ÿWPC÷ baøì}Mj/“¥¤p±€©›¬?§u:ÝuºØñæk^®žÑ!áÇ-Ƕ22?…>u?Œ[Õø ·m p¥"î¿1°Ø“2‚¢ýgîßÍÈG¢Ê`c¬í&¶JOp 1È "ñKøÆ (4WáœÎ·r*€ûb¢¯/^Ä`Ý“s{ Æ 6´øCî~ãáFUDeà÷üp¦¡E“'oí5Â’û‚I¾bõž®%BVè“—®»©GÑa…R5Óö½É¶ŽÎ¢D<]¥Â”áBQPbD#Xî×;’Çë‡åFôw˜ÞÁF^i ¤ž²U´æSzñk†¬[¨e7ÙLª¿MU}3CŒCS(Æ=½žzU*þ”4°'&(.\&éRL7_W˸ „gÕ •µMÀùq%…æ°'ú±ŽãõîÝaͨ•Й]u0µ®&ìmq*Q“RÍI_– ï€1´Ý{q}·POÍð¥AxÁnЖŸØÃÒ84lxÓéÿÏ™‡f ƒŠËœ•ñð4¸¿oìµOÿf=±]Êú–ÿ9#[éÐ*mæÖ.¯ž!¯džÃþ Ö½‡”òlyÄt&' |Ñ Ήic¡.á(¼tXýÝ»XNyy@Rb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ >‘ ÆÏÆ•Æ[Æ! 0DçN+µ-âEêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêbìììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììì 0ëôôôô Bßß 0¤ü D3  D-Ó 0K ASKÆž 0¤d 0D A«L»zk +s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-C +°¡3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 4Ý ƒR)ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€There€is€no€transcript€of€the€proceedings€below€included€in€the€record.€€At€trial,€Husband€declined€to€shareÐ ° Ðin€the€òòper€diemóó€costs€for€a€court€reporter,€and€Wife€paid€for€a€court€reporter.€€On€appeal,€Husband€hired€new€counsel,Ð tÄ Ðwho€requested€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript.€€Wife€refused,€since€Husband€elected€not€to€share€in€theòò€óócourt€reporter€costs.€Ð 8ˆ ÐThe€trial€court€denied€Husbandððs€motion€to€let€him€pay€half€of€the€court€reporter€òòóócosts€and€thus€obtain€the€trial€transcript.€Ð üL ÐSubsequently,€Husband€filed€a€statement€of€the€evidence€pursuant€to€Rule€24(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÐ À ÐProcedure,€to€which€Wife€did€not€object.€€Consequently,€we€accept€Husbandððs€statement€of€the€evidence€as€a€ð ðfair,Ð „Ô Ðaccurate€and€complete€accountðð€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c).€€On€appeal,€WifeÐ H ˜ Ðattached€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript€to€her€brief.€€However,€it€is€not€part€of€the€record€and€will€not€be€considered€onÐ  ^ Ðappeal.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(c).€€€€€€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$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó «Ý ƒR)ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Wifeððs€complaint€for€divorce€asserted€that€she€had€only€completed€the€tenth€grade.€€The€statement€of€evidenceÐ ° Ðprepared€by€Husbandððs€lawyer€on€appeal,€who€did€not€represent€Husband€at€trial,€states€that€Wife€testified€that€she€wasÐ tÄ Ða€high€school€graduate.€ - ù-(|G2)ð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµ ò»»Ô d(|3ÁF$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÁF$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€Q™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îôuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼u»îîô #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓDecember€5,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XQ™X»¼uÔÌò òÔ#†¼u»XXQ™õ#ÔRHONDA€LYN€VAUGHANòòóó€v.€JOSEPH€CLYDE€VAUGHANòòóóÔ‡XQ™X»¼uÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„25665€€€€€€Jeffrey€S.€Ô_ÔBivinsÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00623„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€Ô_ÔAugustÔ_Ô€13,€2001Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case€in€which€alimony€is€in€dispute.€€The€trial€court€awarded€alimony€òòinÐ xÈ  Ðfuturoóó€to€the€wife€in€the€amount€of€$750€per€month€until€her€death€or€remarriage,€and€ordered€theÐ d´ Ðhusband€to€purchase€a€$100,000€life€insurance€policy€for€the€benefit€of€the€wife.€€The€trial€court€alsoÐ P  Ðordered€the€husband€to€pay€$1,500€of€the€wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€husband€appeals,€arguing€thatÐ <Œ Ðalimony€òòin€futuroóó€was€inappropriate€because€the€wife€is€self„sufficient€with€her€income€as€a€nanny.€Ð (x ÐIn€the€alternative,€the€husband€argues€that€rehabilitative€alimony€is€more€appropriate.€€We€affirm€theÐ d Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.€Ð P ÐÓØÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼u»àXQ™q#ÔÔ‡XQ™X.¼uÔHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.,óó€andÐ ° ÐòòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌJudy€A.€Oxford,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joseph€Clyde€Vaughan.Ð tÄ ÐÌVincent€Zuccaro,€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Rhonda€Lyn€Vaughan.Ð L œ ÐÓÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼u»XXQ™¾#ÔÔ‡XQ™X»¼uÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼u»XXQ™– #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XQ™X»¼uÔÓ Óà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case€in€which€alimony€is€in€dispute.€€In€this€case,€Rhonda€Lyn€VaughanÐ ü#L# Ð(ð ðWifeðð)€filed€for€divorce€from€Joseph€Clyde€Vaughan€(ð ðHusbandðð)€in€August€1998€after€a€twenty„Ð è$8 $ Ðone€year€marriage.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Wife€was€forty„two€years€of€age,€and€Husband€wasÐ Ô%$!% Ðforty„one.€€Two€children€were€born€of€the€marriage,€both€of€whom€had€reached€the€age€of€majorityÐ À&"& Ðby€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€In€her€complaint,€Wife€alleged€that€Husband€was€guilty€of€inappropriateÐ ¬'ü"' Ðmarital€conduct€and€abandonment.Ð ˜(è#( Ðà  àWife€filed€a€motion€for€òòpendente€liteóó€support.€€In€support€of€her€motion,€she€filed€an€affidavitÐ p*À%* Ðlisting€her€income€and€expenses.€€Her€monthly€net€income€totaled€$1,574.89,€while€her€monthlyÐ \+¬&+ Ðexpenses€totaled€$2,371,€leaving€a€monthly€shortfall€of€$796.11.€€The€trial€court€ordered€HusbandÐ H,˜', Ðto€pay€Wife€$500€per€month€until€trialòòóó.€€Subsequently,€Wife€filed€a€petition€for€contempt€againstÐ 4-„(-ý ÐHusband,€alleging€that€he€had€failed€to€pay€support€for€two€consecutive€monthsòòóó.€€A€one„day€benchÐ ° Ðhearing€was€held€on€January€21,€2000.€€Husband€did€not€appear,€but€was€represented€at€the€hearingÐ œì Ðby€counsel.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Husband€had€failed€to€pay€òòpendente€lite€óósupport€and€orderedÐ ˆØ Ðhim€to€pay€the€arrearage.€€In€addition,€without€objection€from€Husbandððs€counsel,€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðgranted€Wife€a€divorce€by€default€on€the€grounds€of€Husbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€TheÐ `° Ðtrial€court€then€proceeded€with€a€trial€on€the€issues€of€property€division€and€alimony.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð L œ Ðà  àThe€statement€of€the€evidence€at€trial€includes€the€following€facts.€€Wife€is€a€high€schoolÐ $ t Ðgraduate׃x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€has€worked€as€a€nanny€for€the€past€several€years,€earning€an€annual€income€in€theÐ  ` Ðlower€$20,000€range.€€Wife€is€satisfied€with€her€vocation€and€has€not€pursued€other€avenues€ofÐ ü L  Ðemployment€or€career€advancement.€€The€statement€of€evidence€does€not€indicate€whether€Wife€hasÐ è 8  Ðany€special€skills€that€would€allow€her€to€earn€more€income.€€Wifeððs€counsel€offered€exhibitsÐ Ô$  Ðshowing€that€Husband€worked€as€a€restaurant€manager,€earning€from€$45,000€to€$55,000€annually,Ð À  Ðincluding€bonuses€and€stock€options.€€In€a€deposition€prior€to€trial,€Husband€stated€that€he€had€onlyÐ ¬ü  Ða€high€school€diploma,€but€at€trial,€Wife€introduced€into€evidence€Husbandððs€resume,€in€which€heÐ ˜è  Ðclaimed€to€have€a€Bachelor€of€Science€degree€in€Hotel€and€Restaurant€Management€from€theÐ „Ô  ÐUniversity€of€Missouri.€€At€trial,€Husbandððs€counsel€introduced€evidence€that€Husband€had€beenÐ pÀ Ðrecently€terminated€from€his€job€as€a€restaurant€manager.€€Husbandððs€employment€was€apparentlyÐ \¬ Ðterminated€because€he€turned€in€falsified€numbers€on€inventory€sheets€and€hired€his€girlfriend€andÐ H˜ Ðhis€roommate€to€clean€the€restaurant,€charging€$1,600€per€month€for€their€services,€without€theÐ 4„ Ðpermission€of€his€supervisor.Ð  p Ðà  àOn€February€16,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€dividing€the€marital€estate€andÐ øH Ðawarding€Wife€alimony.€€The€order€states€that,€considering€Wifeððs€age,€and€her€lack€of€education€orÐ ä4 Ðspecial€skills,€as€well€as€the€length€of€the€marriage,€the€trial€judge€believed€that€Wife€ð ðcannot€easilyÐ Ð  Ðbe€rehabilitated.ðð€€Husband€had€management€experience€and€training€and,€consequently,€moreÐ ¼  Ðearning€power.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€Wife€$750€per€month€in€alimony€òòin€futuroóóÐ ¨ø Ðuntil€Wifeððs€death€or€remarriage.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€Husband€to€purchase€and€maintain€aÐ ”ä Ð$100,000€life€insurance€policy€with€Wife€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔasÔ_Ô€the€beneficiary.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€ordered€HusbandÐ €Ð Ðto€pay€$1,500€toward€Wifeððs€attorney€fees.€€From€this€order,€Husband€now€appeals.Ð l¼ Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€whenÐ ° Ðthe€evidence€showed€that€Wife€was€satisfied€with€her€employment€at€the€time€of€trial€and€was€self„Ð œì Ðsufficient.€€If€alimony€of€any€type€is€warranted,€Husband€argues,€the€trial€court€should€have€awardedÐ ˆØ Ðrehabilitative€alimony,€because€although€Wife€cannot€ð ðeasilyðð€be€rehabilitated,€the€possibility€forÐ tÄ Ðrehabilitation€does€exist,€and€rehabilitative€alimony€is€preferable€to€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€Husband€alsoÐ `° Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiring€him€to€maintain€a€life€insurance€policy€to€ensure€thatÐ L œ ÐWife€would€receive€alimony.€€Lastly,€Husband€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€awardÐ 8 ˆ ÐWife€$1,500€in€attorneyððs€fees.Ð $ t Ðà  àAn€appeal€from€a€bench€trial€is€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€in€theÐ ü L  Ðfactual€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòdeÐ è 8  Ðnovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòSee€Ridings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.ó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€79,Ð Ô$  Ð80€(Tenn.€1996).Ð À  Ðà  àThe€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€deciding€whether€spousal€support€is€needed€and,€if€so,Ð ˜è  Ðits€nature,€amount,€and€duration.€€ò òòòSee€Fraysier€v.€Fraysieró óóó,€No.€E2000„02485„COA„R3„CV,€2001Ð „Ô  ÐWL€194351,€at€**3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€27,€2001)€(citing€ò òòòKinard€v.€Kinardó óóó,€986€S.W.2d€220,€234Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€ò òòòGarfinkel€v.€Garfinkeló óóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)).€Ð \¬ Ðð ðAppellate€courts€are€generally€disinclined€to€second„guess€a€trial€judgeððs€spousal€support€decisionÐ H˜ Ðunless€it€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence€or€is€contrary€to€the€public€policies€reflected€in€theÐ 4„ Ðapplicable€statutes.ðð€€ò òòòKinardó óóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€234.Ð  p Ðà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€states€that€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€limitedÐ øH Ðperiod€of€time€is€preferable€to€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€(Supp.Ð ä4 Ð2000).€€However,€section€36„5„101(d)(1)€also€provides:Ð Ð  Ðà8  àWhere€there€is€such€relative€economic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitation€is€not€feasibleÐ ¨ø Ðin€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€including€those€set€out€in€this€subsection,€thenÐ ”ä Ðthe€court€may€grant€an€order€for€payment€of€support€and€maintenance€on€a€long„termÐ €Ð Ðbasis€or€until€the€death€or€remarriage€of€the€recipient€except€as€otherwise€providedÐ l¼ Ðin€subdivision€(a)(3).ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðò òòòId.ó óóó€€Section€36„5„101(d)(1)€sets€forth€the€relevant€factors€for€determining€the€nature,€amount,€andÐ 0"€  Ðduration€of€spousal€support,€as€follows:Ð #l! Ðà8  à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financial€resources€of€eachÐ ô$D # Ðparty,€including€income€from€pension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€and€all€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðsources;ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€and€opportunity€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeach€party€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€and€the€necessity€of€a€party€toÐ )à$( Ðsecure€further€education€and€training€to€improve€such€partyððs€earning€capacity€to€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðreasonable€level;Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà8  à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;аРР Ðà8  à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€physicalÐ `° Ðdisability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitating€disease;ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seek€employmentÐ $ t Ðoutside€the€home€because€such€party€will€be€custodian€of€a€minor€child€of€theÐ  ` Ðmarriage;Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangible€and€intangible;ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€as€defined€in€ðð€36„4„Ð ¬ü  Ð121;Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€the€marriage;ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€and€intangibleÐ H˜ Ðcontributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€and€homemaker€contributions,€and€tangibleÐ 4„ Ðand€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€to€the€education,€training€or€increased€earningÐ  p Ðpower€of€the€other€party;Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€its€discretion,€deemsÐ ä4 Ðit€appropriate€to€do€so;€andÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,€as€are€necessaryÐ ¨ø Ðto€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.ДäÐ Ð  Ðò òòòId.óóó ó€€In€deciding€whether€to€award€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€or€rehabilitative€alimony,€the€trial€court€must€Ð l¼ Ðfirst€make€a€finding€as€to€whether€it€is€ð ðfeasibleðð€to€economically€rehabilitate€the€disadvantagedÐ X ¨ Ðspouse€through€rehabilitative€alimony.€€ò òòòSee€Dempsey€v.€Dempseyó óóó,€No.€M1998„00972„COA„R3„CV,Ð D!” Ð2000€WL€1006945,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€21,€2000).€€If€not,€then€an€award€of€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,Ð 0"€  Ðor€periodic€alimony,€is€justified.€€ò òòòSee€Crabtree€v.€Crabtreeó óóó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€360€(Tenn.€2000).Ð #l! Ðà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€alimony€òòin€futuroóóÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€the€disparity€in€his€income€and€Wifeððs€income€is€relatively€small,€and€his€ability€to€payÐ à%0!$ Ðalimony€to€Wife€is€limited€by€his€expenses.€€Further,€he€maintains€that€Wife€is€capable€being€self„Ð Ì&"% Ðsufficient€on€her€level€of€income,€and€that€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€therefore€inappropriate.€€In€theÐ ¸'#& Ðalternative,€Husband€argues€that€rehabilitative€alimony€for€a€limited€period€of€time€is€moreÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âappropriate€than€alimony€òòin€futuro.Ð )à$( Ðà  àóóThe€disparity€in€Husbandððs€and€Wifeððs€income€is€not€enormous,€but€it€is€significant.€€WifeÐ ° Ðâ âhas€an€earning€capacity€of€$20,000€to€$25,000,€while€Husband€has€earned€between€$45,000€andÐ œì Ð$55,000€during€the€last€few€years€of€the€marriage.€€Husbandððs€behavior€apparently€resulted€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðtermination€of€his€employment,€but€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€Husband€will€notÐ tÄ Ðbe€able€to€use€his€experience€and€training€to€obtain€another€job€earning€roughly€the€same€income.€Ð `° ÐGiving€due€deference€to€the€trial€courtððs€broad€discretion€in€determining€whether€spousal€support€isÐ L œ Ðneeded,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€Wife€is€entitled€to€alimony€in€some€form.€Ð 8 ˆ Ѐòòóóà  àWe€next€consider€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€awarded€rehabilitative€alimony,€asÐ  ` Ðopposed€to€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.€€As€noted€above,€in€determining€the€form€and€duration€of€alimony,€theÐ ü L  Ðtrial€court€should€first€make€a€finding€as€to€whether€the€economically€disadvantaged€spouse€can€beÐ è 8  Ðrehabilitated.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€considered€the€length€of€the€partiesðð€marriage,€as€wellÐ Ô$  Ðas€Wifeððs€ability€to€obtain€further€education€and€job€skills€to€increase€her€earning€capacity.€€The€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€also€considered€Husbandððs€potential€ð ðto€earn€significantly€more€in€future€income€and€benefits.ðð€Ð ¬ü  ÐConsidering€all€of€the€applicable€factors,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Wife€ð ðcannot€easily€beÐ ˜è  Ðrehabilitated.ðð€€While€the€language€used€by€the€trial€court€could€have€been€more€precise,€thisÐ „Ô  Ðstatement€amounts€to€a€finding€that€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible.€€The€evidence€does€notÐ pÀ Ðpreponderate€against€this€conclusion.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€Wife€alimonyÐ \¬ Ðòòin€futuroóó€of€$750€per€month€until€her€death€or€remarriage.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€to€requireÐ H˜ ÐHusband€to€purchase€and€maintain€a€life€insurance€policy€with€Wife€named€as€beneficiary€is€alsoÐ 4„ Ðaffirmed.Ð  p Ðà  àHusband€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€Husband€to€pay€Wife€$1,500€towardÐ øH Ðher€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€trial€court€has€discretion€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€in€divorce€cases,€and€suchÐ ä4 Ðawards€are€treated€as€alimony.€€ò òòòSee€Kincaid€v.€Kincaidó óóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Ð Ð  ÐWe€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€Wife€$1,500€for€her€attorneyððsÐ ¼  Ðfees.Ð ¨ø Ðà  àWife€has€requested€that€this€Court€award€her€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€in€defending€this€appeal.€Ð €Ð ÐThis€request€is€denied.Ð l¼ Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€JosephÐ D!” ÐClyde€Vaughan,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÌÓ ÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGE