4‘û“»ûxð ¯\wsÎü‚±©|DÄrÏïFg£Ø*õ 'ȶú®m%ƒRH¡ב$梗ý041ô<‹4<؈ 2Ÿ.0•ô“Î,^µ|=õöxå÷ãï‹VmV[Ë“$ôG׳Xdb€TÉvžÙû:Ò Ð„U4¬ýä°µG¹ é¯ASG‚{thâ:ÐèÞUÊ„ÊÇn»‹‹L39jý¸âÒ×¥¨¤«öü‘'7 ?"Ñò´K¼0e‡q£õÿÙ úÐVXÁ¹ ùtí{õ=»cûý­Ç/QV§u¤­ðSlëbYÆ3ÜÙ±Z”,²Äïφcøüæë‚Sð?ë;B²Èd¦úúi+éÃkeŒ–ŸQ/íÕôã4n>«NÞêCˆ˜#P‹µÁ%«¬ýOPg”ÈîÄîVUøî eª¥0¶î&8Ñ5Û|ö«ì㸸}FxZ4%¦è˜~˲=W1E žà–}ŒtãÛíÑþáÊXº¶ŽÍƒªwÊZÁb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0D0NtUNv-ÄEñU>ó 1u1 72¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦bØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ 0ëàààà BËË 0¤è D3Œ D-¿ 0Kìì AS7ÆŠ 0¤P 0Dô A«8˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»·v-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9‚±,¢Ø+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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular #Ý ƒR-!$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùíò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€supreme€court€filed€its€opinion€in€òòò òLangschmidtó óóó€on€July€9,€2002,€the€same€day€of€oral€argument€in€the€caseÐ ° Ðò òòòsub€judiceóóó ó.ô\  `‹&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- ù-(|G2-!$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùíò»»Ô d(|3‰L$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰L$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼J»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î_TJÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼J»îî_T #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€7,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼JÔÌò òÔ#†¼J»XX9ñ#ÔEILEEN€ANN€SMITHòòóó€v.€ROBERT€MAXWELL€SMITHòòóóÔ‡X9X»¼JÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„99591€€€€€€Jeffrey€S.€Ô_ÔBivensÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02164„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€28,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X9XXX9ÔThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€Acting€upon€the€stipulation€of€the€parties,€the€trial€declared€the€partiesÐ xÈ  Ðdivorced.€€The€court€determined€that€the€appreciation€of€Husbandððs€premarital€Individual€RetirementÐ d´ ÐAccounts€(IRAs)€was€marital€property.€€The€court€also€ruled€that€a€bond€account€that€HusbandÐ P  Ðreceived€from€his€mother€and€later€titled€jointly€between€the€parties€remained€Husbandððs€separateÐ <Œ Ðproperty.€€Finally,€the€court€addressed€marital€debt€and€alimony.€€Both€parties€raise€issues€regardingÐ (x Ðthe€trial€courtððs€disposition€of€the€case.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remand€the€case€toÐ d Ðthe€trial€court.€€€Ð P ÐÌò òÔ#†X9XXX9á#ÔÔ#†¼J»XX9k#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼JÔÓÕÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð Ø( ÐReversed€in€Part;€and€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼J»àX9H#ÔÔ‡X9X.¼JÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ œì Ðand€òòHolly€K.€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌMike€W.€Ô_ÔBinkleyÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robert€Maxwell€Smith.Ð `° ÐÌJoanie€L.€Abernathy,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Eileen€Ann€Smith.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼J»XX9K #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼JÔÐ #`" ÐÌÔ#†¼J»XX9M #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X9X»¼JÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôò òó óà  àRobert€Maxwell€Smith€and€Eileen€Ann€Smith€married€in€August€1986.€€Dr.€Smith€was€fifty„Ð è$8 $ Ðone€and€Ms.€Smith€was€thirty„eight€at€the€time€of€the€marriage.€€Prior€to€the€marriage,€Ms.€SmithÐ Ô%$!% Ðworked€as€a€nurse€earning€$26,000€a€year.€€Dr.€Smith,€a€physician,€earned€as€much€as€$500,000€aÐ À&"& Ðyear.€€This€was€the€second€marriage€for€each€party.€€Each€party€had€two€children€from€their€previousÐ ¬'ü"' Ðmarriages.€€The€union€of€Dr.€and€Ms.€Smith€produced€no€children.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€parties€married,€Ms.€Smith€left€her€position€as€a€nurse.€€Thereafter,€inÐ p*À%* Ðaddition€to€performing€various€homemaking€tasks,€Ms.€Smith€established€and€operated€a€nonprofitÐ \+¬&+ Ðanimal€shelter.€€At€the€height€of€its€operation,€the€animal€shelter€housed€about€125€cats€and€employedÐ H,˜', Ðfour€to€six€workers.€€The€shelter€cost€the€couple€about€$50,000€to€$60,000€each€year.€€Ð 4-„(-ý Їà  àDr.€Smith€had€a€profitable€medical€practice€during€the€marriage.€€Dr.€Smith€functioned€as€theÐ ° Ðpartiesðð€financial€manager€and€paid€all€of€the€coupleððs€bills.€€In€addition€to€caring€for€his€ownÐ œì Ðchildren,€Dr.€Smith€took€financial€responsibility€for€Ms.€Smithððs€two€children.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDr.€Smith€had€six€retirement€accounts€before€the€marriage.€€Of€these€six€accounts,€only€twoÐ `° Ðwere€partially€funded€during€the€marriage.€€There€were€no€contributions€made€to€four€of€the€accountsÐ L œ Ðduring€the€marriage.€€These€four€accounts€are€the€Emigrant€Ô_ÔKeoughÔ_Ô,€the€Vanguard€Group€IRA,€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐAstoria€Federal€IRA,€and€the€Chase€Traditional€IRA.€€At€the€date€of€the€partiesðð€marriage,€theseÐ $ t Ðaccounts€had€a€total€value€of€$177,500.€€By€the€end€of€1999,€the€total€of€the€accounts€had€risen€toÐ  ` Ð$385,000.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€other€two€retirement€accounts€are€the€Merrill€Lynch€IRA€Rollover€and€the€Smith€BarneyÐ Ô$  ÐIRA€Rollover.€€These€accounts€contain€fixed€income€bonds€with€stated€interest€rates.€€At€the€timeÐ À  Ðof€the€partiesðð€marriage,€these€two€accounts€totaled€$650,000.€€During€the€coupleððs€marriage,€Dr.Ð ¬ü  ÐSmith€deposited€marital€funds€into€these€accounts.€€The€total€marital€contribution€was€approximatelyÐ ˜è  Ð$253,500.€€By€December€31,€1999,€the€total€of€the€two€accounts€had€risen€to€$2,276,673.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àDr.€Smith€also€acquired€a€$500,000€Paine€Webber€bond€portfolio€from€his€mother.€€Dr.€SmithÐ \¬ Ðsubsequently€added€Ms.€Smithððs€name€to€the€account.€€This€portfolio€generated€approximatelyÐ H˜ Ð$25,000€each€year€in€interest.€€Each€party€had€check€writing€privileges€on€the€account.€€Ms.€Smith,Ð 4„ Ðhowever,€did€not€withdraw€money€from€this€account€during€the€marriage.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€declared€the€parties€divorced€pursuant€to€section€36„4„129(b)€of€the€TennesseeÐ øH ÐCode.€€First,€the€court€distributed€the€partiesðð€real€property.€€The€court€then€examined€the€sixÐ ä4 Ðretirement€accounts€that€Dr.€Smith€established€prior€to€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€The€court€classifiedÐ Ð  Ðthe€appreciation€of€the€six€retirement€accounts€that€took€place€during€the€marriage€as€maritalÐ ¼  Ðproperty.€€The€court€classified€Dr.€Smithððs€premarital€contributions€to€these€accounts€as€his€separateÐ ¨ø Ðproperty.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€court€classified€the€Paine€Webber€bond€portfolio€account€as€Dr.€Smithððs€separateÐ l¼ Ðproperty.€€In€making€its€determination,€the€court€found€that€Dr.€Smith€successfully€rebutted€theÐ X ¨ Ðpresumption€that€he€made€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate€by€titling€the€account€in€both€spouseððs€names.€Ð D!” ÐRegarding€the€coupleððs€marital€liabilities,€the€court€determined€that€each€party€would€pay€one„halfÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€$38,285€debt.€€€€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àNext,€the€court€ruled€that€Ms.€Smith€was€entitled€to€alimony.€€After€dividing€the€coupleððsÐ ô$D # Ðpersonal€property,€the€court€awarded€Ms.€Smith€$1,000€as€alimony€òòò òin€solido€ó óóóin€order€to€ð ðmoreÐ à%0!$ Ðequitably€distribute€the€value€of€the€personal€property.ðð€€The€court€also€awarded€Ms.€SmithÐ Ì&"% Ðrehabilitative€alimony.€€In€making€its€award,€the€court€recognized€that€Ms.€Smith€would€be€eligibleÐ ¸'#& Ðto€withdraw€funds€from€her€retirement€accounts€at€the€age€of€59€and€one„half€years.€€Therefore,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourt€awarded€Ms.€Smith€$1,000€per€month€until€she€reached€such€age.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àFinally,€the€court€awarded€Dr.€Smith€$2,500€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€This€award€representedÐ ° Ðâ âsanctions€against€Ms.€Smith€for€her€ð ðviolations€of€previous€court€orders€in€failing€to€provideÐ œì Ðdiscovery€information€to€[Dr.€Smith].ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àBoth€parties€appeal€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€Dr.€Smithððs€issues,€as€stated€in€his€brief,Ð `° Ðare€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àI.à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€amendment€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Section€36„4„121(d)Ð $ t Ðclassifies€the€increase€in€value€of€retirement€accounts€accrued€duringÐ  ` Ðthe€course€of€the€marriage€as€marital€property€only€where€the€increaseÐ ü L  Ðin€value€is€related€to€the€spouseððs€employment.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àII.à8` Ð Ð àAlternatively,€whether€the€trial€courtððs€equal€division€of€maritalÐ À  Ðproperty€is€equitable€where€the€parties€were€married€for€only€thirteenÐ ¬ü  Ðyears€and€where€sixty„two€percent€(62%)€of€the€marital€estate€isÐ ˜è  Ðcomprised€of€the€passive€appreciation€of€the€Husbandððs€retirementÐ „Ô  Ðaccounts€which€he€owned€prior€to€marriage.ò òÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àó óIII.à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€to€require€theÐ H˜ Ðwife€to€refund€$50,000€to€the€husband€which€he€paid€to€her,€at€herÐ 4„ Ðinsistence,€as€reimbursement€for€her€only€financial€contribution€ofÐ  p Ðseparate€funds€to€the€marriage.Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àIV.à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€awarding€alimony€inÐ ä4 Ðthe€absence€of€financial€need,€and€where€the€wife€has€the€presentÐ Ð  Ðcapacity€for€financial€independence.м ` x` x ÐÌà  àV.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€its€division€of€maritalÐ ”ä Ðdebt.€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌMs.€Smith€presents€two€issues€for€our€review.€€These€are€as€follows:Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ€ (5h83Óà8  àI.à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€classifying€the€Paine„Webber€bondÐ 0"€  Ðfund€as€Husbandððs€separate€property.Ð#l!` x` x Ðà  àÌà8  àII.à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Wife€only€$1,000€a€monthÐ ô$D # Ðin€rehabilitative€alimony.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà  àTo€the€extent€these€issues€involve€questions€of€fact,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€isÐ ¸'#& Ðòòò òde€novoó óóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€ò òòòe.g.,€Ô_ÔBerryhillÔ_Ô€v.€Rhodesóóó ó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð21S.W.3d€188,€190€(Tenn.€2000).€€We€may€not€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€unless€theyÐ )à$( Ðare€contrary€to€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòò òId.€€ó óóóWith€respect€to€the€courtððs€legal€conclusions,Ð |*Ì%) Ðour€review€is€ò òòòde€novoóóó ó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòBowden€v.€Wardóóó ó,€27€S.W.3d€913,€916Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€Further,€we€give€great€weight€to€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€which€rest€onÐ ° Ðdeterminations€of€witness€credibility.€€òòò òRandolph€v.€Randolphóóó ó,€937€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð œì ÐAccordingly,€absent€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary,€we€will€not€re„evaluate€a€trialÐ ˆØ Ðjudgeððs€assessment€of€witness€credibility.€€ò òòòWells€v.€Tenn.€Bd.€of€Regentsóóó ó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1999).€€€òòóóÐ `° ÐÌà@  ìàò òòòClassification€and€Distribution€of€the€Partiesðð€Propertyóóó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àDr.€Smithððs€first€issue€concerns€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€the€retirement€accounts€thatÐ  \ Ðhe€established€prior€to€marriage.€€The€court€classified€the€appreciation€of€the€accounts€that€took€placeÐ ø H  Ðduring€the€marriage€as€marital€property€and€awarded€Ms.€Smith€45%€of€this€appreciation.€€Dr.€SmithÐ ä 4  Ðcontends€that€any€appreciation€of€the€accounts€resulting€from€his€premarital€contributions€should€notÐ Ð  Ðhave€been€classified€as€marital€property.€€Rather,€Dr.€Smith€argues€that€the€court€should€only€haveÐ ¼  Ðclassified€any€marital€funds€that€were€contributed€to€the€accounts€and€their€correspondingÐ ¨ø  Ðappreciation€as€marital€property.€€€€€Ð ”ä  ÐÌà  àBefore€we€address€Dr.€Smithððs€concerns€regarding€the€courtððs€classification€of€the€partiesððÐ l¼ Ðproperty,€it€is€helpful€to€review€some€well„established€principles€of€our€divorce€jurisprudence.€€InÐ X¨ Ðan€action€for€divorce,€Tennessee,€as€a€ð ðdual€propertyðð€state,€draws€a€distinction€between€separate€andÐ D” Ðmarital€property.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔBatsonÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔBatsonÔ_Ôóóó ó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€856€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€Because€theÐ 0€ ÐTennessee€statutes€only€allow€for€the€division€of€marital€property€upon€the€dissolution€of€a€marriage,Ð l Ðit€is€of€primary€importance€for€the€trial€court€to€classify€property€as€separate€or€marital.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ X ÐAnn.€ðð€36„4„121(a)(2001);€ò òòòBrock€v.€Brockóóó ó,€941€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Therefore,Ð ôD Ðbecause€separate€property€is€not€subject€to€division€in€an€action€for€divorce,€the€trial€court€mustÐ à0 Ðinitially€determine€the€nature€of€the€partiesðð€property.€€òòò òÔ_ÔWattersÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWattersÔ_Ôó óóó,€959€S.W.2d€585,€588Ð Ì Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€ò òòòBrockóóó ó,€941€S.W.2d€at€900.€€€€Ð ¸ ÐÌà  àThe€General€Assembly€defines€ð ðseparate€propertyðð€as:Ð à ÐÌà8  àà ` à(A)€All€real€and€personal€property€owned€by€a€spouse€before€marriage;Ðh¸Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€Property€acquired€in€exchange€for€property€acquired€before€the€marriage;€ÐT ¤Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€Income€from€and€appreciation€of€property€owned€by€a€spouse€beforeÐ @! Ðmarriage€except€when€characterized€as€marital€property€under€subdivision€(b)(1);Ð,"| Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(D)€Property€acquired€by€a€spouse€at€any€time€by€gift,€bequest,€devise€orÐ #h! Ðdescent;Ð$T"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(E)€Pain€and€suffering€awards,€victim€of€crime€compensation€awards,€futureÐ ð$@ # Ðmedical€expenses,€and€future€lost€wages;€andÐÜ%,!$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(F)€Property€acquired€by€a€spouse€after€an€order€of€legal€separation€where€theÐ È&"% Ðcourt€has€made€a€final€disposition€of€property.€Ð´'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(2)€(2001).€€Further,€the€Tennessee€legislature€provides€theÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðfollowing€definitions€for€ð ðmarital€propertyðð€in€a€divorce€action:Ð x*È%) ÐÐ d+´&* ЇÌà8  àà ` à(A)€ð ðMarital€Propertyðð€means€all€real€and€personal€property,€both€tangible€andÐ œì Ðintangible,€acquired€by€either€or€both€spouses€during€the€course€of€the€marriage€upÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€date€of€the€final€divorce€hearing€and€owned€by€either€or€both€spouses€as€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdate€of€filing€a€complaint€for€divorce.€.€.€.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€ð ðMarital€Propertyðð€includes€income€from,€and€any€increase€in€valueÐ L œ Ðduring€the€marriage€of,€property€determined€to€be€separate€property€in€accordanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€subdivision€(b)(2)€if€each€party€substantially€contributed€to€its€preservation€andÐ $ t Ðappreciation,€and€the€value€of€vested€and€Ô_ÔunvestedÔ_Ô€pension,€vested€and€Ô_ÔunvestedÔ_ÔÐ  ` Ðstock€option€rights,€retirement€or€other€fringe€benefit€rights€relating€to€employmentÐ ü L  Ðthat€accrued€during€the€period€of€the€marriage.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€ð ðMarital€Propertyðð€includes€recovery€in€personal€injury,€workersððÐ Ô$  Ðcompensation,€social€security€disability€actions,€and€other€similar€actions€for€theÐ À  Ðfollowing:€wages€lost€during€the€marriage,€reimbursement€for€medical€bills€incurredÐ ¬ü  Ðand€paid€with€marital€property,€and€property€damage€to€marital€property.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)€(2001).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€recently€addressed€Dr.€Smithððs€first€issue€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔLangschmidtÔ_Ô€v.Ð H˜ ÐÔ_ÔLangschmidtÔ_Ôóóó ó,€___€S.W.3d.€___€,€No.€W1999„00434„SC„R11„CV,€2002€Tenn.€LEXIS€308€(Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐJuly€9,€2002).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòò òÔ_ÔLangshcmidtÔ_Ôó óóó,€Husband€established€two€IRAs€prior€to€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ  p Ðat€*6.€€Husband€did€not€contribute€to€the€IRAs€during€the€marriage.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€trial€court€held€that,Ð  \ Ðaccording€to€the€language€in€section€36„4„121(b)(1)(B)€of€the€Tennessee€Code,€any€appreciation€ofÐ øH ÐHusbandððs€IRAs€during€the€partiesðð€marriage€was€marital€property€subject€to€equitable€division.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÐ ä4 Ðat€*7.€€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€reversed€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€*25.€€The€court€began€itsÐ ¨ø Ðanalysis€by€stating€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôr]etirementÔ_Ô€benefits€accrued€during€the€marriage€clearly€are€marital€propertyÐ ”ä Ðunder€Tennessee€law.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€*22.€€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B);€ò òòòÔ_ÔGraggÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGraggÔ_Ôóóó ó,Ð €Ð Ð12€S.W.3d€412€(Tenn.€2000);€òòò òCohen€v.€Cohenó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€823€(Tenn.€1996)).€€The€court€thenÐ l¼ Ðstated€that€the€issue€was€ð ðwhether€a€premarital€IRA€is€a€retirement€benefit€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð X ¨ Ððð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B).ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€*23.€€Because€the€premarital€IRAs€at€issue€were€funded€with€premaritalÐ D!” Ðassets€and€did€not€represent€deferred€compensation€during€the€marriage,€the€court€concluded€thatÐ 0"€  Ðð ðHusbandððs€premarital€IRAs€are€not€retirement€benefits€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„Ð #l! Ð121(b)(1)(B).ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€*24.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAfter€concluding€that€Husbandððs€IRAs€were€not€retirement€benefits,€the€court€determined€thatÐ à%0!$ ÐHusbandððs€IRAs€remained€his€separate€property€according€to€section€36„4„121(b)(2)(A)€of€theÐ Ì&"% ÐTennessee€Code.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€*26.€€This€was€due€to€fact€that€Husband€owned€the€IRAs€and€funded€themÐ ¸'#& Ðprior€to€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€The€court€then€stated€that€the€appreciation€of€the€IRAs€during€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmarriage€could€properly€be€considered€marital€property€if€ð ðboth€parties€ððsubstantially€contributed€toÐ ° Ð[the€IRAððs]€preservation€and€appreciation.ðððð€òòò òId.óóó ó€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B),€„Ð œì Ð121(b)(2)(C)).€€In€order€to€support€a€finding€of€substantial€contribution,€the€court€required€someÐ ˆØ Ðconnection€between€the€marital€efforts€of€a€spouse€and€the€appreciation€of€the€separate€property.€€ò òòòId.Ð tÄ Ðóóó óat€*15,€*26.€€The€court€determined€that€the€evidence€failed€to€support€a€finding€that€ð ðWifeÐ `° Ðsubstantially€contributed€to€the€preservation€and€appreciation€of€Husbandððs€IRA€assets.ððò òòò€€Id.óóó ó€at€*26.€Ð L œ ÐAccordingly,€the€court€held€that€ð ðthese€IRA€assets,€including€their€appreciation€during€the€marriage,Ð 8 ˆ Ðare€Husbandððs€separate€property€under€sections€36„4„121(b)(2)(A)€and€36„4„121(b)(1)(B)ðð€of€theÐ $ t ÐTennessee€Code.€€òòò òId.€óóó óat€*26„27.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Dr.€Smith€had€six€IRAs.€€Dr.€Smith€did€not€contribute€to€four€of€these€IRAsÐ è 8  Ðduring€the€marriage.€€We€will€address€the€classification€of€those€four€IRAs€first.€€A€slightly€differentÐ Ô$  Ðanalysis€is€required€for€the€two€IRAs€that€were€partially€funded€during€the€partiesðð€marriage.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAs€òòò òÔ_ÔLangschmidtÔ_Ôó óóó€provides,€the€four€IRAs€that€Dr.€Smith€funded€prior€to€marriage€are€properlyÐ ˜è  Ðclassified€as€his€separate€property.€€While€the€trial€court€correctly€recognized€that€the€funds€Dr.€SmithÐ „Ô  Ðcontributed€to€those€IRAs€prior€to€marriage€are€his€separate€property,€the€court€classified€theÐ pÀ Ðappreciation€of€those€IRAs€as€marital€property.€€According€to€òòò òÔ_ÔLangschmidtÔ_Ôóóó ó,€the€appreciation€of€theÐ \¬ ÐIRAs€could€only€be€classified€as€marital€property€if€Ms.€Smith€substantially€contributed€to€theÐ H˜ Ðpreservation€and€appreciation€of€Dr.€Smithððs€IRAs.€€The€record€does€not€support€such€a€conclusion.€Ð 4„ ÐTo€the€contrary,€the€record€illustrates€that€the€appreciation€of€these€accounts€was€due€to€marketÐ  p Ðfactors€and€the€compounding€of€interest€earned€on€the€investments.€€The€record€fails€to€provide€aÐ  \ Ðnexus€between€any€of€Ms.€Smithððs€contributions€during€the€marriage€and€the€appreciation€of€theÐ øH ÐIRAs.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€The€Emigrant€Ô_ÔKeoughÔ_Ô,€the€VanguardÐ ä4 ÐGroup€IRA,€the€Astoria€Federal€IRA,€and€the€Chase€Traditional€IRA€are€properly€classified€as€Dr.Ð Ð  ÐSmithððs€separate€property.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àDr.€Smith€also€established€and€funded€the€remaining€two€IRAs€prior€to€the€partiesðð€marriage.€Ð ”ä ÐIn€contrast€to€the€four€IRAs€mentioned€above,€however,€Dr.€Smith€contributed€€marital€funds€to€theseÐ €Ð Ðtwo€accounts.€€The€court€classified€the€funds€that€Dr.€Smith€contributed€prior€the€partiesðð€marriageÐ l¼ Ðas€his€separate€property.€€The€court€classified€the€appreciation€of€those€funds€from€the€date€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðpartiesðð€marriage€as€marital€property.€€The€court€also€classified€the€contributions€Dr.€Smith€madeÐ D!” Ðwith€marital€funds€and€their€corresponding€appreciation€as€marital€property.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAs€we€stated€above,€the€court€was€correct€in€classifying€Dr.€Smithððs€premarital€contributionsÐ $X" Ðas€his€separate€property.€€The€court€erred,€however,€in€classifying€the€appreciation€of€those€funds€asÐ ô$D # Ðmarital€property.€€As€above,€the€record€establishes€that€the€appreciation€of€Dr.€Smithððs€premaritalÐ à%0!$ Ðcontributions€was€due€solely€to€market€factors€and€the€compounding€of€the€interest€from€the€variousÐ Ì&"% Ðinvestments.€€The€record€provides€no€connection€between€any€of€Ms.€Smithððs€marital€contributionsÐ ¸'#& Ðand€the€appreciation€of€Dr.€Smithððs€premarital€contributions.€€Accordingly,€Dr.€Smithððs€premaritalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontributions€and€the€corresponding€appreciation€of€those€contributions€are€properly€classified€as€Dr.Ð )à$( ÐSmithððs€separate€property.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWe€must€continue€our€analysis€of€these€two€IRA€accounts,€however,€because€Dr.€SmithÐ ° Ðdeposited€marital€funds€into€these€accounts.€€From€1987€to€1997,€Dr.€Smith€made€annualÐ œì Ðcontributions€to€the€accounts.€€Therefore,€in€addition€to€separate€funds€and€their€correspondingÐ ˆØ Ðappreciation,€the€accounts€contained€marital€funds€and€the€funds€associated€with€their€appreciation.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€recognized€instances€where€separate€property€can€become€part€of€the€maritalÐ L œ Ðestate€due€to€the€partiesðð€treatment€of€the€separate€property.€€The€doctrines€of€transmutation€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommingling€provide€an€avenue€where€separate€property€can€become€marital€property.€Ð $ t Ðò òòòÔ_ÔLangschmidtÔ_Ôóóó ó,€2002€Tenn.€Lexis€308,€at€*17„18;€ò òòòÔ_ÔHoferÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHoferÔ_Ôóóó ó,€No.€02A01„9510„CH„00210,€1997Ð  ` ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€74€at€*8„9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€3,€1997)€(citing€òòò òPope€v.€Popeó óóó,€No.€88„58„II,€1988Ð ü L  ÐWL€74615,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988)).€€This€Court€has€previously€explained€these€doctrines€as€Ð è 8  Ðfollows:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àÓ SÓÔ#†X9XXX9Ð #ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà ` àTwo€related€doctrines€of€community€property€have€made€their€appearance€inÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€marital€property€cases.€The€first€of€these€is€commingling,€according€to€whichÐ ˜è  Ðseparate€property€becomes€marital€property€if€inextricably€mingled€with€maritalÐ „Ô  Ðproperty€or€with€the€separate€property€of€the€other€spouse.€If€the€separate€propertyÐ pÀ Ðcontinues€to€be€segregated€or€can€be€traced€into€its€product,€commingling€does€notÐ \¬ Ðoccur.€The€second€doctrine€is€that€of€transmutation.€This€occurs€when€separateÐ H˜ Ðproperty€is€treated€in€such€a€way€as€to€give€evidence€of€an€intention€that€it€becomeÐ 4„ Ðmarital€property.€One€method€of€causing€transmutation€is€to€purchase€property€withÐ  p Ðseparate€funds€but€to€take€title€in€joint€tenancy.€This€may€also€be€done€by€placingÐ  \ Ðseparate€property€in€the€names€of€both€Ô#†X9XXX9Ge#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôspouses.€The€rationale€underlying€both€ofÐ øH Ðthese€doctrines€is€that€dealing€with€property€in€these€ways€creates€a€rebuttableÐ ä4 Ðpresumption€of€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate.€This€presumption€is€based€also€upon€theÐ Ð  Ðprovision€in€many€marital€property€statutes€that€property€acquired€during€theÐ ¼  Ðmarriage€is€presumed€marital.€The€presumption€can€be€rebutted€by€evidence€ofÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€or€communications€clearly€indicating€an€intent€that€the€propertyÐ ”ä Ðremain€separate.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†X9XXX9Oi#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÌ2€Homer€H.€Clark,€ò òòòThe€Law€of€Domestic€Relations€in€the€United€Statesóóó ó€ðð€16.2€at€185€(1987);Ð þ N Ðòòò òÔ_ÔHoferÔ_Ô,€óóó ó1997€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€74,€at€*8„9.Ô#†X9XXX9òk#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÐ =" ÐÌà  àThe€doctrine€of€commingling€is€relevant€to€our€analysis€of€the€two€IRA€accounts.€€The€recordÐ »$ ! Ðestablishes€that€Dr.€Smith€entered€the€marriage€with€a€total€of€$650,000€in€these€accounts.€€BecauseÐ §%÷ " Ðthe€accounts€consisted€of€bonds€with€fixed€interest€rates,€Dr.€Smithððs€accountant,€Lester€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô,Ð “&ã!# Ðdetermined€that€the€accounts€generated€an€average€rate€of€return€of€8.5%.€€Applying€this€rate€ofÐ 'Ï"$ Ðreturn,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô€was€able€to€determine€the€value€of€the€accounts€that€was€attributable€to€Dr.€SmithððsÐ k(»#% Ðpremarital€deposits.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô€performed€a€similar€analysis€with€regards€to€the€contributions€thatÐ W)§$& Ðconsisted€of€marital€property.€€This€allowed€Mr.€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô€to€segregate€Dr.€Smithððs€separate€property€andÐ C*“%' Ðits€associated€gains€from€the€partiesðð€marital€property€and€its€corresponding€gains.€€Accordingly,€theÐ /+&( Ðseparate€property€in€these€accounts€was€not€inextricably€commingled€with€the€marital€property€in€theÐ ,k') Ðaccounts.€€It€follows€that€Dr.€Smithððs€separate€property€in€the€accounts€did€not€become€maritalÐ ° Ðproperty€by€virtue€of€the€doctrine€of€commingling.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€classified€the€appreciation€from€Dr.€Smithððs€premarital€depositsÐ j Ðin€the€two€IRAs€as€marital€property.€€We€remand€the€case€in€order€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€theÐ  V Ðvalue€of€the€accounts€that€is€attributable€to€Dr.€Smithððs€premarital€deposits.€€The€remaining€valueÐ ò B Ðcontained€in€the€two€IRA€accounts€is€properly€classified€as€marital€property,€subject€to€equitableÐ Þ . Ðdistribution.€Ð Ê  ÐÌà  àMs.€Smith€also€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€the€partiesðð€property.€€Ms.Ð H˜  ÐSmith€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€classified€the€Paine€Webber€Municipal€Bond€StockÐ 4„  ÐPortfolio€Account€as€Dr.€Smithððs€separate€property.€€Ms.€Smith€argues€the€account€became€maritalÐ  p  Ðproperty€according€to€the€doctrine€of€transmutation.Ð  \  ÐÌà  àDr.€Smith€obtained€this€account€from€his€mother;€he€later€established€the€account€with€PaineÐ ŠÚ ÐWebber.€€At€some€point€during€the€partiesðð€marriage,€Dr.€Smith€added€Ms.€Smithððs€name€to€theÐ vÆ ÐPaine€Webber€account.€€Ô#†X9XXX9m#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔDr.€Smith€stated€that€he€added€Ms.€Smithððs€name€to€the€account€in€order€forÐ b² Ðher€to€have€immediate€access€to€cash€in€the€event€of€his€death.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô€confirmed€this€testimony,Ð Nž Ðstating€that€he€advised€Dr.€Smith€that€ð ðif€Eileenððs€name€appears€on€a€certain€asset,€then€sheððs€goingÐ :Š Ðto€inherit€that€upon€your€death.ðð€€Mr.€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô€concluded€that€Dr.€Smith€only€added€Ms.€Smithððs€nameÐ &v Ðas€a€part€of€his€estate€planning.€€The€partiesðð€did€not€deposit€additional€funds€into€the€account€afterÐ b ÐDr.€Smith€received€it€from€his€mother.€€Although€Ms.€Smith€had€check€writing€privileges€after€herÐ þN Ðname€was€added€to€the€account,€she€did€not€write€a€check€from€the€account€during€the€partiesððÐ ê: Ðmarriage.€€Ð Ö& ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€made€specific€findings€regarding€this€account.€€In€classifying€the€account€asÐ T¤ ÐDr.€Smithððs€separate€property,€the€court€recognized€that€there€is€a€presumption€that€Dr.€Smith€madeÐ @ Ða€gift€to€Ms.€Smith€when€he€added€Ms.€Smithððs€name€to€the€account.€€The€court€found€that€Dr.€SmithÐ , | Ðrebutted€the€presumption,€however,€basing€its€conclusion€on€€ð ðthe€testimony€of€the€parties,€theÐ !h Ðcredibility€of€the€parties,€as€well€as€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Lester€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ô€by€deposition.ðð€€Ð "T ÐÌà  àThe€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions.€€First,€the€trial€courtÐ ‚$Ò Ðfound€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€to€be€more€credible€than€Ms.€Smithððs€testimony.€€The€record€fails€toÐ n%¾  Ðprovide€a€reason€for€us€to€re„evaluate€the€courtððs€credibility€determination.€€Second,€Dr.€SmithððsÐ Z&ª!! Ðtestimony€regarding€the€partiesðð€communications€on€the€issue€supports€the€courtððs€finding.€€Dr.Ð F'–"" ÐSmithððs€testimony€established€that€he€told€Ms.€Smith€that€he€was€adding€her€name€to€the€account€soÐ 2(‚## Ðshe€could€have€accessible€funds€when€he€died.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔHirshÔ_Ôððs€testimony€supports€Dr.€SmithððsÐ )n$$ Ðtestimony.€€Finally,€circumstances€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€Ms.€Smith€did€not€use€theÐ  *Z%% Ðâ âaccount€during€the€coupleððs€marriage,€though€she€used€the€coupleððs€other€jointly€named€accounts.€Ð ö*F&& ÐAlso,€no€marital€funds€went€into€the€account.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÐ ° Ðclassify€the€Paine€Webber€Municipal€Bond€Portfolio€as€Dr.€Smithððs€separate€property.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€Dr.€Smithððs€next€issue,€he€contends€that€the€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€failed€toÐ j Ðrequire€Ms.€Smith€to€reimburse€him€$50,000.€€When€the€parties€married,€Ms.€Smith€contributedÐ  V Ð$50,000€to€the€purchase€of€their€New€York€home.€€When€the€partiesðð€sold€the€New€York€home€inÐ ò B ÐOctober€1998,€Ms.€Smith€asked€Dr.€Smith€to€give€her€back€the€$50,000€she€originally€contributed.€Ð Þ . ÐIn€order€to€ð ðkeep€peace€in€the€house,ðð€Dr.€Smith€complied€with€Ms.€Smithððs€request.€€Ð Ê  ÐÌà  àDr.€Smith€argues€that€Ms.€Smith€should€reimburse€him€for€this€payment€because€it€was€theÐ H˜  Ðonly€financial€contribution€she€made€during€the€marriage.€€In€support€of€Dr.€Smithððs€argument,€heÐ 4„  Ðstates€that€circumstances€surrounding€a€spouseððs€acquisition€of€property€may€create€equities€that€theÐ  p  Ðcourt€can€adjust€when€issuing€a€decree€of€divorce.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔHardinÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHardinÔ_Ôó óóó,€689€S.W.2d€152,€154€(Tenn.Ð  \  ÐCt.€App.€1983).€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€the€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ øH  Ðdiscretion€in€refusing€to€order€Ms.€Smith€to€pay€$50,000€to€Dr.€Smith.€€There€is€nothing€in€this€caseÐ ä4 Ðto€support€Dr.€Smithððs€request;€accordingly,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àRegarding€Dr.€Smithððs€next€issue,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€distributedÐ Nž Ðthe€partiesðð€marital€debt.€€The€marital€debt€totaled€over€$38,000.€€The€court,€citing€principals€ofÐ :Š Ðequity,€divided€the€debt€equally€between€the€parties.€€Dr.€Smith€argues€that€it€would€be€moreÐ &v Ðequitable€to€assign€Ms.€Smith€two„thirds€of€the€marital€debt.Ð b ÐÌà  àThe€bulk€of€the€partiesðð€marital€debt€was€credit€card€debt.€€The€remainder€consisted€of€Ms.Ð à ÐSmithððs€medical€bills.€€Ms.€Smith€incurred€some€of€the€credit€card€debt€after€making€purchases€forÐ |Ì Ðthe€home.€€The€credit€card€debt€also€consisted€of€clothing€purchases.€€Finally,€Ms.€Smith€used€theÐ h¸ Ðcredit€cards€to€benefit€her€two€adult€children€from€her€previous€marriage,€accruing€almost€$17,000Ð T¤ Ðof€debt€for€this€purpose.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àCourts€must€divide€the€partiesðð€marital€debts€equitably.€€òòò òGoodman€v.€Goodmanó óóó,€8€S.W.3dÐ ¾! Ð289,€298€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€In€distributing€the€marital€debts€in€an€equitable€fashion,€courtsÐ ª"ú Ðshould€consider€the€following:€ð ð(1)€which€party€incurred€the€debt,€(2)€the€purpose€of€the€debt,€(3)Ð –#æ Ðwhich€party€benefitted€from€incurring€the€debt,€and€(4)€which€party€is€better€able€to€repay€the€debt.ðð€Ð ‚$Ò Ðòòò òId.€ó óóó€(citing€òòò òÔ_ÔMondelliÔ_Ô€v.€Howardó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€769,€773€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Courts€should€alsoÐ n%¾  Ðconsider€the€factors€found€in€section€36„4„121(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔKinardÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKinardÔ_Ôóóó ó,€986Ð Z&ª!! ÐS.W.2d€220,€233€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€€Ð F'–"" ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€making€its€equitableÐ Ä)%$ Ðdistribution€of€the€partiesðð€marital€debt.€€Dr.€Smith€did€not€limit€or€object€to€Ms.€Smithððs€use€of€theÐ °*&% Ðcredit€cards.€€Ô#†X9XXX9Êw#ÔMs.€Smith€used€the€credit€cards€to€benefit€both€parties,€as€well€as€her€two€children.€€Dr.Ð œ+ì&& ÐSmith€candidly€admitted€that€he€voluntarily€supported€Ms.€Smithððs€two€adult€children€and€enjoyedÐ ° Ða€good€relationship€with€them.€€Further,€Dr.€Smith€knew€that€Ms.€Smith€used€the€credit€cards€toÐ œì Ðsupport€her€children€and€did€not€object€to€this€practice.€€Finally,€Dr.€Smith€is€more€capable€of€payingÐ ˆØ Ðthe€debt,€especially€in€light€of€our€decision€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ tÄ Ðdecision€to€allocate€the€marital€debt€equally€between€the€parties.Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€holding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€classifying€Dr.€Smithððs€IRAs,€we€have€significantlyÐ Þ . Ðreduced€the€size€of€the€marital€estate€as€found€by€the€trial€court,€and€consequently,€increased€theÐ Ê  Ðvalue€of€Dr.€Smithððs€separate€property.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€must€determine€the€value€of€Dr.Ð ¶  ÐSmithððs€separate€property.€€Additionally,€because€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€value€of€the€separate€property€of€each€partyððÐ ¢ ò  Ðis€a€factor€in€making€an€equitable€division€of€marital€property,€we€remand€the€case€in€order€for€theÐ ŽÞ  Ðtrial€court€to€reconsider€its€equitable€distribution€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð zÊ  Ððð€36„4„121(c)(6)€(2001).Ð f¶  ÐÔ‡X9XXX9Ôòòò òÌà@ŒŒ'ìàAlimonyó óóóˆÐ à0 ÐÌÔ#†X9XXX9‡—#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà  àThe€court€awarded€rehabilitative€alimony€to€Ms.€Smith.€€Dr.€Smith€contends€that€the€courtÐ Zª Ðerred€in€its€award,€arguing€that€there€is€no€need€for€an€award€of€alimony€in€this€caseò òòòóóó ó.€€(AppellantððsÐ F– Ðbrief,€p.€40).€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€record,€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€is€not€contraryÐ 2‚ Ðto€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€However,€in€light€of€our€remand€to€the€trial€court€to€reconsiderÐ n Ðits€distribution€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property€in€accordance€with€this€opinion,€the€court€mustÐ  Z Ðreconsider€its€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€as€well.€€Section€36„5„101(d)(1)(G)€&€(H)€of€theÐ öF ÐTennessee€Code€states€that€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€separate€assets€of€each€party€in€additionÐ â2 Ðto€the€distribution€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property€when€awarding€alimony.€€Accordingly,€we€remandÐ Î Ðthis€case€to€the€trial€court€for€the€reconsideration€of€its€award€of€alimony€to€Ms.€Smith.Ð º  ÐÌà@%ìàò òòòConclusionˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà  àó óóóWe€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€The€case€is€remanded€toÐ ®!þ Ðthe€trial€court€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€equallyÐ š"ê Ðbetween€the€parties.€Ô#†X9XXX9˜#ÔÐ †#Ö ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð &T!  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE