WPCg 3g7^5@>mcKD7:,fb{|3vI4o^/tl  hn 2~ABW>~)ŧ Ru25*%Iؑ)?,p );n>PR[;dM8|Kf @Ѹ>dz5Tސk\)2ܯX:t }YztCdSaNz$@k/6 X>wh;0P1H6/D''9)REEf.C7/1# F UNQ % 0( UF w@ 4S g iv 0l 0DK UF UP UF%UFk"U: UF,,,,'UF###iUFYUF 0DII D3S B A 0KLLLLL D+ AO 0D D/ BJHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular ^E_`DabEcdefDgӀRC&3|xr _  $    2     XX [ Husbandwasinmilitaryservicefor22yearsand25days.Hewas P  marriedtoWifefor20years,3months,and17daysallduringtheperiodofhismilitaryservice.#  [b#((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <L4 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<(M 9Z .Courier New Regular<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular XvXXXXXv   Ad FILED.    February25,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.  .AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  $    3    XXXX[XXNeitherpartyretiredwhiletheirdivorcecasewaspendinginGermany.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    1    XXXX[XXAppellantdoesnotchallengethisfinding.Theappelleedidnotfilea P  briefinthiscourt.  $    4    XXXX[XXNoattemptwasmadebelowtoprovethisauthority.Cf.Rule202(b)(5), P  МTenn.R.Evid.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    5    XXXX%XXSeefootnote4tothisopinion.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    6     XXXX %X XSeefootnote4tothisopinion.<Q 9Z .Courier New 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 !  ggP XXXX7&-XdXXd7TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tgr*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rߛg@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLELAURENBROWN,    h   )C/ANO.03A019806CH00178 *    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )v.   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      `     h   )HAMILTONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )HENRYLEOBROWN,JR., h   )     `     h   )HONORABLER.VANNOWENS,   ` DefendantAppellee.  )CHANCELLOR : ForAppellant    h   ForAppellee   PHILLIPC.LAWRENCE   h   NOAPPEARANCEONAPPEAL "> JEFFREYA.POWELLLawrence,Lawrencè&Gerbitz,PLLCChattanooga,Tennessee@$ XXXX   X XOPINION    XX  Ԉ 4)2 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09      ` ThepartiesweredivorcedbytheHeidelbergDistrictCourt( theGermantrialcourt)intheFederalRepublicofGermanyonNovember23,1993.Subsequently,onMay23,1996,LaurenBrown( Wife)filedacomplaintintheHamiltonCountyChanceryCourt( theChanceryCourt)againstherformerhusband,HenryLeoBrown,Jr.( Husband),seekingtodomesticateordersfromtheproceedingsinGermany.WifescomplaintalsoseeksanequitabledivisionofHusbandsmilitaryretirementpay;achildsupportarrearagebasedontheordersoftheGermantrialcourt;anewchildsupportdecreepredicatedonHusbandspresentincome;andotherrelief.BeingdissatisfiedwithportionsofthejudgmentoftheChanceryCourt,Wifeappeals,arguingthattheChanceryCourtawardedheraninequitableshareofHusbandsmilitaryretirementandthatthecourterredinfailingtoorderHusbandtoreimburseherforonehalfofthreepaymentsmadebyheronthepartiesmortgage.Weaffirm.@#I.Background &l"    ` ThepartiesweremarriedinChattanooga,Tennessee,onOctober16,1971.Theywerethen,andstillare,citizensoftheUnitedStates.HusbandjoinedtheUnitedStatesArmyin1973.   ` InMay,1993,whileresidinginGermany,WifefiledfordivorceintheGermantrialcourt.Byjudgment proclaimedonOctober15,1993,andeffectiveNovember23,1993,thatcourtdissolvedthepartiesmarriage,andawardedWifecustodyofthepartiesfourchildren.TheNovember23,1993,judgmentprovidesthat [i]tisdecidedthatthequestionofretirementbenefits ,9.8 willbemadeuponthereachingofretirementage.Thatjudgmentdidnotfurtheraddressthepartiesproperty.Bythesametoken,itdidnotdecreesupportfortheminorchildren.However,insubsequentorders,theGermantrialcourtdidmakedecreesregardingsomeofthepartiespropertyanddidorderHusbandtopaychildsupport.   ` HusbandsmilitarypensionvestedonAugust6,1993.HeretiredfromtheArmyeffectiveSeptember1,1995.Atthetimeofthehearingbelow,Husbandwasreceivinganetmonthlypensionbyvirtueofhismilitaryserviceintheamountof$1,452.82.HusbandandWifenowbothliveintheUnitedStates.@ II.ChanceryCourtsJudgment     ` TheChanceryCourtsfinaljudgmentwasenteredonMarch23,1998.Itprovidesthatthe ordersandjudgmentsoftheGermancourt...areentitledtorecognitionbythecourtsofTennesseebyvirtueofthedoctrineofcomity.  %  1      ׀Thejudgment 8($ setschildsupport;decreesthesaleofthepartiesAlexandria,Virginia,residence;providesthatthenetproceedsfromthesalewillbedividedequally;decreesthatWifeisentitledtorecover creditsof$28,731.50againstHusbandandthatheisentitledto creditsagainstherintheamountof$19,733.52;andprovidesthatWifesnetcreditsof$8,997.98willbesubtractedfromHusbandsshareofthenetproceedsfromthesaleoftheresidence.  7,6    ` Inaddition,theChanceryCourtsjudgmentprovidesthefollowingwithrespecttoHusbandsmilitaryretirement:  8 ` [Wife]shallbeentitledtoreceiveandisherebyawardedaportionof[Husbands]militaryretirement,pursuanttotheprovisionsof10U.S.C.1408and32C.F.R.63,initiallyinanamountequaltoseventeenandonehalfpercent(17.5%)ofthenetmonthlybenefitspayableto[Husband],andshallcontinueuntilonemonthaftertheVirginiarealestateissold,atwhichtime[Wife]shallbeentitledtoreceiveanamountequaltotwentytwoandonehalfpercent(22.5%)of[Husbands]netmonthlybenefits....ForthepurposesofthisFinalJudgment,theword netshallmeanthegrossmonthlybenefitlessdeductionsforwithholdingforfederalincometax,socialsecurity,andmedicaretax.[Wife]shallbeentitledtoreceiveherproportionateshareofanyincreasesinbenefitsawardedto[Husband]. ` `  @l l III.ThePartiesPositions@@0 0 Re:     `    HusbandsMilitaryRetirement  h    ` ThepartiesagreetotheobviousthebulkofHusbandsmilitarypensionisamaritalasset.ItisbeingpaidtoHusbandbecauseofhismilitaryservice,some92%ofwhichwasaccumulatedduringthepartiesmarriage.   %  2      כItisclear,even  )% absentthepartiesagreement,thatapproximately92%ofthisassetismaritalproperty.See Kendrickv.Kendrick ,902S.W.2d \, ") 918,921(Tenn.App.1994).   ` ThepartiesalsoagreethatHusbandsmilitarypensionwasnotdividedbytheGermantrialcourt.However,thepartiesdiffersharplyastowhethertheChanceryCourtsdivisionofthemilitarypensionisequitable.Wifearguesonappealthatthe l6,5 ChanceryCourtshouldhaveawardedher50%ofHusbandsmilitaryretirement.SheclaimsthatanappellatecourtinGermanydividedherretirement,ineffect,byapprovingHusbands  P agreementtoacceptacashsettlementashisshareofherretirementfunds.ItisherpositionthatthesettlementinGermanyamountedtoanequitabledivisionofherretirementfundsandthatHusbandsmilitaryretirementshouldalsobeequitablyϜdivided;thisd,daccordingtoWife,canbeachievedbyawardingeachparty50%ofthatretirement.   ` Husbanddidnotfileabriefonthisappeal;butattrialhearguedthatthecourtsinGermanyhadnotaddressed P Wifesretirementaccounts.ItwashispositionthattheChanceryCourt,individingHusbandsmilitaryretirement,wascorrectintakingintoaccountthefactthatWifehadretainedallofherretirementaccountsfollowingthecloseoftheproceedingsinGermany.@IV.StandardofReview P($ XXXX   ` Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovo +h!( upontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfactualfindings,unlessthe preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; Wrightv.Cityof 0x&. Knoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); UnionCarbideCorp. 2@(0 v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993); Catlettv. X4*2 МChinery ,952S.W.2d433,434(Tenn.App.1997).Thetrialcourts  6+4 conclusionsoflawarenotaccordedthesamedeference. Campbell 7-6 v.FloridaSteelCorp., 919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996) ;Presley 9`/8 v.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).Ourreviewis P  temperedbythewellestablishedprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819  (Tenn.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,567   (Tenn.App.1991).@ V.LawofDivisionofProperty      ` T.C.A.364121(a)mandatesanequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty.Itisclearthatatrialcourthasbroaddiscretionwhenitadjustsandadjudicatesthemaritalpropertyinterestsofdivorcingparties. Wattersv.Watters ,959S.W.2d P  М585,590(Tenn.App.1997).Forthisreason,atrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyisentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Id .Thatdivisionmustbeaffirmedbyusunlessthe h%  evidencepreponderatesagainstit.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P. Batson 0'" v.Batson ,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.App.1988). ($    ` Alitigantisnotnecessarilyentitledtoashareofeachitemofmaritalproperty. Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163, .#* 168(Tenn.App.1994).Rather,thelawrequiresonlythattheoveralldivisionofallmaritalpropertybeequitabletoboth 10'. parties. Id .Furthermore,thegoalisanequitabledivision, @3(0 notnecessarilyanequalone. Wordv.Word ,937S.W.2d931,933 5*2 (Tenn.App.1996).#XXXXB$#   :/8 @| | VI.DivisionofMilitaryRetirement P  @tt)A.   /   ` Aspreviouslyindicated,thepartiesweresharplydividedattrialastowhetherthecourtsinGermany,orthepartiesbytheiragreement,hadconsideredanddividedWifesretirementaccounts.WifearguesonthisappealthatthoseaccountswereequitablydividedintheGermanproceedingsandthattheChanceryCourtshouldhavedividedHusbandsmilitarypensionwithoutregardtothefactthatWifeultimatelymaintainedownershipofhernumerousretirementbankaccountsandotherretirementtypeassets.   ` ItshouldbenotedthattheChanceryCourtwasnotatallsureif,andhow,WifesretirementaccountswereaddressedbythecourtsinGermany.ThisdoubtisclearfromtheChanceryCourtsmemorandumopinion:  8 ` The[ordersofthecourtsinGermany]makeitclearthattheCourtinGermanydidnottakeintoconsiderationverymuch,inanyevent,theretirementpensionofthedefendanthere,HenryLeoBrown,Jr.Whiledefendantconteststheaffect[sic],heessentiallyconcedesthattheCourtdidnottakeintoconsiderationthatretirementplan,nordidtheCourtinGermanytakeintoaccounttheretirementfundsofLaurenBrown,accordingtothedefendant. ` `    8 ` Thepartieshavevariouslyarguedattimesinthiscase.ButtheCourtsupposedlyconsideredhowtheyinterpretedthedecreeoftheGermancourt,whatitmeant,whattheobligationswereandsoforth.CertainlyitsnotabsolutelycleartothisCourteitherastowhatallwascomprehended. ` `    8 ` Itseemedreasonable,however,toassumethattheCourtinGermanywasreluctanttoorderordividepropertytobepaidbytheUnitedStatesgovernmentforMr.Brownsmilitaryservicetobe 9X/9 awardedtoMrs.Brown.CertainlytheinferencesmostlikelytothisCourtisthattheGermancourtdidnotgivemuchconsiderationtotheretirementfundsofMrs.Brown. ` `     ` Wefindandholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstadd񛀜findingddthatthecourtsinGermanydidnot t  divideWifesretirementaccounts,andthatthepartiesdidnotsettlethequestionofanappropriatedivisionofeitherHusbandsmilitaryretirementorWifesretirementaccounts.WemakethisdeterminationbasedeupeonourreadingoftheGermanordersandpleadings,ffromthecourtsinGermanyfwhichhavebeentranslatedintoEnglishandareapartoftherecordbeforeus.   ` OnOctober8,1973,HusbandsGermanattorney,onhisletterhead,submittedapetitiontotheGermantrialcourtseeking marriagenetworthcompensation.ThisapparentlyistantamounttoapetitioninTennesseeseekinganequitabledivisionofmaritalproperty.Husbandspetitionalludestosome,butnotall,ofthepartiesproperty.ItincludesanumberofaccountsthatWifeidentifiedinhertestimonyinChanceryCourtasfundsmaintainedbyherforretirementpurposes.Intheinstantproceeding,theChanceryCourtdeterminedthattheseretirementaccountstotaled some$55,000orperhapsashighas$65,000.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthisfinding.   ` Aspreviouslyindicated,theGermantrialcourtdivorcedthepartieseffectiveNovember23,1993,withthe notationthat thequestionofretirementbenefitswillbemade 7-7 uponreachingofretirementage.  %  3      לInthesamejudgment,the P   Germantrialcourtmadethefollowingadditional,significantobservation:  8 ` InaccordancewithGermanlaw,acourtdecisionregardingretirementbenefitscannotbemade.Bothpartieshadretirementcoveragethrough H  agenciesoftheUSA.Forthisreason,thebenefitsissuewillhavetobedeterminedatretirementage;suchnotbeingpossibleatthistime. ` `  (Emphasisadded.)   ` ByorderenteredDecember21,1994,theGermantrialcourtdismissedHusbandspetitionfor marriagenetworthcompensation.Thatpetitionhadsoughtmoneycompensationof$30,000.ItisclearthatHusbandsclaimdidnotextendtothepartiesrealpropertyinAlexandria,Virginia,whichtheGermantrialcourtaddressedinanotherorder;nordidthepetitionaddresscertainotherassetsoftheparties.Aspreviouslynoted,thepetitionapparentlydidlistthebulkofWifesretirementaccounts.   ` IndenyingHusbandsclaimfor marriagenetworthcompensation,theGermantrialcourtfoundthattheclaimwas unfounded.Itgaveanumberofreasonsforthisfinding:  8 ` Theissuecanbedebatedwhetherornot[Husband]isinfactduesuchaclaimintheamountof $30,000.00,sinceaccordingtopara1381,subpara 5L+4 2oftheCivilCode,  %  4      ׀suchisoutofthequestion P   asbeingblatantlyimproper,since[Husband]culpably,andoveranextendedperiodoftime,didnotfulfillthefinancialobligationswhicharosefromtheirmarriagerelationship. ` `    8 ` Tothesefinancialobligationsbelongthesupportrequirementtowardstheirjointchildren,notonlyforthedurationofthetimeofseparation,butalsoafterthefilingoftherequestfordivorceaswellasfollowingtheactualdivorce(SeetheϜDsseldorfSuperiorCourtprecedentFamRZ87,pp821822w/addenda).  %  5      ׀Thisappliesalso,and @  especially,whenthehusbandmustbeartheeconomicburdenofsupportforthechildreneventhoughhemaynothaveasyetbeenorderedtodoso. ` `    8 ` [Husband]culpablyviolatedthisobligation. ` `  @XX%***  8 ` Itmustadditionallybetakenintoconsiderationthatthesavingsaccountbalanceof[Wife]wasaccumulatedforthemostpartafterthefirstseparationofthepartiesin1988,solelythroughtheeffortsof[Wife].BasedontheXXXXԜDsseldorf#XXXX"K#  SuperiorStateCourtprecedentFamRZ87,pg822,t  %  6        \ suchcannotinandofitselfleadtoablatantimproprietyofthemarriagenetworthcompensationclaim,butcanindisputablybebroughtintoplayinthecase. ` `    8 ` [Husband]didnotcontesttheclaimofthe[Wife] %T! thatthebankaccountmoniesaretoserveforretirement.Sinceapubliclawsettlementregardingretirementbenefitswasnotcarriedout,butrathertheoptionhavingbeenmadetoresolvethequestionuponreachingretirementage;andsincetherealizationofsuchaclaimmaybequitequestionable,itisinthelegitimateinterestof[Wife],thatthesefinancialretirementassets,whichhaveaccruedasaresultofherefforts,notberequiredtobesharedwith[Husband].d.$+` `  @XX%***  8 ` Intotal,compensationformarriagenetworthappearstobeblatantlyimproper,primarily becauseofthelongtermviolationof[Husbands] h3)1 responsibilitytoprovidesupporttohischildren,which[Wife]hadtofinanciallycover. ` `   (Emphasisadded).   ` TheforegoingorderoftheGermantrialcourtwasappealedtothe16thCivilCourtofAppealsoftheKarlsruheSuperiorStateCourt( theGermanappellatecourt).Whilethecasewaspendingonappeal,thepartiessettledHusbandspendingclaim.Thesettlement [a]tthesuggestionofthe[Germanappellate]courtsimplyprovidesasfollows:  8 ` [Wife]obligesherselftopay[Husband]theamountof$15,000.00ascompensationfortheaccruednetworthfromthemarriage.Ofthisamount,$3,000.00are[sic]tobedeductedforcostsensuedfornaturalizationofthetwodaughters.Theremainingbalanceof$12,000.00isduewhentherealestateofthepartiesinAlexandria,Virginiaissold. ` `  WWAspreviouslyindicated,otherordersoftheGermantrialcourtaddressedthepartiespropertyinAlexandria,Virginia,theirhouseholdgoodsandmiscellaneouspersonalproperty,andotherϜassets.Theselatterorderswerenotappealed.   ` Significantly,noneoftheordersoftheGermancourtsspecificallyawardedeitherHusbandsmilitaryretirementorWifesretirementaccounts.   ` ItisclearthatWifeultimatelymaintainedownershipofallofherretirementaccounts.WhileHusbandreceivedanagreedtosettlementof$15,000,itisnotatallclearthatthissettlementwasanoffsetforWifehavingreceivedallofher X:0: retirementaccounts.Wifemaybecorrectinassertingthatitwas;butthisispurespeculation,basedontherecordbeforeus.SuchspeculationcannotformthebasisforadecisionbyustodisturbtheChanceryCourtsdivisionofmaritalproperty.   ` TheChanceryCourtwasjustifiedinfinding:(1)thattheGermantrialcourtdidnotbelieveXthatXitYwasYappropriateforittodividethepartiesretirementmonies;(2)thatthosemonieswereZnotZ,infact,[not[dividedbyeithertheGermantrialcourtortheGermanappellatecourt;(3)thatWiferetainedallofherretirementaccounts;\and\(4)thatsomeeightpercentofHusbandsmilitaryretirementwasrelatedtoHusbandsserviceafterthepartiesdivorce].Further]^]em]^_more,_`;and(5)that`thedivisionofHusbandsmilitaryretirementasdecreedbytheChanceryCourtwasequitableinviewofthedecreesmadebythecourtsinGermanyandtheevidenceheardbytheChanceryCourt.TotheextentthattheChanceryCourtdidnotexpresslymakeallof $  thesefindings,wefindandholdthattheyarejustifiedbytherecordbeforeusandathattheyabasuppoabsupporttheChanceryCourtsjudgmentregardingHusbandsmilitaryretirement.SeeRule )& 36(a),T.R.A.P.Seealso Kellyv.Kelly ,679S.W.2d458,460 +P!( (Tenn.App.1984)( [W]earecalleduponultimatelytopassuponthecorrectnessoftheresultreachedintheproceedingbelow,notnecessarilythereasoningemployedtoreachtheresult.)(bӛ̜@tt)B. 43(1 ̛]   ` Alternatively,WifearguesthattheChanceryCourterredwhenitdecreedthatthereceiptofherultimateshareofHusbandsmilitaryretirement22.5%wouldbedelayeduntil  9.8 theVirginiaresidencewassold.ThecourtsjudgmentprovidesthatWifeistoreceive17.5%oftheretirementuntilthehouseissold.Wifecontendsthatsheshouldhavebeenawardedthelargershare,retroactivetothedateonwhichHusbandreceivedhisfirstretirementcheck.   ` WedonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheChanceryCourtsplan.Untilthepropertywassold,bothofthepartieswereresponsibleforobligationspertainingtotheproperty.Oncethepropertywassold,therewerenofurtherassetsjointlyownedbytheparties.Thatwasnotaninappropriatetimeto kickinWifesfullentitlement.@ VII.CreditforMortgagePayments     ` WifecontendsthattheChanceryCourtintendedbutfailedtogivehercreditformortgagepaymentsontheVirginiapropertymadebyherforthemonthsofMay,June,andJuly,1997.Weagreethatthecourtintendedtogivehercreditforthesepayments;butwecannotagreethatthecourtfailedtodoso.   ` Initsmemorandumopinion,thetrialcourtmadereferencetoanumberofcreditsdueWifefromHusbandc,candalsotothosedueHusbandfromWife.ItthendirectedthepartiestochecktheCourtscomputations:  8 ` THECOURT:IwouldexpectcounseltotakethesefiguresandadjustthemoradvisemeofanymistakesandcertainlyifIhaveoverlookeditormadeamistakeonthat.9L/9` `  ЇThecourtsfinaljudgmentwasapprovedbycounselforbothoftheparties.Itprovidesasfollows:  8 ` Plaintiffisentitledtocreditstotaling$28,731.50,andDefendantisentitledtocreditstotaling$19,733.52,resultinginanetcreditinfavorofPlaintiffintheamountof$8,997.98forwhichsumjudgmentisherebyrenderedagainstDefendant. ` `  Thefiguresinthefinaljudgmentdonotpreciselycorrelatetothevariousfiguresmentionedbythecourtinitsmemorandumopinion.Apparently,counseldidwhatthecourtdirectedandrefinedthecourtscomputations.Inanyevent,thefiguresinthejudgmentaretheonestowhichthepartiesagreedandwecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheiraccuracy.SincethetrialcourtindicatedthatitbelievedthatWifewasentitledtocreditforthosethreemortgagepayments,wehavetoassume,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thatitgavehercreditinthefinalnumbersagreedtobytheparties.@"VIII.Conclusion *L '    ` ThejudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellant.ThiscaseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtforenforcementofthecourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J. 9L/9 ЇCONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.