WPC6 "@^N}\PY_+_ gyg!ֱ#΄X0{mjYZ OngtAu+ojX]MA:=HK yj7R!A(5/8W#"]DHBOU5/F. Ha/~I7Tg\X|Aund+S} 9f#>P ᳤K+j8|ecY{x򘛸Qan_)36 &A9<RN+G/LO[tEUE}::FNǒG;\ }O?y=ekĜ7PvG|n 6HM@]'<-+($ߪ z>*ɠQ^ƦSsy!k''&ќV'g4Bwb͎="X/44:8@c Xn~*N# F UNQ % 0( UF 0l wL 4  UP UF>  0D#UFgUFrU: 0D\ D3" BUU Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 0K D+ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff AO 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular((3$ !      0   D[[DDEӀh&3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<: 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    1    XXXX&(7&XX&&(7Whileclaimingthatnofeewasdue,Husbandacknowledgedattrialthat P  asbetweenhimandhisformerwife,hewasresponsibleforthefeeintheeventthetrialcourtfoundthatonewasdue.#&(7&#(#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular $    2    X^XXXXX^Thecomputationofthefeeisnotanissueonthisappeal.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular X5 XXXç  XX5    Ad FILED} ç   July28,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.e}AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5++++'dxd d)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK( $ Figure  1  'dxd'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  P XXXX7XXdXXd7TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tr*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rߛ@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEJOHNREGINALDBEHM,   h   )C/ANO.03A019810CH00339 *    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )v.   `     h   ) .     `     h   )   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE   `     h   )LOUDONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURTSANDRASMITHBEHM,   h   ) 6    `     h   )   ` DefendantAppellee.  ) 2    `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )FREDA.CHANEY,CLERKANDMASTER,)X   `     h   )HONORABLEFRANKV.WILLIAMS,IIIX   ` AmicusCuriae. h   )CHANCELLOR 6 ForAppellant    h     FortheAmicusCuriae d# LARRYC.VAUGHAN   h     RUSSELLJOHNSON %  KIMBERLYR.TAYLOR   h     REXA.DALE %! VaughanandZuker   h     Johnson&Dale &l" Knoxville,Tennessee h     Loudon,Tennessee 'B# @$ XzXXX  k X XzOPINION     k XX  Ԉ 6N,5 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09    ` Inthisdivorcecase,thesolequestionbeforethetrialcourtwaswhethertheClerkandMaster,asthecourtappointedSpecialCommissioner,wasentitledtoafeetocompensatehimforhisefforts,albeitunsuccessful,toselltheparties25acresinLoudonCounty.Followinganevidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtorderedJohnReginaldBehm( Husband)topaytheClerkandMasterafeeof$6,000.   #  1      ׀Husbandappeals, X  arguing,ineffect,thattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment.@*IXXX X   ` Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovouponthe ` recordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898 p#  S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; Wright ,898S.W.2dat181 ;Union (D$ CarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).The `* & trialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaccordedthesamedeference. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26, -#* 35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn. /T%, 1993).   ` Ourdenovoreviewisalsosubjecttothewell 4x*2 establishedprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebest 60,4 positiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995);  X  Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991). t$ # X^XXX^#@tt)II.      ` ByorderenteredMay15,1998,thepartiesagreedthattheCclerkandMaster,FredA.Chaney,asSpecialCommissioner,wouldselltheirformermaritalresidenceand25acresatauctionfor$250,000 unlesstheparties...agree[d]toaloweramountatthetimeofauction.Amongotherthings,theorderalsoprovided  8 ` thattheSpecialCommissioner,byperformingtheaforesaidextraordinaryservicesinthesell[sic]ofthepropertyinthiscauseasorderedbytheCourtisentitledtoreceiveadditionalcompensationintheamountofthreepercent(3%)commissionofthesalepriceatthetimeoftheclosing,saidamounttobepaiddirectlytotheClerk&Mastersoffice. ` `     ` Mr.ChaneyattemptedtoauctionthepropertyonJune27,1998.Byagreementoftheparties,abeginningbidof$200,000wasrequested.Nobidswerereceived,andMr.Chaneyannouncedthatthere wasnosale.   ` OnJune29,1998,Mr.Chaneyfiledhis SpecialCommissionersReportofSale.TheReportconcludesasfollows:  8 ` Attheconclusionofthesale,theSpecialCommissionerremindedMr.andMrs.Behmthatabillforonehalfofthecostsofthesalewillbe 6:/9 mailedtothemwithinoneweekandthesecostsaretobepaidbythemimmediately.ItwasalsoexplainedthattheSpecialCommissioneristoreceivethe3%commissiononthetotalsalespriceofthepropertyatthetimeofclosing,regardlesswhosellstheproperty.Mr.andMrs.BehmsaidtheyunderstoodandagreedwiththeSpecialCommissionerconcerningbothmatters. ` `     ` OnJuly11,1998,SandraSsmithBehm( Wife)receivedanofferfromHusbandtopurchaseherinterestinthepropertyforanetof$62,763.86.Husbandswrittenproposalwasbasedonahypotheticalsalespriceof$200,000.Includedinhiscalculationwasadeductionof$6,000,whichhedescribedas SpecialCommissioner3%.Wifecounteredwithanoffertotake$86,314.11forherinterest.Hercounterwasbasedonahypotheticalsalespriceof$230,000andreflected,amonghercomputations,adeductionfor$6,900for SpecialCcCoommissionerof3%.HusbandagreedtopurchaseWifesinterestinaccordancewiththetermsofhercounteroffer,andthetransactionwassubsequentlyconsummated.   ` Attrial,HusbandtookthepositionthattheorderofMay15,1998,contemplatesacommissiontoMr.Chaneyif,andonlyif,thelattersoldtheproperty.HedeniedthathehadeveragreedtopayMr.ChaneyacommissionotherthanasachargeattendanttoanactualsalebytheClerkandMaster.   ` Mr.Chaneytestifiedthatthepartieshadadifferentunderstanding.HestatedthatitwasagreedbetweentheBehmsandhimthat Igetmythreepercentcommission...Igetitnomatterwhosellsit,howitssolddowntheroad. 9/9    ` ThetrialcourtallowedMr.Chaneyafeeof3%onasalespriceof$200,000,i.e.,orafeeof$6,000.  #  2      ׀Insodoing,   thetrialcourtnotedthatit  8 ` [had]noproblemwhatsoeverbelievingMr.Chaneywhenhesayshewouldnothaveundertakenasaleofthispropertyunderanycircumstanceswithoutknowingthathewasgoingtogetpaidintheeventthatitdidntbringtheirminimum. ` `     ` OurinterpretationofthetrialcourtsremarksisthatitresolvedthecredibilityissuesinthiscaseinfavorofMr.Chaney.Aswehavepreviouslyindicated,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengale ,915S.W.2dat p 819. 񛀀Thus,whileweacknowledgeconflictingtestimonyonthesubjectoftheSpecialCommissionersfee,wecannotsayareunable,inviewofthetrialcourtscredibilitydeterminations,tofindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentthatthepartiesagreementcontemplatedafeeforMr.Chaneyregardlessofwhetherhewassuccessfulinauctioningoffthepartiesproperty.@88)III.   ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmayberequired,consistentwiththisopinion,andforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw. 7P-6    `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.