ÿWPCv Íi$–ú«  á¢Dü̳J.€iQ|°|7\vÛ²‘2GrJ¹ãŠ­Þ?†K ×ÀÓ›j'B£5U ±*o­{s)!J<Ò¨{ÌÀç%/Ó4‡ˆ¤ÉRt®2”ç´¡,a ƒöÀ; ÁxWø“–oóÓIbŒîŒu\jf°1ˆ'º*K÷™WhJI|Š»ôÍȶ‰+ÇŸ.>ïS‘£ú¬¦¿i#ÈQÏêczW¤JÒÙ¬ùiqŠž)+&{‰ÇÆéTDq^P­¶ù%úØ2-ì°Vs¿27 ë—÷*üµ…Du<æÅq–iW>TÉøÏ’ìM/Z]5;‰¥ÉŽáÄØÀîÁ $Šk0YmÁÃEˆÀWÙ• ©œÕZÕ£8íÐýUN2݈Vÿ91}¹brŠ5Ç4ñeÒX|O=(¤·±×éª7x{ļ,–{õKâÃpƒ ²×o-Wtƒøžá£ «܆$,£t&ªn +·¸,,âOj­ñ±<à÷wt䡪žé>cK÷V ‰³s$RL€:‹UMÄ‚5NhÞžù°à'8æJ {.Û#@èÝs'õ]ÊÏWŒåB›ìêîè’š§ÈNü¬b»ó„µb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz R‘ Æã Æ© ÆoÆ5 0DûN?AKIE”– 1‡¨ 72/ 1ua 72Ö 0 cbkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 0ëssss B^^ 0¤{ D3 D-R 0K ASÊÆ 0¤ã 0D‡ A«Ë˜\\IB27S11T\stats1ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»æš9-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular$w%-ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ HÝ ƒRå£$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XéX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€does€provide€exact€information€on€the€final€award.€€It€may€be€estimated€atÐ ° Ðroughly€$6,639.00€excluding€the€increase€in€value€of€the€accounts€for€2001.Ð œì ÐLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  AÝ ƒRå£$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XéX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔParagraph€3:Ð ° Ðà  àð ðThat,€as€alimony,€the€Defendant/Husband€shall€continue€to€make€all€payments€to€the€partiesððÐ œì Ðseveral€accounts€at€Consumer€Credit€Counseling€Service€until€said€accounts€are€paid€and€dischargedÐ ˆØ Ðand,€accordingly,€shall€be€solely€responsible€for€the€partiesðð€debt€owed€to€Household€FinanceÐ tÄ ÐCorporation€for€$6,358.17,€Associates€Capital€Bank€for€$5,326.73,€Dillardððs€DepartmentÐ `° ÐStore/Dillard€National€Bank€for€$600.74,€First€Card€USA/Gold€Master€Card€for€$5,170.34,€andÐ L œ ÐDiscover€Card€for€$7,604.20€and€shall€hold€Plaintiff/Wife€harmless€thereon.€.€.€.ðð Ý ƒRå£$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XéX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€final€Judgment€states:Ð ° Ðà  àð ðFollowing€the€presentation€of€proof€and€argument€of€counsel,€the€Court€rendered€itsÐ œì ÐMemorandum€Opinion€from€the€bench€as€to€the€adequate€and€sufficient€provision€for€an€equitableÐ ˆØ Ðsettlement€of€the€property€rights€between€the€parties€and€provision€for€alimony.€.€.€.ðð€Ð tÄ Ð(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2å£$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XéX»»Ô d(|3G‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼^»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ZZìàAugust€21,€2002€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XéX»¼^ÔÌò òÔ#†¼^»XXé¡#ÔÓ  ÓMARY€WEST€Ô_ÔVARNERÔ_Ô€v.€JASON€MATTHEW€Ô_ÔVARNERÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XéX»¼^Ôó óÐ Ò" ÐÓçÓÌà@  ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@ ìàNo.€00€D€2337€€€€€€Hon.€L.€Marie€Williams,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ ¾  ÐÌÓ  ÓFILED€SEPTEMBER€25,€2002Ð – æ  ÐÓmÓà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2001„02917„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óÌÌÔ#†¼^»XXéa#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼^ÔIn€divorce€case€the€Trial€Court€divided€marital€property€and€debts,€awarded€alimony€and€designatedÐ <Œ Ðdebts€to€be€paid€by€husband€as€alimony.€€On€appeal,€we€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part.Ð (x ÐÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð ì< ÐReversed€in€Part,€and€Remanded.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼^»àXé#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼^Ô,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Houston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ô#†¼^»àXéë#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼^ÔÐ œì ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andòò€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ô#†¼^»àXé™#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼^Ôóó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌBrian€M.€House,€Ô_ÔRinggoldÔ_Ô,€Georgia,€for€Appellant,€Jason€Matthew€Ô_ÔVarnerÔ_Ô.Ð Lœ ÐÌDavid€H.€Lawrence,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee,€Mary€West€Ô_ÔVarnerÔ_Ô.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^»XXé:#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼^ԈРÀ$ $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼^»XXéÞ #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼^Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€divorce€action€the€husband€appeals€the€Trial€Courtððs€allocation€of€the€maritalÐ „'Ô"' Ðdebt,€the€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€to€the€wife,€and€whether€the€Trial€Court€correctlyÐ p(À#( Ðcharacterized€the€marital€debt€as€alimony€and€thus€non„Ô_ÔdischargeableÔ_Ô€in€bankruptcy.Ð \)¬$) ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€before€us€contains€a€statement€of€evidence€prepared€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Ð 4+„&+ ÐApp.€P.,€24(c).€Ð  ,p', Ѐ€Ð  -\(-ý  ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àThe€parties€separated€in€October€2000,€after€22€months€of€marriage.€€The€wife€workedÐ ° Ðas€a€sales€clerk€at€Parisian€at€an€annual€salary€of€$18,000.00€and€was€a€high€school€graduate€withÐ œì Ðtraining€in€cosmetology.€€She€suffers€from€fibromyalgia,€narcolepsy,€and€depression.€€The€husbandÐ ˆØ Ðis€employed€by€the€Postal€Service,€with€an€annual€salary€of€$22,000.00,€plus€fringe€benefits.€€He€hasÐ tÄ Ðan€A.S.€degree€in€computer€science€from€Chattanooga€State,€and€additional€training€in€networking,Ð `° Ðinstalling€and€troubleshooting.€€For€about€six€months€he€had€been€working€with€the€owner€of€aÐ L œ Ðcomputer€consultant€business€in€the€evenings,€about€15€hours€per€week,€but€was€not€paid€for€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðwork.€€He€claims€he€was€getting€valuable€work€experience€for€these€efforts.€€He€conceded€hisÐ $ t Ðprospects€for€future€increased€earnings€are€better€than€the€wifeððs.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€brought€minimal€assets€to€the€marriage.€€Both€husband€and€wife€hadÐ è 8  Ðsubstantial€student€loans,€and€each€was€ordered€to€pay€his€or€her€own€student€debt.€€A€large€amountÐ Ô$  Ðof€consumer€debt€accumulated€during€the€marriage.€€Eventually,€two€consolidation€loans€totalingÐ À  Ðapproximately€$24,000.00€were€made,€a€substantial€amount€of€which€were€associated€with€theÐ ¬ü  Ðhusbandððs€computer€consulting€activities.€€The€wife€testified€her€portion€of€this€debt€was€$7,357.36.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€husband€produced€no€countervailing€evidence.€€A€disputed€issue€concerned€money€loaned€fromÐ „Ô  Ðthe€wifeððs€parents€during€the€marriage,€totaling€$14,740.00.€€The€wife€and€her€mother€testified€thatÐ pÀ Ðthese€monies€were€advanced€as€a€loan,€and€the€mother€testified€that€she€and€her€husband€expectedÐ \¬ Ðthe€loan€to€be€repaid.€€The€husband€testified€the€wifeððs€parents€had€given€them€money€during€theÐ H˜ Ðtime€they€were€together,€but€denied€anything€was€said€about€the€money€being€a€loan.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€final€decree,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€the€wife€any€interest€in€the€maritalÐ  \ Ðresidence,€one„half€of€the€increase€in€the€value€of€the€husbandððs€401(k),€Thrift€Savings€Plan,€and€anyÐ øH Ðlump€sum€earnings„payment/bonus€during€the€marriage,€and€also€one„half€of€the€increase€in€valueÐ ä4 Ðof€those€accounts€from€January€1€to€July€17,€2001,€one„half€of€the€partiesðð€2002€tax€refund,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€fourÐ Ð  Ðmonths€of€alimony€at€the€rate€of€$300.00€per€month.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€was€ordered€to€pay€the€following€marital€debts:Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àHousehold€Finance€Corporationà0  à$6,358.17Ðl¼(#(# Ðà  àà ` àAssociates€Capital€Bankà0 À àà0À(#À(#à$5,326.73ÐX ¨(#(# Ðà  àà ` àDillardsððsà0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à€€€$600.74ÐD!”(#(# Ðà  àà ` àDiscoverà0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à$7,604.20Ð0"€ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àFirst€Card€USAà0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à$5,170.20Ð#l!(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àTotal:à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à€€€€€€€€€€$25,060.04Ðô$D #À(#À(# ÐÌà  àà ` àEach€party€was€ordered€to€be€solely€liable€for€their€student€loans€(wife€at€$11,283.00,Ð Ì&"% Ðhusband€at€$16,590.00),€and€wife€would€be€solely€responsible€for€ð ðall€monies€loaned€to€the€partiesÐ ¸'#& Ðduring€the€marriage,ðð€by€her€parents.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àSubsequently,€pursuant€to€motion,€the€Trial€Court€further€ordered:€ð ðIt€is€the€specificÐ ˆØ Ðintention€and€order€of€the€court€that€said€obligations€imposed€upon€the€defendant/husband€under€thisÐ tÄ Ðparagraph€[3]€are€for€the€purpose€of€the€support€and€maintenance€of€the€plaintiff,€and€that€saidÐ `° Ðobligations€are€non„dischargeable€in€bankruptcy.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РL œ ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€review€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€of€fact€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€aÐ $ t Ðpresumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€Ð  ` ÐWe€do€not€interfere€with€the€Trial€Courtððs€decisions€with€regard€to€alimony€awards,€ð ðexcept€whereÐ ü L  Ðthere€is€a€clear€showing€that€the€court,€in€its€discretion,€reached€the€wrong€conclusion€with€the€resultÐ è 8  Ðthat€a€manifest€injustice€will€be€done€if€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€allowed€to€stand.€€òòButer€v.€Butleróó,Ð Ô$  Ð680€S.W.2d€467,€470€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€determining€the€nature€and€classification€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðmarital€estate,€and€their€decisions€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal,€unless€they€are€not€supportedÐ „Ô  Ðby€the€evidence€or€are€contrary€to€public€policies€reflected€in€statutes€governing€spousal€support.€Ð pÀ ÐòòWilson€v.€Mooreóó,€929€S.W.2d€367,€375€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€contends€the€Trial€Courtððs€division€of€marital€debt€was€inequitable,€as€theÐ 4„ Ðonly€marital€debt€wife€was€ordered€to€pay€was€the€loan€from€her€parents.€€The€Trial€Court€found€thatÐ  p Ðthe€monies€advanced€from€the€wifeððs€parents€was€a€loan,€as€the€wife€and€her€mother€testified.€€TheÐ  \ Ðrecord€does€not€contain€the€Courtððs€Memorandum€Opinion€referred€to€in€the€final€Judgment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РøH ÐGenerally,€the€trial€court€is€the€judge€of€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€and€we€will€not€disturb€theÐ ä4 ÐTrial€Courtððs€findings€of€fact€based€upon€evidence€found€credible€by€the€Trial€Judge.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€say€the€Trial€Courtððs€allocation€of€the€marital€debtÐ ¨ø Ðis€inequitable,€and€we€affirm€the€Trial€Court€on€this€issue.Ð ”ä ÐÐ €Ð Ðà  àà ` àAs€to€the€issue€of€the€award€of€alimony,€there€is€evidence€that€the€husband€could€beÐ ° Ðlimiting€his€income€by€not€charging€for€his€computer€consulting€services.€€Given€the€wifeððs€need,€herÐ œì Ðphysical€and€mental€problems€and€dire€financial€circumstances,€and€the€husbandððs€ability€to€pay€andÐ ˆØ Ðthe€modest€amount€of€the€award,€the€alimony€awarded€we€find€to€be€proper,€and€we€affirm.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€husband€argues€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€amending€the€original€DecreeÐ L œ Ðwithout€an€evidentiary€hearing,€and€ordering€that€the€marital€debts€to€be€paid€by€the€husband€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðalimony€support€payments€and€therefore,€non„dischargeable€in€bankruptcy.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€stated€in€the€amended€Order€that€the€specific€intent€and€purpose€€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€payment€of€the€marital€debt€was€ð ðfor€the€support€and€maintenance€of€the€plaintiff.ðð€Thus,€it€wasÐ è 8  Ðcharacterized€as€rehabilitative€alimony.€€This€is€of€some€significance,€because€under€the€statute,Ð Ô$  Ðrehabilitative€alimony€terminates€upon€the€death€of€either€recipient€or€payer,€unless€otherwiseÐ À  Ðspecifically€stated€in€the€divorce€decree.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„101(d)(2).€€òòEdwards€v.€Edwards,Ð ¬ü  Ðóó713€S.W.2d€642,€645€(Tenn.€1986).€€Moreover,€marital€debt€is€subject€to€payment€by€oneððs€estateÐ ˜è  Ðupon€death.€€òòSee€Mondelli€v.€Howardóó,€780€S.W.2d€769,€775€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€In€this€case,Ð „Ô  Ðnone€of€the€debt€obligations€the€trial€court€characterized€as€alimony€would€be€exempted€from€theÐ pÀ Ðclaims€of€creditors€upon€the€death€of€either€spouse,€which€militates€against€characterizing€these€debtsÐ \¬ Ðas€alimony.€€Debts€incurred€to€finance€a€spouseððs€new€business€are€not€generally€viewed€asÐ H˜ Ðbenefitting€the€other€spouse€which€has€not€become€successful.€€òòSee€e.g.,€King€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð216,€219€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€The€evidence€is€uncontradicted€that€a€substantial€amount€of€theÐ  p Ðdebts€ordered€paid€by€the€husband€were€incurred€for€the€husbandððs€computer€business,€for€which€theÐ  \ Ðwife€received€no€benefit,€and€no€income€was€ever€realized€from€the€business€during€the€marriage.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àState€courts€have€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€the€bankruptcy€court€to€determine€theÐ Ð  Ðdischargeability€of€debts€to€a€spouse€incurred€in€connection€with€a€divorce€decree,€and€depends€uponÐ ¼  Ðwhether€the€debt€is€characterized€as€alimony,€maintenance€or€support.€€òòHoughland€v.€Houghlandóó,Ð ¨ø Ð844€S.W.2d€619€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àòòIn€re€Calhounóó,€715€F.2d€1103€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1983),€set€forth€a€four„part€test€to€determineÐ l¼ Ðwhether€the€assumption€of€a€debt€is€in€the€nature€of€alimony,€maintenance€or€support,€resulting€inÐ X ¨ Ðnon„dischargeability€in€bankruptcy:Ð D!” ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£Q5ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€state€court€or€the€parties€intended€to€create€an€obligation€toÐ #l! Ðprovide€support€through€the€assumption€of€the€joint€debts;݃3£Q5ž5ÝŒÐ$X"¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£Ü6ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€such€assumption€has€the€actual€effect€of€providing€the€supportÐ à%0!$ Ðnecessary€to€ensure€that€the€daily€needs€of€the€spouse€and€any€children€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðmarriage€are€satisfied;݃3£Ü6)7݌и'#&¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3££8ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝThe€amount€of€support€represented€by€the€assumption€is€not€so€excessive€thatÐ )à$( Ðit€is€manifestly€unreasonable€under€traditional€concepts€of€support.݃3££8ð8ÝŒÐ|*Ì%)¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÐ h+¸&* ÐÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£N:ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝIf€the€amount€of€support€is€unreasonable€how€much€of€should€be€dischargedÐ ° Ðfor€the€purposes€of€bankruptcy.݃3£N:›:ÝŒÐœì¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àAdditional€factors€to€be€considered€in€order€to€determine€whether€liabilitiesÐ tÄ Ðestablished€in€a€divorce€decree€are€truly€alimony€or€are€in€the€nature€of€a€property€settlement€are:Ð `° Ðwhether€payments€are€made€directly€to€the€spouse;€evidence€that€a€spouse€relinquished€rights€andÐ L œ Ðsupport€in€return€for€the€payment€of€the€obligation;€the€document€itself€and€any€inferences€whichÐ 8 ˆ Ðmight€be€draw€and€the€placement€of€specific€provisions€in€the€document;€whether€the€debt€wasÐ $ t Ðincurred€for€the€immediate€living€expenses€of€the€spouse;€whether€the€payments€were€intended€forÐ  ` Ðthe€economic€safety€of€the€dependent;€whether€the€obligation€is€enforceable€by€contempt;€andÐ ü L  Ðwhether€the€payments€are€in€installments€over€a€substantial€period€of€time.€€òòVickers€v.€Vickersóó,€24Ð è 8  ÐB.R.€112€(M.D.€Tenn.€1982).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€Court€has€adopted€the€òòCalhounóó€analysis€as€persuasive€reasoning€to€determineÐ ¬ü  Ðwhether€awards€are€property€settlements€or€alimony.€€òòSee€Emison€v.€Emisonóó,€1999€Tenn.€App.€LexisÐ ˜è  Ð865,€No.€02A01„CH00230.€€òòCalhounóó€held€it€is€necessary€to€determine€whether€something€notÐ „Ô  Ðdenominated€as€support€in€a€divorce€decree€is€really€support.€€òòSee€Fitzgerald€v.€Fitzgeraldóó,€9€F.3dÐ pÀ Ð517€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1993).€€Applying€the€òòCalhounóó€criteria,€in€this€case€it€is€clear€the€Trial€Judge€intendedÐ \¬ Ðto€insulate€the€debt€obligation€from€bankruptcy,€albeit€after€the€trial€and€after€counsel€raised€theÐ H˜ Ðmatter€by€post„trial€motion.€€The€original€Decree€had€declared€the€partiesðð€divorced,€divided€theÐ 4„ Ðassets,€assigned€the€debts€and€awarded€alimony.€€The€structure€of€the€original€decree€indicates€theÐ  p ÐCourt€had€divided€the€marital€debt€as€debt,€and€then€made€a€provision€for€alimony.€€While€the€firstÐ  \ Ðprong€of€the€òòCalhounóó€test€is€met,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€Order€to€pay€off€these€debts€had€theÐ øH Ðactual€effect€of€meeting€the€daily€needs€of€the€wife.€€The€only€evidence€in€the€record€is€the€wifeððsÐ ä4 Ðaccount€of€the€breakdown€on€the€consolidated€debt,€and€the€payment€of€these€debts€does€not€appearÐ Ð  Ðto€be€necessary€for€meeting€the€wifeððs€support€needs.€€It€does€not€follow€that€debts€incurred€for€anÐ ¼  Ðunsuccessful€business€that€have€not€benefitted€the€spouse€are€necessary€for€the€spouseððs€supportÐ ¨ø Ðneeds.€€In€general,€debt€obligations€such€as€mortgages,€insurance€premiums,€car€notes€and€medicalÐ ”ä Ðbills€are€viewed€as€more€directly€associated€with€daily€support€needs.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€third€test€under€òòCalhounóó€requires€that€the€award€must€not€be€excessive€under€theÐ X ¨ Ðtraditional€concept€of€support.€€Here€the€marriage€was€of€very€short€duration€and€the€wife€receivedÐ D!” Ðcash€assets€of€at€least€$6,600.00€and€an€alimony€award€of€$1,200.00€plus€the€marital€residence.€€IfÐ 0"€  Ðthe€marital€debt€allocated€to€the€husband€is€deemed€alimony,€it€represents€an€award€of€more€than€oneÐ #l! Ðyear€of€the€husbandððs€salary.€€However,€it€is€inappropriate€to€award€alimony€out€of€the€expectationÐ $X" Ðof€his€earnings,€as€the€award€must€be€based€upon€the€present€marital€estate.€€òòAleshire€v.€Aleshireóó,€642Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€729,€723€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€basis€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðrecord€to€uphold€the€Trial€Courtððs€designation€of€the€allocation€of€debt€as€alimony.€€Accordingly,€weÐ Ì&"% Ðreverse€this€classification€of€the€debt€by€the€Trial€Court.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€cost€of€the€appeal€is€assessed€one„half€to€Jason€Matthew€Varner€and€one„half€toÐ )à$( ÐMary€West€Varner,€and€the€cause€remanded.Ð |*Ì%) Ѐ€Ð h+¸&* ЇÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð ˆØ Ðóó