In other cases where an alimony recipient had an unemployed adult son living with him or her, we did not disturb the trial court's determination that the recipient was not precluded from receiving alimony because of the son's residence in the home. See Naylor v. Naylor, No. W2016-00038-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3923790, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2016) (affirming trial court's consideration of wife's need for alimony in futuro despite fact that adult son lived with her and failed to contribute financially to household); Ezekiel v. Ezekiel, No. W2014-02332-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 4916930, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2015) (declining to find trial court abused its discretion in considering wife's need for alimony despite fact that adult son lived with her and did not contribute to household expenses); see also Yuhasz v. Yuhasz, No. M2017-00880-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 2374107, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018) (declining to adjust wife's award of alimony based on adult children's living with wife where evidence showed wife's expenses were no higher due to children's residence in house). The record does not reveal how long Wife's son had been living with her or whether he would continue to live with her in the future.