# FILED
October 16, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk RANDALL DE AN STANCLI FF, ) ) Rutherford Chancery Plaintiff/Appellee, ) No. 96DR-1280 ) VS. ) ) Appeal No. PATRICIA SU SAN STANCL IFF, ) 01A01-9802-CH-00078 ) Defendant/Appellant. )

IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE RUTHERFORD CHANCERY AT MURFREESBORO, TE NNESSEE HONORABLE DON R. AS H, JUDGE
Roger Hudson, #7014 16 Public Square No

rth Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIF F/APPELLEE P. Edward Schell 136 Fourth Avenue

South Franklin, Tennessee 37064 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDL E SECTION

CONCUR: BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR IN THE RE

SULTS: WILLIA M C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE-2-

RANDALL DE AN STANCLI FF, ) ) Rutherford Chancery Plaintiff/Appellee, ) No. 96DR-1280 ) VS. ) ) Appeal No. PATRICIA SU SAN STANCL IFF, ) 01A01-9802-CH-00078 ) Defendant/Appellant. )



## O P I N I O N

In this divorce case, the defendant -wife has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court presenting

the following issu

es: I. W hether

the Chancery

Court erred in fin

din g tha t Appellant was not entitled to an award o f rehabilitative ali mon y. II. Whether

the Chancery Court erred i n find ing that Ap pellant was entitled to the

sum of Three Thous

a nd Si x Hundred $3,600.00) Dollars as alimony in solido. The plaintiff-hu

sband presents a

n additional issue c

laiming attorney

’s fee on appea

l.

In contrast to the br

evity of the

issues, the facts, proceedings and disposition by the Trial Court are rather lengthy and complicated.

The complaint, filed by the husband on October 10, 1996, alleged inappropriate marital conduct and sought an absolute divorce pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-4-103.

The answer of the

wife denied the r

elevant allega

tions of the compla

int.

On July 17, 1997 , the wife fi led a counte r-complain t alleging i na ppropriate marital conduct seeking an absolute divorce, support and division of marital estate.

The answer of the

husband was a den

ial of misconduct.-3- The judgmen t of the Tri al Court co ntains the following:

1. The Court finds each party has grounds for divorce and therefore does hereby gra nt a divorc e to the parties and ORDERS the parties are divorced pursuan t t o T.C.A. § 36-4-129. 2. As concerns the division of maritalp rop ert y, the Joint Stipulation of

the parties is ado

pted by the Co

urt.
- - - - 5. The Courthereby finds and ORDERS that the real property of

the parties, which property is described in the deeds attached hereby as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B,” including all improvements thereon is found to have a value of $116,500.00. The to

tal mortgage d

ebt e ncumber ing said property is $14,180.20, such

that there remai

ns equity in sa

id property of $102,319.80. The Wife shall havethi rty ( 30) days from October 14, 1997 t

o pay to the H

usband, in certif

i ed funds, the sum of $51,159.90 for his 1⁄2 interest in

the equity of said property. If the Wife pa ys this money to the Husband, said property shall be quit-claimed by the Husband to the Wife to be hers absolute. If within said thirty (30) day period, the Wife does not make the payment as referenced above, the property shall immediately be placed for sale at auction to the highest bidder with Bob Parks Real ty & Auc tion and the property shallbe sold no less than 75 days from October 14, 1997. Th e parties shall ow n the property

as tenants in common pending the equity buy-out of the Wife or the sale of the property as referenced herein. The Wife shall b e resp onsible for the mortgage debt andall other debts associated with the real property until the sameis sold. If

the property is sold at auction, then from the equity proceeds of the property shall be subtracted

the realtors commissi on , expenses of the auction and the mortgage debt to SunTrust to r e ach the net equity after sale. Eac

h party rece ive 1⁄2 ofthe net equ ity.

- - - - 7. The Wi fe is awarded the IRA account in the name of the Husband valued at $7,219.49 and shall be responsible

for any tax consequences that flow with the ownership of this I

RA in any for

m.
- - - - 8. The Court finds and hereby ORD

ERS after full considerationof

the issue of alimony, including the factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-5-101(d), this is notan appropriate c ase for rehabilitati

ve a limony or long term alimony. The Court does, however, find tha

t it is a proper cas

e for alimony

in solido and does hereby

award alimony

in solido in

the amount of $3,600.00 to the Wife. This amount shall be paid to the Wife at the tim

e sh e purchases the equity interest of the Husband by subtracting $3,600.00 from his 1⁄2 portion of the equ ity, or should the property be auctioned, then the $3,600.00 alimony in solido awarded shall be paid to the Wife at that time.-4- 10. The Wife’s request for assistanceconcerning her health insurance has been considered by the c ourt and includedwithin the alimony award and therefore t

his request is denied. 11. Eachparty shall

pay their own attorney’s fees and their own discretionary costs incurred in this manner. 12. The court costs of this cause shal l be equally paid by the parti

es for wh ich execution may issue if nece ssa ry.

First Issue : Rehabilitive Alimony The parties were married March 23, 1986, at whichtime the husband wa s 44 years o

ld andthe wife was 39. They separated in September, 1996. The wife suffered

from some health problems, but was working at the time of the separation. She was earning $7.20 per hour at the timeof the trial. At the same time, the husband earned $9.31 per hour. During the marriage the parties accumulated a c

onsiderable mar

ital estate which

was divided equal

l y. Th e portion alloted to the wife is substa

ntial.

The factual det erminatio ns of a trial judge sitting without a jury are reviewed on appeal de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. TRAP Rule 13(d).

Trial Courts have great latitude of discretion as to t he aw ard o f al imo ny. Lancaster v. Lancaster , Tenn. App. 1984, 671 S.W.2d 501. The award of alimony depends upon the unique facts of each case.

T.C.A. § 36-5-101(d) provides that a court may (not must) award rehabilitative alimony to a disadvantaged spouse.
Appellant argue s that she is economically disadvantaged because the husband make s $2.11 more per hour than she makes. The statute does not require that spouses sha re equ ally-5-

their joint incomes after they

are divorced. Moreover, the amount realized from the division of marit al estate

is of considerable weight in determining the allowance of support to a disadvantaged spouse.

The wife insists that

her earning ability is impaired, but she admits that she is working and offers no med

ical evidence of

her present or pr

obable future imp

airment.

The Tri al C our t di d no t co mmi t re vers ibl e err or i n de nyin g reh abi lit ati ve al imo ny.

Second Issue : Alimony in solido The wife insists

that the $3,600.00 awa

rd of alimony

in solido is inadequa

te and requests this Court to increase it to $36,000. This would be in addition to the husband’s IRA acount of $7,219.49 which was awarded to the wife.

This Court finds no error in the cash awards to the wife and affirms same.

Husband’s Is sue: Attorney’s fees on appeal This Court does n

o t find the wife’s appeal to be frivolous, or any other ground for
awar din g fee s on app eal to e ith er pa rty.

The parties should be grateful that they emerged from their marriage in suc h favorable financial condition.-6- The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed equally. That is, each party shall pay one -half of same. The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for necessary further procee

dings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

_________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRES ID ING JU

DGE, MIDDLE SECT IO N

CONCUR:

____________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR IN THE RE

SULTS: WILLIA M C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE