ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€ߪv~‰ BvÓ$ D3÷ 0@* AOjƹ 0D D/à Bò˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ”V•U–—D˜™Dš›DœÓ€¦DÒ 3|xª2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌJune€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€V.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌCINDA€KAY€CANTRELL,€€€à àà à)à àÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiff/€Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óDavidson€Circuit€No.€92D„1968Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€œ01A01„9603„CV„00091ò ò›ÌœÙ€€ÙßR€!# A1-j|(ÿâ` ç `€€@ÿRß›JAMES€CLARENCE€CANTRELL,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARIE€LOYA,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€Intervenor/Appellee.ò òà àà àà à)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellant:à àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellee:ÌóóÌLouise€R.€Fontecchioà àà àà àà àMichael€K.€Radford€€€€€€€ÌNashville,€Tennessee€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TennesseeÌÌòòFor€the€Intervenor/Appellee:óóÌÌJohn€Aaron€HoltÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€§SXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ќ̛à@ àOPINIONó ớ̜à àThis€is€a€divorce€case€involving€the€division€of€marital€property.€€Among€other€things,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€$30,000€from€the€husbandððs€mother€was€a€loan€to€the€husband€and€wife,€andÏthe€wife€appeals.€€€We€affirm.Ìà àPrior€to€their€present€marriage,€Cinda€Kay€Cantrell€(ð ðWifeðð)€and€James€Clarence€CantrellÏ(ð ðHusbandðð)€had€been€married€to€each€other€and€divorced.€€They€remarried€in€1982,€and€Wife€filedÏfor€divorce€in€1992.€€At€the€time€the€divorce€was€filed,€Husband€and€Wife€owned€two€residentialÏproperties€in€Nashville,€Tennessee,€the€first€at€675€Westboro€Drive€(ð ðthe€Westboro€residenceðð)€andÏthe€second€at€7419€Bridle€Drive€(ð ðthe€Bridle€residenceðð).€€Husband€and€Wife€had€been€living€at€theÏBridle€residence.€€Pending€the€final€divorce€decree,€Wife€was€permitted€to€move€into€the€WestboroÏresidence,€while€Husband€remained€at€the€Bridle€residence.€€In€1993,€Husbandððs€mother,€MarieÏLoya€(ð ðLoyaðð),€intervened,€alleging€that€she€had€loaned€Husband€and€Wife€$36,000,€which€hadÏnot€been€repaid.€€Loya€asserted€that€she€loaned€Husband€and€Wife€the€money€to€help€themÏpurchase€the€Bridle€residence,€and€that€they€verbally€agreed€to€repay€her€from€the€proceeds€fromÏthe€sale€of€the€Westboro€residence.€Ìà àA€hearing€was€held€to€determine,€among€other€things,€the€validity€of€Loyaððs€claim.€€ÏHusband€testified€that€he€and€Wife€borrowed€money€from€his€mother,€Loya,€in€order€to€helpÏpurchase€the€Bridle€residence.€€The€money€came€from€some€certificates€of€deposit€and€a€checkingÏaccount,€all€of€which€were€in€both€Loyaððs€and€Husbandððs€names.€€Husband€testified€that€he€andÏWife€had€an€understanding€with€Loya,€prior€to€their€use€of€Loyaððs€money,€that€they€would€pay€herÏback€with€the€€proceeds€of€their€planned€sale€of€the€Westboro€residence.€€Husband€denied€thatÏLoyaððs€money€was€a€gift.€€Husbandððs€documents€indicated€that€he€and€Wife€received€a€little€overÏ$33,000€from€Loya.€€Husband€also€admitted€that€during€this€period€Wife€had€inherited€moneyÏfrom€her€family,€some€of€which€was€used€to€renovate€the€Westboro€residence.Ìà àLoyaððs€testimony€was€fairly€consistent€with€Husbandððs.€€She€testified€that€all€her€savingsÍhad€been€placed€in€a€joint€account€with€Husband,€her€only€œchild,›€to€ensure€that€Husband€would€getÏthe€money€in€the€event€of€her€death.€€When€Husband€and€Wife€decided€to€acquire€the€BridleÏresidence,€œÇLoya›€permitted€them€to€use€her€funds€in€the€purchase.€€Loya€asserted€that€the€money€was€a€loanÏand€that€she€expected€to€be€repaid,€without€interest,€when€Husband€and€Wife€sold€the€WestboroÏresidence.€€She€denied€that€it€was€a€gift.€€€Loya€testified€that€the€amount€of€the€loan€was€$36,000,Ïbut€she€had€no€documentation€to€that€effect.Ìà àIn€her€testimony,€Wife€admitted€that€funds€belonging€to€Loya€had€been€used€as€a€downÏpayment€for€the€Bridle€residence.€€€Wife€also€admitted€that€she€understood€that€the€money€was€toÏbe€repaid€once€they€sold€the€Westboro€residence.€€She€testified€that€she€did€not€think€of€the€moneyÏas€a€gift€but€instead€understood€that€it€was€only€a€loan.€€Wife€stated,€however,€that€as€time€went€onÏand€Husband€continued€to€€refuse€to€put€the€Westboro€residence€on€the€market,€she€began€to€thinkÏthat€the€money€had€not€been€a€loan€after€all.€€Wife€testified€that€she€believed€that€œthe›€moneyÏreceived€from€Loya€œwas€used›€for€the€down€payment€and€the€down€payment€had€been€$30,000.Ìà àWife€also€testified€that,€during€this€period,€she€inherited€approximately€$30,000€from€herÏfamily.€€She€stated€ò òòòinter€aliaó óóó€that€she€spent€approximately€$7,000€on€items€at€the€WestboroÏresidence,€a€small€building€and€a€pool,€and€that€she€spent€approximately€$15,000€of€it€inÏrenovating€œthe›€Bridle€residence.Ìà àTwo€other€witnesses€testified€at€the€hearing.€€Buford€Cantrell,€Husbandððs€uncle,€testifiedÏthat€Husband€and€Wife,€in€his€presence,€discussed€the€loan€from€Loya€and€the€plans€to€repay€herÏfrom€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€the€Westboro€residence.€€George€Bartlett€testified€that€more€thanÏonce€he€had€heard€Wife€describe€the€money€from€Loya€as€a€loan.Ìà àWife€raises€several€issues€on€appeal.€€First,€she€asserts€that€Loya€failed€to€carry€her€burdenÏof€proof€as€to€whether€the€money€used€by€Husband€and€Wife€was€a€loan€and,€if€it€was€a€loan,€€theÏamount€of€the€loan.€€Second,€she€claims€that€the€division€of€the€partiesðð€marital€property€wasÏinequitable,€in€that€she€was€ordered€to€pay€half€the€debt€to€Loya,€that€she€was€not€given€credit€inÏthe€division€of€property€for€the€inheritance€monies€she€spent€on€joint€property,€and€that€she€wasÏordered€to€sell€the€Westboro€residence€to€pay€the€debt€to€Loya€if€the€debt€could€not€otherwise€beÏpaid.€€Third,€Wife€complains€that€several€issues€in€the€case,€such€as€spousal€support,€attorneyððsÍfees€and€the€division€of€Husbandððs€pension€benefits,€never€received€a€full€and€fair€hearing.€ÏFinally,€Wife€seeks€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal.̜Ǜà àHusband€maintains€that€Wife€admitted€in€her€testimony€that€the€money€received€from€LoyaÏwas€a€loan,€intended€to€be€repaid€from€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€Westboro€residence.€ÏHusband€also€contends€that€the€remaining€issues€between€the€parties€were€resolved€by€agreement,Ïand€that€Wife€cannot€appeal€from€a€consent€decree.Ìà àThe€Statement€of€Evidence€regarding€the€January€6,€1994€hearing,€€approved€by€the€trialÏcourt,€describes€the€testimony€and€evidence€concerning€the€monies€from€Loya,€and€states:ÌÓÓà8 àThis€statement€of€the€evidence€is€presented€for€the€purposes€of€evidence€presentedÏon€the€issues€raised€in€the€Intervening€Petition€of€Marie€Loya;€the€remaining€issuesÏraised€in€the€Complaint€and€Counter„Complaint€for€Divorce€were€resolved€by€theÏparties€and€were€announced€in€open€court.ÌÌÓÓOn€appeal,€Wife€disputes€that€the€parties€reached€an€agreement€regarding€such€ð ðremaining€issues.ððÌà àOur€standard€of€review€in€this€case€is€òòò òde€novoó óóó€on€the€record,€with€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€will€be€affirmedÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€its€findings€of€fact€or€the€trial€court€committed€an€error€ofÏlaw.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Further,€a€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€in€dividing€a€maritalÏestate€upon€a€coupleððs€divorce.€€òòò òKincaid€v.€Kincaidó óóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€142€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995).€€Its€division€of€the€marital€estate€will€be€presumed€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€òòò òBatson€v.€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).Ìà àWife€first€asserts€that€Loya€failed€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof€that€the€money€she€letÏHusband€and€Wife€use€in€purchasing€the€Bridle€residence€was€a€loan€rather€than€a€gift.€€Loya€andÏHusband€both€testified€that€the€money€was€a€loan€to€be€repaid€upon€the€sale€of€the€WestboroÏresidence.€€Two€other€witnesses€testified€that€they€had€heard€Wife€speak€of€the€money€as€a€loan.€ÏWife€admitted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€loan,€it€was€her€understanding€that€the€money€was€a€loan,€toÏbe€repaid€upon€the€sale€of€the€Westboro€residence,€although€she€stated€that€this€understanding€laterÏchanged.€€Great€weight€is€accorded€the€trial€court€€on€issues€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€Ïòòò òLindsey€v.€Lindseyó óóó,€930€S.W.2d€553,€556€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€There€was€ample€evidence€toÏsupport€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€money€from€Loya€was€a€loan€rather€than€a€gift.Ìà àWife€also€asserts€that€Loya€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€on€the€amount€of€the€loan.€ÏLoya€testified€that€she€lent€Husband€and€Wife€$36,000,€and€Husband€produced€records€purportingÏto€show€that€at€least€$33,000€of€Loyaððs€funds€had€been€used.€€€Wife€testified€that€Loyaððs€moneyÏhad€been€used€as€a€down€payment€on€the€Bridle€residence€and€that€the€down€payment€had€beenÏ$30,000.€€œÌWifeððs›€attorney€noted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€down€payment,€Husband€had€also€cashed€some€CDððsÏowned€jointly€with€Wife,€raising€a€question€as€to€whether€some€of€this€money€had€been€used€forÏthe€down€payment.€€After€reviewing€the€testimony€and€the€evidence,€however,€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€loan€was€for€at€least€$30,000.€€TheÏtrial€courtððs€decision€regarding€the€amount€of€the€loan€is€affirmed.Ìà àNext,€Wife€argues€that€the€division€of€the€marital€property€was€inequitable€in€that€she€wasÏordered€to€pay€half€the€debt€to€Loya,€that€she€was€not€given€credit€in€the€division€of€property€forÏthe€inheritance€monies€she€spent€on€joint€property,€and€that€she€was€ordered€to€sell€the€WestboroÏresidence€to€pay€the€debt€to€Loya€if€œit€could›€not€otherwise€be€paid.€€Wife€also€contends€that€she€wasÏdenied€the€opportunity€for€a€full€hearing€on€several€issues,€including€the€division€of€HusbandððsÏpension€benefits,€spousal€support€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€Ìà àThe€Statement€of€Evidence€on€the€January€6,€1994€hearing,€€approved€by€the€trial€court,Ïstates€clearly€that€evidence€was€presented€on€the€issue€regarding€the€money€from€Loya€and€that€ð ðtheÏremaining€issues.€.€.€were€resolved€by€the€parties€and€were€announced€in€open€court.ðð€The€recordÏindicates€that,€at€the€January€6,€1994€hearing,€the€court€ruled€on€the€Loya€debt€and€the€partiesððÏattorneys€indicated€agreement€on€the€issues€of€child€custody,€child€support,€and€the€division€ofÏpersonal€property.€€At€that€point,€the€trial€court€declared€Husband€and€Wife€to€be€tenants€inÏcommon€as€to€both€pieces€of€real€property.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Wife€had€not€producedÏsufficient€evidence€that€her€separate€inheritance€money€was€spent€on€the€jointly€held€real€propertyÏto€warrant€an€adjustment€in€the€property€division,€but€gave€Wife€the€opportunity€to€submit€furtherÏevidence€on€her€inheritance€claim.€€Wifeððs€attorney€indicated€she€was€not€seeking€spousal€supportÍso€long€as€Wife€was€permitted€to€remain€in€the€Westboro€residence,€but€the€trial€court€requiredÏHusband€to€pay€$100€per€month€in€alimony€for€Wifeððs€insurance.Ìà àSubsequently,€Wife€remarried€and€the€trial€court€ordered€Wife€to€repay€the€alimony€thatÏHusband€paid€after€her€remarriage.€€The€trial€court€also€awarded€Husband€and€Wife€each€theÏresidence€in€which€they€were€living,€and€gave€Husband€a€judgment€against€Wife€for€half€theÏamount€by€which€the€equity€in€the€Westboro€residence€exceeded€the€equity€in€the€Bridle€residence.̜Ǜà àSubsequently,€Wife€retained€new€counsel€and€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÏjudgment,€arguing€ò òòòinter€aliaó óóó€that€Wife€did€not€receive€appropriate€credit€in€the€division€ofÏproperty€for€her€inheritance€monies€used€on€the€jointly€held€real€property,€that€Wife€did€not€receiveÏa€portion€of€Husbandððs€pension€plan€and€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€submit€proof€on€that€issue,Ïand€that€the€parties€owned€cemetery€lots€that€were€never€divided€by€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€except€that€it€permitted€Wife€to€submit€any€additional€evidenceÏon€her€claim€for€credit€on€her€inheritance€monies.€€Wife€later€submitted€documentation€on€theÏinheritance€monies,€but€the€trial€court€found€it€insufficient€to€warrant€altering€its€earlier€judgment.Ìà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€allocate€half€of€the€Loya€debt€to€Wife.€€The€evidence€indicated€that€the€debt€wasÏincurred€for€the€partiesðð€mutual€œbenefit›€and€that€both€parties€are€capable€of€repayment.€€ò òòòSeeÏMondelli€v.€Howardó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€769,€773€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€Consequently,€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed€on€this€issue.€€Ìà àMoreover,€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Wife€did€not€produceÏsufficient€evidence€on€how€her€inheritance€monies€were€spent€to€warrant€giving€her€credit€for€suchÏmonies€in€the€division€of€the€real€property.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€any€other€evidenceÏindicating€that€an€equal€division€of€the€real€property€would€be€inequitable.€€Accordingly,€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€divide€the€real€property€equally€between€Husband€and€Wife€is€affirmed.€Ìà àAlthough€Wife€argues€that€it€was€inequitable€to€award€Loya€a€judgment€against€Wife€forÏhalf€of€the€amount€of€the€loan€and€to€require€the€sale€of€the€Westboro€residence€if€the€debt€were€notÏotherwise€paid,€the€record€does€not€include€sufficient€evidence€to€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€was€in€error.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà àWife€contends€that€she€was€denied€a€full€and€fair€hearing€on€the€issues€of€spousal€support,Ïattorneyððs€fees€and€the€division€of€Husbandððs€pension€benefits.€€However,€Wife€does€not€point€toÏany€portion€of€the€record€in€which€she€sought€to€submit€evidence€on€these€issues,€prior€to€theÏmotion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€A€motion€to€alter€or€amend€judgment€cannot€be€used€as€aÍvehicle€to€raise€arguments€which€could€have€been€raised€prior€to€the€issuance€of€judgment.€€ò òòòSeeÏConcordia€College€Corp.€v.€W.R.€Grace€&€Co.ó óóó,€999€F.2d€326,€330€(8th€Cir.€1993);Ïò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€114€S.€Ct.€926,€127,€L.Ed.€2d€218€(1994).€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed€on€these€issues€as€well.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌœALAN€E.€HIGHERS,›€J.ó óÌ