ÿWPC³ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é B)'DCP AM“U*à B #'v~JvÓÈ D3› 0@Î AOÆ] 0D# D/g B–˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- tUuUvUwÂexyDzD{|Ó€†nnG  3|x†2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMarch€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€–6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑœPEGGY›€IRENE€œBREECE›,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHickman›€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€9411148ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9509„CH„00419ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|^y` ç `€€Lß›HOWARD€THOMAS€œBREECE›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€œHICKMAN›€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€œCENTERVILLE›,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€DONALD€P.€HARRIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌR.€E.€Lee€DaviesÌœHARTZOG›,€œSILVA›€&€DAVIESÌ123€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌP.O.€Box€664ÌFranklin,€Tennessee€37065„0664ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌLAW€OFFICES€OF€SAMUEL€H.€SMITHÌ400€West€Public€SquareÌœCenterville›,€Tennessee€37033ÌÌœWm›.€œLandis›€TurnerÌKEATON,€TURNER€&€œSPITZER›Ì102€North€Court€StreetÌP.O.€Box€789ÌœHohenwald›,€Tennessee€38462ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÇPEGGY€IRENE€œBREECE›,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHickman›€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€9411148ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9509„CH„00419ÌHOWARD€THOMAS€œBREECE›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌà@ àòòO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiff„wife€has€appealed€from€a€judgment€awarding€her€a€divorce,€but€making€anÏunsatisfactory€division€of€property€and€expenses.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€presents€two€issues€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€husband€$22,500Ïof€the€marital€estate€as€his€separate€property€when€said€propertyÏwas€conveyed€as€a€gift€to€both€parties.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€assessing€wife€$5,610€forÏattorneyððs€fees€already€paid€by€her;€$10,000€of€jewelry€whichÏshe€gave€to€the€partiesðð€daughter€one€year€prior€to€filing€forÏdivorce;€and€$3,700€for€a€detectiveððs€fee.ÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendant„husband€presents€three€additional€issues€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€requiring€Mr.€œBreece›€to€payÏMrs.€œBreece›ððs€attorneyððs€fee€in€the€amount€of€$8,730.00.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€4.€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€charging€Mr.€œBreece›€withÏ$5,844.00€in€proceeds€of€cattle€sold€in€1993.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€5.€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€undervaluing€the€jewelryÏdisposed€of€by€Mrs.€œBreece›.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€parties€were€married€42€years.€€Their€children€are€adults.€€Both€have€retired€afterÏmany€years€of€employment,€and€receive€both€Social€Security€and€retirement€benefits.€€TheirÏjoint€estate€includes€real€estate,€farm€equipment,€and€several€valuable€investments.ÌÌà àThe€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€awarded€to€the€husband€cash,€investments€andÏequipment€valued€at€$428,379€and€to€the€wife,€cash€investments€and€equipment€valued€atÏ$408,298.50.€€In€addition,€four€items€were€awarded€to€the€wife€listed€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à42.à àWifeððs€Jewelryà à€€€€€$€€10,000.00ÌÌà8 àà8 à43.à àDetective€fees€paid€by€wifeà à3,700.00ÌÌà8 àà8 à44.à àAttorneyððs€fees€paid€by€wifeà à5,610.00ÌÌà8 àà8 à45.à àJudgment€in€favor€of€wifeà à€€€òò730.50óóÌà àà8 àà8 àà àà àà à€€€€€€$€€15,040.50ÌÌÌÓÓà àIf€the€four€items€listed€above€were€properly€counted€as€part€of€the€wifeððs€share€of€theÏmarital€estate,€her€share€would€total€$423,608.50€which€is€comparable€to€the€$428,379Ïawarded€to€the€husband.ÌÌà àThe€real€estate€was€ordered€to€be€sold€and€the€proceeds€divided€equally€except€thatÏ$22,500€was€ordered€to€be€paid€to€the€husband€before€division€ð ðfor€his€parentsðð€interest€in€farmÏgifted€to€parties.ððÌÌà àIf€the€$22,500€ð ðgiftedðð€interest€in€the€realty€was€properly€considered€separate€propertyÏof€the€husband,€then€the€award€of€that€amount€to€him€out€of€the€proceeds€was€correct€andÏwould€not€affect€the€approximate€equality€of€division€of€other€property.ÌÌà àThe€wifeððs€pension€was€$20,936€per€year€(value€not€shown)€and€the€husbandððsÏpension€was€$29,245€per€year€(value€not€shown).ÌÌà àNo€complaint€is€made€as€to€the€disposition€of€pension€rights.ÌÌà àAs€indicated€in€her€first€issue€above,€the€wife€insists€that,€since€the€gift€of€part€of€theÏreal€estate€was€to€the€parties€jointly,€the€ð ðgifted€œportionðð›€of€the€real€estate€should€have€beenÏconsidered€part€of€the€marital€estate€and€divided€accordingly.ÌÌÌà àThe€annual€exclusion€from€federal€gift€tax€is€$10,000€per€donee.€€U.S.€Revenue€CodeÏðð2503(b).€€The€exclusion€of€a€gift€to€two€joint€œdonees›€would€require€a€bona€fide€intent€toÏconvey€an€equal€interest€to€each€donee.€€This€factor€is€a€strong€circumstance€indicating€equalÏownership€of€the€ð ðgiftedðð€interest€in€part€of€the€property.€€Moreover,€there€is€no€evidence€thatÏthe€gift€was€intended€to€take€effect€otherwise.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€Section€36„4„121€has€been€carefully€searched€without€discovering€anyÏexpression€therein€indicating€that€property€received€in€the€joint€names€of€spouses€from€aÏrelative€of€one€of€the€spouses€is€to€be€treated€differently€from€other€marital€property.ÌÌà àThis€Court€respectfully€disagrees€with€the€holding€of€the€Trial€Court€that€the€ð ðgiftedÏinterestðð€should€be€awarded€to€the€husband€as€his€separate€property.ÌÌà àAs€a€result,€it€must€be€considered€that,€exclusive€of€the€net€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€theÏreal€estate,€the€wife€received€$423,608.50€and€the€husband€received€$450,879.ÌÌà àThe€wifeððs€second€issue,€above,€first€complains€that€the€Trial€Court€included€in€herÏportion€of€the€martial€estate€$10,000€as€the€value€of€jewelry€given€by€her€to€her€daughter€a€yearÏbefore€the€divorce.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€jewelry€in€question€was€joint€property.€€It€isÏreferred€to€in€the€wifeððs€briefs€and€the€record€as€ð ðher,ðð€or€ð ðmyðð€or€ð ðthe€wifeððs€jewelry.ðð€ÏAbsent€evidence€otherwise,€jewelry€is€personal€rather€than€joint€property.€€There€is€evidenceÏthat€part€of€the€jewelry€was€bought€by€the€wife,€but€no€evidence€is€cited€or€found€that€she€usedÏjoint€funds€to€make€the€purchase.€€No€evidence€is€cited€or€found€which€would€support€aÏfinding€that€the€jewelry€which€the€wife€gave€her€daughter€was€a€part€of€the€jointly€ownedÏmarital€estate.€€Accordingly,€the€Trial€Court€was€not€justified€in€including€in€her€distribution€ofÏthe€marital€estate,€jewelry€which€was€hers.ÌÌà àThe€wife€also€complains€of€the€inclusion€of€$5,610€in€the€distribution€to€her€becauseÏshe€paid€this€amount€to€her€attorney,€and€$3,700€paid€by€her€to€a€detective.€€No€evidence€isÏcited€or€found€that€this€amount€was€paid€out€of€joint€funds,€or€that€it€constituted€a€wrongfulÏdissipation€of€the€joint€estate.ÌÌà àThe€wife€insists€that€the€attorney€fee€and€detective€fee€should€be€separately€awarded€toÏher€as€costs€of€litigation,€but€such€awards€lie€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€Trial€Court.€ÏòòKoch€v.€Koch,€óóTenn.€App.€1993,€874€œS.W.2d›€571.ÌÌà àGenerally,€fees€are€not€allowed€to€a€party€where€that€party€has€ample€funds€available€toÏpay€the€fees€of€that€partyððs€counsel.€€òòœShackleford›€v.€œShackleford›,€óóTenn.€App.€1980,€611ÏœS.W.2d›€598.ÌÌà àThe€total€of€the€three€items,€the€jewelry,€the€attorneyððs€fee€and€the€detective€fee,€€isÏ$19,310.€€The€removal€of€this€amount€from€the€total€received€by€the€wife€would€reduce€theÏvalue€of€her€share€of€the€marital€property€to€$407,298.50.€€The€evidence€shows€that€the€realÏestate€is€worth€$300,000€or€more,€including€$275,000€estimated€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€the€realÏestate.€€It€appears€the€total€joint€marital€estate€was€approximately€$1,132,677.50,€of€which€theÏhusband€will€realize€$587,879€and€the€wife€will€receive€$544,798.50.€€The€difference€inÏpercentage€is€minimal,€less€than€5%.ÌÌà àA€Trial€Courtððs€distribution€of€marital€property€in€a€divorce€action€does€not€need€to€beÏexactly€equal€in€order€to€be€equitable.€€òòThompson€v.€Thompson,€óóTenn.€App.€1990,€797ÏœS.W.2d›€599.ÌÌà àThere€is€uncontradicted€evidence€that€the€husband€worked€longer€hours€and€contributedÏmore€earnings€to€the€joint€estate€than€did€the€wife.€€This€fact€would€justify€the€minimalÏinequality€in€the€distribution€to€the€parties.ÌÌà àThe€husband€complains€that€he€was€required€to€pay€a€$8,730€fee€for€the€wifeððsÏattorney.€€An€award€of€attorneyððs€fee€is€treated€as€alimony.€€òòœGilliam›€v.€œGilliam›,€óóTenn.€App.Ï1988,€776€œS.W.2d›€81.€€The€Trial€Court€has€wide€discretion€as€to€allowance€of€attorneysðð€feesÏin€divorce€actions.€€œòòLoyd›€v.€œWendall,›€óóTenn.€App.€1993,€860€œS.W.2d›€409.ÌÌà àUnder€the€peculiar€circumstances€of€the€present€case,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€inÏregard€to€attorneyððs€fee€does€not€require€revision.ÌÌà àThe€husband€also€complains€that€the€Trial€Court€charged€him€with€$5,844€for€proceedsÏof€cattle€sold€in€1993.€€There€is€evidence€that€the€cattle€were€joint€property€and€that€$5,844Ïreceived€by€the€husband€was€not€placed€with€the€joint€funds€of€the€parties€as€it€should€haveÏbeen.€€Under€these€circumstances,€it€was€equitable€to€require€the€husband€to€be€responsible€forÏthis€missing€joint€property.ÌÌà àThe€husband€further€complains€that€the€Trial€Court€undervalued€her€jewelry€which€sheÏgave€her€daughter.€€Since€this€Court€has€heretofore€held€that€the€jewelry€was€not€shown€to€beÏmarital€property€or€procured€by€use€of€marital€funds,€the€value€of€the€jewelry€is€irrelevant€to€theÏissues€on€appeal.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€the€foregoing€reasoning,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€atÏthe€cost€of€the€plaintiff„appellant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€furtherÏnecessary€proceedings.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àAffirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE