Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tenn. 1995) (citing Storey v. Storey, 835 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Crouch v. Crouch, 385 S.W.2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964)); Clayton v. Clayton, No. E2000-01413-COA-R3-CV, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399, at *11-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2001); Anderton v. Anderton, 988 S.W.2d 675, 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). In addition, with respect to a trial court's property division, we are mindful that trial courts are given wide latitude in equitably dividing marital property and, therefore, this Court will ordinarily defer to the trial judge's decision unless such decision is inconsistent with the factors of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c) or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

As discussed below, Wife had a need for alimony even if expenses related to the children and grandchildren were not considered. Under these circumstances, the statutory presumption would be rebutted. Husband next argues that the trial court improperly assessed Wife's living expenses because it failed to exclude expenses designated for the support of the parties' children and grandchildren. While there is no formula for determining the amount of alimony, the court should consider the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-101(d)(1)(A)-(L).Clayton v. Clayton, No. E2000-1413-COA-R3-CV, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399, at *11 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 30, 2001); Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn. 1995).