WPCX # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 UP@  0l 0D 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d%U>U6B)DC& AMiU* D3 B 0 0@<|v~bv AO 0D D/  B;HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EDDӀ ", 3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial++++'dxd d  !#d#$  ))   YYY FILED)X June27,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !#d#$   $       %%InitsfinalorderofSeptember19,1996,thetrialcourtawardedInterveningPartyattorneysfeesof$3,528.75andagainawardedMothercustodyoftheminorchild;however,thissubsequentorderdidnotawardInterveningPartyphysicalcustodyofthechild,ashadtheearlierorder.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . $   \RA'\%\RA'\7,XXdd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R(,'A1-j|`  `@RߛBOBBYSTEPHENCANNON,  )C/ANO.03A019702CV00059      )  PlaintiffAppellant,)      )      )v.      )      )      )      )TERRILYNLIVINGSTONCANNON, )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )BLOUNTCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT  DefendantAppellee, )      )      )and      )      )      )      )BETTYLIVINGSTON,   )      )  InterveningParty)HONORABLEW.DALEYOUNG,  Appellee.   )JUDGEForAppellant     ForAppelleeTerriLyn       LivingstonCannonF.D.GIBSON     R.D.HASHKEVINTEFFETELLER    Maryville,Tennessee̜Maryville,Tennessee       ForAppelleeBettyLivingston       NOAPPEARANCE@    OPINION X%AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  ThisisapostdivorcedisputeconcerningthecustodyofTabithaLeAnnCannon,ageten.Theorderofthetrialcourt,fromwhichthisappealwastaken,deniedthepetitionofthechildsfather,BobbyStephenCannon(Father),forchangeofcustody.Instead,thetrialcourtcontinuedthechildscustodyinhermother,TerriLynLivingstonPatterson(Mother),whohadbeengrantedsolelegalcustodyofthechildwhensheandFatherweredivorcedonFebruary12,1987.Onthisappeal,Fatherinitiallyraisedtwoissues.Hearguedthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninfailingtochangecustody.Healsocontendedinhisbriefthat thetrialcourterredinawardinglegalfeestoanonsuccessfulinterveningparty,i.e.,thechildsmaternalgrandmother,BettyLivingston(InterveningParty).  Atoralargument,MotherandFatherpresentedthiscourtwithanagreedorderprovidingthattheyhad 8 settledallissuesregardingcustodyoftheminorchildbyAgreedOrdersubmittedto[the]ϜBlountCountyCircuitCourtinwhich[Father]shallreceivefulllegalcustodyofthechild.Thepanelofthiscourtassignedtohearthiscasesignedthe͜order,anditwasfiledwiththeclerkofthiscourtonMay14,1997.Therefore,theonlyissuenowbeforeusistheproprietyofthetrialcourtsorderprovidingthattheattorneysfeesoftheInterveningPartyintheamountof$3,528.75are tobedividedequallybetweentheparties,i.e.,FatherandMother.@ I  ShortlyaftertheCannonsdivorce,MotherpermittedtheminorchildtogotoMississippitovisitwithInterveningParty.Thestaybecameanextendedone.ThechildremainedcontinuouslywithInterveningPartyinMississippiuntilDecember,1987,whenbothreturnedtoBlountCounty.Thereafter,thechildcontinuedtolivewithInterveningPartyinBlountCountyorKnoxCountyandwasresidingthereatthetimeofthehearingbelow.WhilethechildsprimaryresidencewaswithInterveningParty,shevisitedherparentsonaregularbasis.  InterveningPartyhadsecuredanorderfromtheBlountCountyJuvenileCourtonSeptember12,1988,vesting theexclusivecustodyandcontrolofthechildinInterveningParty.InterveningPartyandthechildsparentsoperatedunderthisorder,whichincludedvisitation privilegesforbothparents,untilJudgeW.DaleYoung,JudgeoftheBlountCountyCircuitCourt,heldintheinstantcaseonJune7,1995,thattheJuvenileCourtorderwasvoidbecausethatcourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontoenterit.@ II  AfterFatherfiledhispetitionforchangeofcustodyintheinstantcase,thematernalgrandmotherfiledamotiontointerveneinthisproceeding,inwhichmotionshemadethefollowingallegations: 8 Petitioneraversthatsheisthematernalgrandparentofthepartiesminorchild,TabithaLeannCannon,thatshehashadthephysicalcustodyoftheminorchildforalongperiodoftime,andthatshelovesthischildandhascaredforandsupportedthischildsincebeingawardedcustodyonthe12thdayofSeptember,1988,intheJuvenileCourtforBlountCounty,Tennessee. 8 Petitioneraversthatitisinthebestinterestsoftheminorchildthatshebeawardedpermanentcustody,reservingtherightofvisitationtotheparents.Inherpetition,InterveningPartyasked 8 [t]hatuponthehearingofthiscause,InterveningPetitionerbeawardedthephysicalcustodyofthepartiesminorchild,TabithaϜLeannCannon,subjecttovisitationprivilegesofthePlaintiffandDefendant.  WhenthismatterwasheardintheBlountCountyCircuitCourt,thetrialjudgegrantedthemotiontointerveneandaskedInterveningPartyscounselwhatreliefshesought.Counselreplied,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 IguesstheCourtneedstohearjustabriefhistory.Wehaveliterallyhadthecareofthischildforeightornineyears.Andthisgrandmotherhastakencareofher,andshehaspetitionedtheCourtforcustodyofthechild.Nowwearerealisticenoughtoknowthatthecurrentstateofthelaw,sincethiscasehasbeenpendingismoreispronouncedinfavorofparentsagainstthirdpartieswhohavethecareofchildren,evenforlongextendedperiodsoftime.Andtherefore;wemodifyourpositionatthispoint.TheCourthasmadeastatementthatourdaughterhascustodyandwethinkthatisproper.WethinkatthistimethatsagoodthingfortheCourttodecide,andweareaskingthatcustodybegrantedtoherortostaywithherIguessismoreproper.TheredoesneedtobeaphasinginperiodundertheguidanceofDr.Kaufman,andwebasicallyhaveagreedtothatalready. 8 SobetweenthetwoofusthereisnotmuchofacomplaintwiththeCourt.WedoobjecttoMr.Cannonsobtainingcustodyofthischild,andIguessthereasonweoughttobehereasapartyisbecausemyclienthasliterallyhadthephysicalcustodyofthischildforsometimebyagreementofbothoftheseparties,notjustthislady,butalsoMr.Cannon.@ III  Husbandarguesthatwhenthiscasewastriedbelow,InterveningPartywasnolongerseekingcustody,wasultimatelyunsuccessfulinpersuadingthecourtnottochangecustodytoFather,andisthereforenotentitledtohaveherfeespaidbythenaturalparents.Motherjoinsinthisposition.Werespectfullydisagree.  Atrialcourthasdiscretiontoawardattorneysfeesincustodyproceedings.T.C.A.365103(c); Grahamv.Graham ,204S.W.987,989(Tenn.1918); Sherrodv.Wix ,849S.W.2d780,78485(Tenn.App.1992).TheSupremeCourthasreferredtosuchawardsas familiarandalmostcommonplace. Deasv.Deas ,774͜S.W.2d167,170(Tenn.1989).  Whileabilitytopayisafactortobeconsideredinsuchawards, trialcourtsmayawardattorneysfeeswithoutproofthattherequestingpartyisunabletopaythemaslongastheawardisjustandequitableunderthefactsofthecase. Sherrod ,849S.W.2dat785.  FatherandMothercontendthatInterveningPartyisnotentitledtofeesfortworeasons:first,shewasnotseekingcustodyatthetimeofthehearing,andsecond,shewasultimatelynotsuccessfulinopposingFathersrequestforchangeofcustody.Wefindneitherargumentpersuasive.ShewassuccessfulinopposingFathersrequestforchangeofcustodyuntilsometimeafterthehearingbelow,whenthechildsparentsenteredintoanagreedordergrantingFatherthereliefhesought.Infact,thetrialcourtsfirstorderfollowingthehearinginJune,1995,Ϝprovided 8 [t]hattheInterveningPetitioner,BettyLivingston,thegrandmotheroftheminorchild,shallhavephysicalcustodyoftheminorchild,TabithaLeannCannon,withthelegalcustodytoremainwiththemother,TerriPatterson.ItwasnotuntilweremandedthiscasetothetrialcourtfortheentryofafinalorderaddressingInterveningPartysrequestforattorneysfeesthatthetrialcourtcompletelyeliminatedInterveningPartyfromthecustody picture. .   כ  AstotheargumentthatInterveningPartysfailuretoseekcustodyatthefinalhearingshouldmakeherineligibletoreceiveattorneysfees,wenotethatInterveningPartyhadsomethingmorethanapedestrianinterestinthisproceeding.ThechildhadbeenwithInterveningPartyforsomeeightyears.Forapproximatelysevenofthoseyears,thechildhadbeenwithInterveningPartypursuantto,andthepartieshadoperatedunder,aJuvenileCourtorder,which,thoughultimatelydeterminedtobevoid,hadaddressedtherespectiverightsofthesethreepartieswithrespecttothischild.Inouropinion,thematernalgrandmotherwasanappropriatepartytothisproceeding.Itiscleartousthatbutforthelawsgeneralpreferenceforparentsoverthirdparties,shewouldhavecontinuedtoseekhergranddaughterscustodyinthiscase.  Undertheuniquecircumstancesofthiscase,wedonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsawardofattorneysfees.Theawardwas justandequitableunderthefactsofthecase.See󛀜 Sherrod ,849S.W.2dat785.Therehasbeennoshowingthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.  Theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsonappealaretaxedhalftotheappellantandhalftotheappelleeMother.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfortheenforcementofthetrialcourtsorderandcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:̜_______________________DonT.McMurray,J._______________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.