Hoffman v. Hoffman

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S O F T E N N E S S E E A T K N O X V I L L E FILED April 29, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk F O R T U N E E H O F F M A N ) H A M I L T O N C O U N T Y ) 0 3 A 0 1 - 9 7 0 6 - C V - 0 0 2 2 0 P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t ) ) ) v . ) H O N . W I L L I A M L . B R O W N , ) J U D G E ) B A R R Y L Y N N H O F F M A N ) ) A F F I R M E D I N P A R T ; R E V E R S E D D e f e n d a n t - A p p e l l e e ) I N P A R T a n d R E M A N D E D D A V I D E . C A Y W O O D a n d D A R R E L L D . B L A N T O N O F M E M P H I S F O R A P P E L L A N T W I L L I A M H . H O R T O N O F C H A T T A N O O G A F O R A P P E L L E E O P I N I O N G o d d a r d , P . J . Fortunee Hoffman and Barry Lynn Hoffman both appeal a divorce judgment rendered by the Hamilton County Circuit Court. The parties raise various issues, hereinafter restated, one of which--relative to alimony--is raised by both parties: M s . H o f f m a n ' s I s s u e s 1 . W h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r e d i n q u a s h i n g a s u b p o e n a d u c e s t e c u m r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o M r . H o f f m a n ’ s o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n J o s e p h D e C o s i m o & C o . , L L P . 2 . W h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s v a l u a t i o n a n d d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ( M r . H o f f m a n ’ s p a r t n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t , t h e A r t i c l e I X i n t e r e s t o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t , a n d t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ) . 3 . W h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r e d i n t h e a m o u n t o f c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r e d t o b e p a i d b y M r . H o f f m a n t o M s . H o f f m a n . 4 . W h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s a l l o c a t i o n o f t h e d e b t s t o t h e p a r t i e s . M r . H o f f m a n ' s I s s u e 1 . W h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g M s . H o f f m a n a p o r t i o n o f M r . H o f f m a n ’ s f u t u r e c o n t i n g e n t i n t e r e s t u n d e r h i s p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t w i t h J o s e p h D e C o s i m o & C o . , L L P , a n d i f a n a w a r d o f t h e f u t u r e i n t e r e s t w a s a p p r o p r i a t e , w h e t h e r t h a t a w a r d s h o u l d b e a n a f t e r - t a x a w a r d ? A l i m o n y I s s u e r a i s e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s M s . H o f f m a n i n s i s t s t h e a l i m o n y a w a r d e d i s i n a d e q u a t e a n d M r . H o f f m a n c l a i m s t h a t i t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n r e h a b i l i t a t i v e r a t h e r t h a n p e r i o d i c . T h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d o n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 1 9 7 3 . F i v e c h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n a s a r e s u l t o f t h e m a r r i a g e . A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l ( D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 ) , J a s o n H o f f m a n , a g e 2 1 , w a s i n h i s l a s t y e a r a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i a m i . B r i a n H o f f m a n , a g e 1 9 , w a s a f r e s h m a n a t I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y . R i c h i e H o f f m a n , a g e 1 8 , w a s a 2 j u n i o r a t N o t r e D a m e H i g h S c h o o l , a n d w i l l g r a d u a t e i n M a y 1 9 9 8 . D a v i d H o f f m a n , a g e 1 5 , w a s a s t u d e n t a t t h e M c C a l l i e S c h o o l . M i c h a e l H o f f m a n , a g e 6 , w a s i n k i n d e r g a r t e n a t S t . J u d e . M s . H o f f m a n w a s b o r n i n M o r o c c o a n d c a m e t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w h e n s h e w a s 2 0 y e a r s o l d . S h e a t t e n d e d J o h n s o n C o u n t y C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e b u t n e v e r r e c e i v e d a d e g r e e . S h e c a n s p e a k f i v e l a n g u a g e s . M s . H o f f m a n d i d n o t w o r k t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u r s e o f t h e m a r r i a g e , b u t s t a y e d a t h o m e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n a n d a c t e d a s t h e p r i m a r y c a r e g i v e r . S h e t o o k e a c h o f t h e b o y s t o s c h o o l , c o o k e d , c l e a n e d , a n d s h o p p e d f o r t h e f a m i l y . T h e H o f f m a n s a l s o h i r e d h e l p i n t h e h o m e t o a s s i s t M s . H o f f m a n w i t h s o m e o f t h e c o o k i n g a n d c l e a n i n g . M r . H o f f m a n i s a c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c a c c o u n t a n t a n d a s e n i o r t a x p a r t n e r i n t h e a c c o u n t i n g f i r m o f J o s e p h D e C o s i m o & C o . , L L P ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s “ D e C o s i m o ” ) . H e h a s c o n t i n u a l l y p r a c t i c e d w i t h t h e f i r m s i n c e 1 9 7 3 . A d d i t i o n a l l y , M r . H o f f m a n i s o n e o f t h r e e m e m b e r s o f t h e f i r m ’ s m a n a g e m e n t c o m m i t t e e . T h e p a r t i e s h a v e a c c u m u l a t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h r o u g h t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e . T h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d s o m e t i m e i n 1 9 9 5 . M s . H o f f m a n f i l e d f o r a b e d a n d b o a r d d i v o r c e o n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 9 5 . M r . H o f f m a n f i l e d a c o u n t e r - c o m p l a i n t f o r a n a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e . M s . H o f f m a n h i r e d G o r d o n T h o m p s o n , a c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c a c c o u n t a n t , t o a t t e m p t t o v a l u e M r . H o f f m a n ’ s i n t e r e s t i n D e C o s i m o . M s . H o f f m a n 3 s u b p o e n a e d m a n y d o c u m e n t s h e l d b y D e C o s i m o . D e C o s i m o f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a s h w h i c h t h e T r i a l C o u r t g r a n t e d i n p a r t . T h e T r i a l C o u r t q u a s h e d t h e p o r t i o n s o f t h e s u b p o e n a t h a t r e q u i r e d D e C o s i m o t o p r o d u c e i n t e r n a l f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t s , c l i e n t l i s t s , a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y r e p o r t s b y c l i e n t . D e C o s i m o w a s r e q u i r e d t o t u r n o v e r c o m p l e t e d o c u m e n t a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ’ s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f i r m s e t o u t i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g t h e v a l u a t i o n o f h i s c a p i t a l a c c o u n t , t h e b a l a n c e s h e e t p o r t i o n o f t h e f i r m ’ s t a x r e t u r n s , f r i n g e b e n e f i t s , t h e v a l u e o f h i s a c c r u a l a n d c a s h b a s i s c a p i t a l a c c o u n t , a n d t h e a m o u n t o f h i s b i - w e e k l y s a l a r y p a y m e n t s f o r 1 9 9 6 . O n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 , t h e T r i a l C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s a n a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e p u r s u a n t t o T . C . A . 3 6 - 4 - 1 2 9 d u e t o t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d u c t o f b o t h p a r t i e s . M s . H o f f m a n w a s g r a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e t h r e e m i n o r c h i l d r e n w i t h M r . H o f f m a n r e c e i v i n g v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . T h e C o u r t g r a n t e d c h i l d s u p p o r t o f $ 2 , 0 0 0 p e r m o n t h . H e a l s o g r a n t e d a l i m o n y o f $ 3 , 0 0 0 p e r m o n t h p a y a b l e u n t i l t h e e a r l i e r o f t h e r e m a r r i a g e o f M s . H o f f m a n , d e a t h o f e i t h e r p a r t y , o r f u r t h e r o r d e r b y t h e C o u r t . A s a d d i t i o n a l a l i m o n y , M r . H o f f m a n w a s o r d e r e d t o p a y m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s o n t h e p a r t i e s ’ h o u s e , u n t i l s o l d u p o n t h e i r s o n D a v i d ’ s g r a d u a t i o n f r o m h i g h s c h o o l , a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g l e a s e p a y m e n t s o n t h e 1 9 9 6 A c u r a u s e d b y M s . H o f f m a n . M r . H o f f m a n ’ s p a r t n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n D e C o s i m o w a s a l s o a t i s s u e i n t h e d i v o r c e . T h e T r i a l C o u r t h e l d t h a t M r . H o f f m a n ’ s 4 i n t e r e s t i n D e C o s i m o w a s b e s t v a l u e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t . M r . H o f f m a n p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t h i s a c c r u a l b a s i s e q u i t y w a s w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 3 5 9 , 5 0 0 . M s . H o f f m a n p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e o f t h e a c c r u a l b a s i s c a p i t a l a c c o u n t w a s w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 3 8 8 , 0 0 0 . T h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t M r . H o f f m a n ’ s a f t e r - t a x p r e s e n t v a l u e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e a c c r u a l b a s i s c a p i t a l a c c o u n t , a s s u p p o r t e d b y t e s t i m o n y f r o m t w o o f h i s p a r t n e r s , J o s e p h D e C o s i m o a n d J e r r y A d a m s , w a s t h e m o r e a c c u r a t e v a l u a t i o n . T h e a c c r u a l b a s i s c a p i t a l a c c o u n t c a l c u l a t i o n i n c l u d e s M r . H o f f m a n ’ s p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p ’ s c a s h , f i x e d a s s e t s , a c c o u n t s r e c e i v a b l e , a n d w o r k i n p r o g r e s s . M r . H o f f m a n w a s a w a r d e d h i s p a r t n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n D e C o s i m o , w h i c h w a s v a l u e d a t $ 3 5 9 , 5 0 0 . T o m o r e e q u i t a b l y d i s p o s e o f t h e a s s e t s a n d l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e C o u r t a w a r d e d M s . H o f f m a n a n a d d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n o f a l u m p s u m o f $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 . T h i s l u m p s u m i s t o b e p a i d i n a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 f o r a p e r i o d o f 1 0 y e a r s . M r . H o f f m a n m a y r e p a y t h i s s u m a t a n y t i m e . F u r t h e r , t h e $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l n o t e a r n i n t e r e s t u n l e s s M r . H o f f m a n i s m o r e t h a n 1 0 d a y s l a t e w i t h a p a y m e n t . A n o t h e r c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e i n t h e d i v o r c e w a s M r . H o f f m a n ’ s c o n t i n g e n t f u t u r e i n t e r e s t u n d e r A r t i c l e 9 o f t h e D e C o s i m o P a r t n e r s h i p A g r e e m e n t . M r . H o f f m a n w i l l r e c e i v e t h i s A r t i c l e 9 b e n e f i t u p o n h i s r e t i r e m e n t a f t e r a g e 6 2 , d e a t h , o r d i s a b i l i t y . T h e A r t i c l e 9 b e n e f i t i s v a l u e d a s a n a m o u n t e q u a l t o t w o t i m e s t h e g r e a t e r o f t h e t e r m i n a t i n g p a r t n e r ’ s a v e r a g e 5 a n n u a l i n c o m e f r o m t h e p a r t n e r s h i p ( s a l a r y a n d o t h e r ) f o r ( 1 ) t h e m o s t r e c e n t f i v e f u l l c a l e n d e r y e a r s i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o t h e t e r m i n a t i n g e v e n t , o r ( 2 ) f i v e f u l l c a l e n d e r y e a r s e n d i n g w i t h t h e y e a r i n w h i c h t h e t e r m i n a t i n g p a r t n e r a t t a i n s a g e 6 2 . T h i s a m o u n t i s p a i d o v e r a p e r i o d o f 1 0 y e a r s . T h e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t u n c e r t a i n t i e s e x i s t a s t o w h e t h e r t h e A r t i c l e 9 b e n e f i t w i l l b e r e c e i v e d a n d t h e v a l u e o f t h e b e n e f i t s . T h e r e f o r e , M s . H o f f m a n w a s a w a r d e d , u n d e r C o h e n v . C o h e n , 9 3 7 S . W . 2 d 8 2 3 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 6 ) , a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e g r o s s a m o u n t o f e a c h p a y m e n t w h e n a n d a s r e c e i v e d b y M r . H o f f m a n u n d e r A r t i c l e 9 . T h e C o u r t d e v e l o p e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e m o n t h l y p a y m e n t t h a t M s . H o f f m a n w i l l r e c e i v e : o n e - h a l f o f 1 2 o v e r 1 2 p l u s N [ 0 . 5 * ( 1 2 / ( 1 2 + N ) ) ] , w h e r e N i s e q u a l t o t h e n u m b e r o f y e a r s f r o m t h e d a t e o f d i v o r c e u n t i l t h e y e a r t h e f i r s t p a y m e n t i s p a y a b l e u n d e r A r t i c l e 9 , a n d 1 2 b e i n g t h e n u m b e r o f y e a r s 1 d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e t h a t t h e b e n e f i t a c c r u e d . M s . H o f f m a n m u s t p a y a l l t a x o b l i g a t i o n s o n h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e A r t i c l e 9 b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d . T h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s a n d l i a b i l i t i e s w e r e d i v i d e d b y t h e T r i a l C o u r t . A c o p y o f t h e T r i a l C o u r t ’ s d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y s c h e d u l e i s a t t a c h e d a s A p p e n d i x A t o t h i s o p i n i o n . T h e T r i a l C o u r t f o u n d t h a t M s . H o f f m a n r e c e i v e d 1 F o r e x a m p l ,e a s s u m e t h a t M r . H o f f m a n r e t i r e s a t t h e a g e o f 7 0 . F u r t h e r , a s s u m e t h a t t eh m o n t h l y A r t i c l e 9 b e n e f i t r e c e i v e d b y M r . H o f f m a n i s $ 5 , 0 0 0 . T h e N t e r m w o u l d b e e q u a l t o 1 7 s i n c e M r . H o f f m a n w a s 5 3 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f d i v o r c e a n d w o r k e d f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l 1 7 y e a r s a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e . A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o r m u l a w o u l d y i e l d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t : $ 5 , 0 0 0 * 0 . 5 * ( 1 2 / ( 1 2 + 1 7 ) ) = $ 5 , 0 0 0 * 0 . 5 * 0 . 4 1 4 = $ 1 , 0 3 4 . 4 8 . T h e r e f o r e , M s . H o f f m a n w o u l d r e c e i v e $ 1 , 0 3 4 . 4 8 p e r m o n t h w h i l e M r . H o f f m a n w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e m o n t h l y A r t i c l e 9 b e n e f i t . 6 a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 m o r e t h a n a n e q u i t a b l e s p l i t o f t h e a s s e t s a n d d e b t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . H o w e v e r , t h e a w a r d w a s j u s t i f i e d s i n c e M r . H o f f m a n ’ s e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y i s m u c h g r e a t e r t h a n M s . H o f f m a n ’ s . O u r r e v i e w o f c a s e s t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y i s d e n o v o u p o n t h e r e c o r d w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a s m a n d a t e d b y R u l e 1 3 ( d ) o f t h e T e n n e s s e e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . T h i s R u l e r e q u i r e s u s t o u p h o l d t h e f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a i n s t t h e m . C a m p a n a l i v . C a m p a n a l i , 6 9 5 S . W . 2 d 1 9 3 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . A l s o , t r i a l c o u r t s h a v e w i d e d i s c r e t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l e s t a t e . W a l l a c e v . W a l l a c e , 7 3 3 S . W . 2 d 1 0 2 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o g r e a t w e i g h t o n a p p e a l a n d i s p r e s u m e d p r o p e r u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e p r o v e s o t h e r w i s e . B a t s o n v . B a t s o n , 7 6 9 S . W . 2 d 8 4 9 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; L a n c a s t e r v . L a n c a s t e r , 6 7 1 S . W . 2 d 5 0 1 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) . I t i s w i t h t h e s e s t a n d a r d s i n m i n d t h a t w e u n d e r t a k e o u r r e v i e w o f t h e T r i a l C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n . M s . H o f f m a n ’ s f i r s t i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r e d i n q u a s h i n g a s u b p o e n a d u c e s t e c u m r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o M r . H o f f m a n ’ s o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n J o s e p h D e C o s i m o & C o . , L L P . T h e d e c i s i o n t o q u a s h a s u b p o e n a d u c e s t e c u m r e s t s i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . O g r o d o w c z y k v . T e n n e s s e e B d . f o r L i c e n s i n g H e a l t h C a r e F a c i l i t i e s , 8 8 6 S . W . 2 d 2 4 6 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ; B r o w n v . B r o w n , 8 6 3 7 S . W . 2 d 4 3 2 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) . A s u b p o e n a d u c e s t e c u m m a y b e d e n i e d i f t h e s u b p o e n a w o u l d i m p o s e a n u n d u e b u r d e n a n d s u b s t a n t i a l e x p e n s e , i f m o s t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s s o u g h t c o u l d b e o b t a i n e d e l s e w h e r e , o r i f t h e m a t e r i a l s s o u g h t a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o j u s t i f y t h e b u r d e n a n d e x p e n s e . O g r o d o w c z y k , s u p r a ; B r o w n , s u p r a . B e f o r e d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t p r o p e r l y q u a s h e d t h e s u b p o e n a d u c e s t e c u m , w e m u s t f i r s t p a s s u p o n t h e u n d e r l y i n g q u e s t i o n , w h e t h e r t h e C o u r t u t i l i z e d t h e p r o p e r v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s f o r M r . H o f f m a n ’ s p a r t n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n D e C o s i m o . The Trial Court valued the partnership interest according to the method set out in the Partnership Agreement, which excluded any goodwill factor. Courts may utilize several different methods to value partnership interests. Hazard v. Hazard, 833 S.W.2d 911 (Tenn.App.1991); Smith v. Smith, 709 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.App.1985). We find that the Trial Court’s valuation as established in the Partnership Agreement is consistent with Hazard and Smith. Although other valuation variations may be utilized, the Trial Court acted within its discretion in applying the Partnership Agreement valuation method. The portions of the subpoena duces tecum which were quashed sought internal financial statements, client lists, and productivity reports by client. These materials were unnecessary for calculation of the partnership interest under the Partnership Agreement. We note that the requested materials are confidential and sensitive materials used for internal business purposes. 8 Courts should force a company to disclose this information only when absolutely necessary. DeCosimo disclosed all documents required to value Mr. Hoffman’s partnership interest under the Partnership Agreement. Since the materials in the quashed portion of the subpoena sought by Ms. Hoffman were unnecessary for use in the valuation technique approved by the Court, Ms. Hoffman has shown insufficient grounds for disturbing the Trial Court’s discretionary decision. Ms. Hoffman’s second issue on appeal is whether the Trial Court erred in its valuation and division of the marital property. This issue specifically calls into question the valuation and division of Mr. Hoffman’s partnership interest, the Article IX interest of the Partnership Agreement, and the marital residence. We first discuss the valuation and division of Mr. Hoffman’s partnership interest. As discussed above, we find that the Trial Court properly valued Mr. Hoffman’s partnership interest by using the method set out in the DeCosimo Partnership Agreement. The Trial Court divided the partnership interest by awarding the partnership interest to Mr. Hoffman and awarding Ms. Hoffman $150,000 cash, payable in 10 annual payments of $15,000 without interest. The Trial Court found that this division awarded Ms. Hoffman more than an equitable division of the marital property but stated that it was fair due to the difference in the earning capacities of the parties. T.C.A. 36- 4-121(a) provides that marital property must be equitably divided without regard to fault. An equitable division is not necessarily an equal one. In light of the overall division of 9 the marital property, we find that this division of the partnership interest is equitable and should stand. However, Ms. Hoffman raises the additional issue of whether interest should be awarded on the $150,000 award. T.C.A. 47-14-121 mandates that: Interest on judgments, including decrees, shall be computed at the effective rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, except as may be otherwise provided or permitted by statute; provided, that where a judgment is based on a note, contract, or other writing fixing a rate of interest within the limits provided in § 47-14-103 for that particular category of transaction, the judgment shall bear interest at the rate so fixed. We read this Code Section to mean that if a court does not otherwise provide and a statutory provision does not otherwise permit, interest shall be awarded according to T.C.A. 47-14-121. See Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn.App.1994); Inman v. Inman, 840 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn.App.1992). In Brown, this Court awarded an additional cash award payable over time without interest. The Inman Court ruled that interest should be awarded on a cash award payable over time while the trial court had been silent on the issue. T h u s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t i n d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s c a s e s , a c o u r t m a k i n g a c a s h a w a r d o v e r t i m e - - w h e t h e r t h i s C o u r t o r t h e T r i a l C o u r t - - i s c l o t h e d w i t h t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d o r d e n y i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n . In this case, the Trial Court ruled that no interest would be paid on the $150,000 cash award payable over 10 years. The Trial Court acted well within its discretion in awarding no interest since Ms. Hoffman received $50,000 more than Mr. Hoffman 1 0 after the division of the parties’ assets and liabilities. By not awarding interest, the Trial Court attempted to more equitably divide the parties’ assets and liabilities. Therefore, we uphold the Trial Court’s decision in awarding no interest on the cash award. Next, we consider the valuation and division of the Article IX interest in the Partnership Agreement. Mr. Hoffman raises the additional issue of whether, if a division of the future interest is proper, the award should be an after-tax award. The Article IX future interest is awarded upon Mr. Hoffman’s death, retirement, or disability while a partner of DeCosimo. This future interest acts as a retirement benefits plan. Mr. Hoffman will not receive these future interest benefits if he retires before the age of 62, he is expelled from the firm, or the firm is dissolved. Although the likelihood that Mr. Hoffman will receive these benefits is good, the future interest is still speculative since events can occur which will bar the receipt of the future interest. As a result, the Trial Court devised a formula, set out above, to divide Mr. Hoffman’s Article IX future interest. Our Supreme Court has held that a deferred distribution method should be used to distribute unvested retirement benefits when the vesting is uncertain. Cohen v. Cohen, supra. The deferred distribution method allows the court to determine the formula for dividing the monthly benefit at the time of the decree while delaying the actual distribution until the future interest becomes payable. The division method suggested in Cohen is that the trial court should award a percentage of the marital 1 1 property interest. This percentage may be formulated by dividing the number of months of the marriage during which the benefits accrued by the total number of months that the benefits accumulated. The Cohen Court further instructed that the valuation method remains within the discretion of the trial court and that court’s decision should not be disturbed unless the division is not essentially fair in light of all circumstances of the case. Mr. Hoffman’s Article IX benefits are presently unvested since Mr. Hoffman will not receive these benefits upon the occurrence of certain events. The value of such benefits is also speculative since the monthly future interest payments are based upon an average of the previous five years earnings. Since these earnings are unknown until the time when the future interest vests, the Trial Court properly utilized the deferred distribution method set out in Cohen. We also find that the Trial Court’s formula is an equitable method of division and follows the suggestions of Cohen. Thus, we uphold the Trial Court’s division of the Article IX benefits. The Trial Court ordered Ms. Hoffman to pay taxes on her share of the monthly Article IX benefits she receives. Mr. Hoffman requests this Court to award an after-tax division. This would allow Mr. Hoffman to receive a tax deduction on the entire amount of the monthly benefit payment while Ms. Hoffman would receive theoretically the same amount but without the tax benefit. We find this request unfair to Ms. Hoffman and uphold the Trial Court’s order. Ms. Hoffman shall directly receive one- half of her percentage of the gross monthly benefit payment from 1 2 DeCosimo while Mr. Hoffman shall receive the remainder. The direct payment from DeCosimo to each party will prevent Mr. Hoffman from listing on his tax returns that he paid Ms. Hoffman one-half of the total monthly benefit payment. Each shall pay the appropriate tax on their share of the monthly benefit payment. Ms. Hoffman also appeals the valuation and division of the marital residence. The Trial Court actually averted valuation through the division of the residence. The Court ordered the home sold three years after the decree was issued. Ms. Hoffman would then receive 60 percent of the net equity. Mr. Hoffman must pay the mortgage payments until the house is sold. The marital residence of the parties is a large home and only one child will be living at home with Ms. Hoffman at the time the house is to be sold. In light of the Trial Court’s overall division of the marital property, we find this division of the martial residence equitable to both parties. The third issue on appeal is whether the Trial Court erred in the amount of child support ordered. At the time of trial, three of the parties’ children were minors. Ms. Hoffman received custody of the children and was awarded $2,000 per month as child support by decree of the Trial Court. The Court provided no support nor analysis in reaching a determination of the amount of child support. Nor did the Court apply the Child Support Guidelines to formulate the child support amount. Courts shall apply as a rebuttable presumption the Child Support Guidelines whenever making its determination 1 3 concerning the amount of child support. T.C.A. 36-5-101(e)(1). The court can rebut this presumption if it finds sufficient evidence and makes a written finding that applying the Guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. T.C.A. 36-5-101(e)(1). The Trial Court did not apply the Child Support Guidelines nor did it make a written finding on why the Guidelines should not be applied. Therefore, we must reverse the Trial Court’s decision on the amount of child support awarded. In determining the appropriate amount of child support, we begin with the Child Support Guidelines. Rule 1240-2-4-.04(3) states: The court must order child support based upon the appropriate percentage of all net income of the obligor as defined according to 1240-2-4-.03 of this rule but alternative payment arrangements may be made for the award from that portion of net income which exceeds $6,250. When the net income of the obligor exceeds $6,250 per month, the court may establish educational or other trust funds for the benefit of the child(ren) or make other provisions in the child(ren)’s best interest; however, all of the support award amount based on net income up through $6,250 must be paid to the custodial parent. The percentage of net income is 41 percent for three children and 32 percent for two children. Rule 1240-2-4-.03(5). Ms. Hoffman contends that Mr. Hoffman’s monthly net income is $15,226.35, while Mr. Hoffman estimates his monthly net income as $14,592. After reviewing the record, we note that the Trial Court made no findings of fact on the amount of Mr. Hoffman’s net monthly income. However, Mr. Hoffman definitely earns more than $6,250 of net income per month. Therefore, we hold that Mr. Hoffman must pay 41 percent of $6,250 per month to 1 4 Ms. Hoffman until their son Richie graduates in May 1998. Thus, Mr. Hoffman must pay Ms. Hoffman $2,562.50 per month. Mr. Hoffman must also pay the difference between the $2,562.50 per month ordered in this opinion and the $2,000 per month ordered by the Trial Court for all payments previously made. After Richie graduates in May 1998, Mr. Hoffman must pay Ms. Hoffman 32 percent of $6,250 per month, which equals $2,000 per month. In light of the division of the marital property and the alimony awarded, discussed below, we hold that this amount of alimony should allow the Hoffmans’ children to enjoy an equivalent lifestyle to that enjoyed before their parents’ divorce. In addition, Mr. Hoffman must continue to pay the private school educational expenses for all of the minor children. This award complies with the 1994 version of Rule 1240-2-4-.04(3) since the Court has discretion to award educational expenses in addition to the child support award when the net income exceeds $6,250 per month. Either party may petition the Court for an alteration of the child support award whenever warranted by changed circumstances. Ms. Hoffman argues that the child support should also be increased since Mr. Hoffman did not spend a substantial amount of time with his children before the divorce. Rule 1240-2-4- .04(1)(b) allows for such a modification only when the children are not staying with a parent for the full duration of that parent’s visitation rights. We have no facts on the issue of whether Mr. Hoffman is fully utilizing his visitation privileges. Ms. Hoffman must petition the Trial Court and put forth sufficient evidence before the award of child support will be 1 5 altered. Therefore, the child support award stands as previously stated in place of the Trial Court’s award. Ms. Hoffman’s fourth issue on appeal, as previously noted, is whether the Trial Court erred in the amount of alimony awarded to Ms. Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman also raises the issue of whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Ms. Hoffman periodic alimony as opposed to rehabilitative alimony. We begin our analysis by examining whether the Trial Court awarded the appropriate type of alimony. Periodic alimony is paid monthly until the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving alimony. Rehabilitative alimony should be awarded when the party receiving alimony could never be rehabilitated relative to the earnings of the party paying alimony. Whenever one of the parties is economically disadvantaged and rehabilitation is not feasible in consideration of all relevant factors, then the court should order payment of support until the death of either party or remarriage of the party receiving alimony. T.C.A. 36-5- 101(d)(1). The Hoffmans were married for over 23 years. Ms. Hoffman has no college degree and worked in the home for the duration of the marriage as a homemaker. She also has no vocational skills. Mr. Hoffman, on the other hand, is a senior tax partner in the DeCosimo accounting firm who earns in excess of $200,000 per year. Although Ms. Hoffman speaks five languages, she can never be rehabilitated and will remain economically disadvantaged in comparison to Mr. Hoffman. Therefore, we hold that the Trial Court properly awarded Ms. Hoffman periodic alimony. 1 6 The Trial Court awarded as alimony $3,000 per month in addition to $2,000 per month on the house note payment, Ms. Hoffman’s car lease payments, and health insurance for Ms. Hoffman for three years at $67.00 per month. This amounts to $5,467 per month alimony until the house is sold. The Trial Court found that Ms. Hoffman had excessive spending habits and could live comfortably on the amount of alimony awarded. Courts must look to all relevant factors, including those set out in T.C.A. 36-5-101(d)(1)(A-L) in determining the amount of alimony. After reviewing those factors, considering Ms. Hoffman’s excessive spending habits, the disparity in the parties’ incomes, and the division of the marital property and debts, we uphold the Trial Court’s award of alimony. The Trial Court acted well within its discretion and equitably awarded a sufficient amount of alimony to Ms. Hoffman. The final issue for consideration, as previously noted, is whether the Trial Court erred in its allocation of the debts to the parties. T.C.A. 36-5-121 requires the court to make an equitable division of assets and debts. After the marital assets have been equitably divided, the court has the discretion to order the payment of marital debt in a just and equitable manner considering the respective earning capacities of the parties. Hanover v. Hanover, 775 S.W.2d 612 (Tenn.App.1989). Although the parties disagree as to what debt should properly be considered as marital debt, it is apparent from the record that the Trial Court ordered Mr. Hoffman to pay the majority of the debt owed by the parties. Considering Mr. 1 7 Hoffman’s earning capacity is much greater than Ms. Hoffman’s, the division of the marital property, and the support payments Mr. Hoffman must pay, we conclude that the Trial Court acted well within its discretion and equitably divided the marital debt. Thus, we affirm the Trial Court’s division of the marital debt. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause remanded for such further orders, if any, as may be necessary and collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged one-half against Mr. Hoffman and one-half against Ms. Hoffman and her surety. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H o u s t o n M . G o d d a r d , P . J . C O N C U R : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C h a r l e s D . S u s a n o , J r . , J . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W i l l i a m H . I n m a n , S r . J . 1 8