ÿWPCD …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) n­8 å 0lå 0DQ U@• 0JÕ 0T 0^s 0hÑ 0r9 0|« 0†' 0­ 1u= 0d²U *B)@DCi AM¬úùËóv~¾vÓ< D3 BB 0@_ AOŸÆî 0D´ D/ø B'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - DDDDÓ€%DÒ üüD3|x%«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóô\  `(Times NewRomanTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌJanuary€8,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€"ÔÔ€"ôÔÓÓ€Although€divorce€was€granted€to€both€parties€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129,€the€record€indicates€that€the€wife€agreed€to€drop€her€demand€that€divorce€be€granted€to€her€onÏthe€grounds€of€the€husbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct€in€exchange€for€a€stipulation€that€theÏproof€regarding€relative€fault€be€considered€in€connection€with€alimony.€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ€ÑÑ7€÷”XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌJOEL€THOMAS€CATLETT,€JR.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CH„00244ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßR€%&$A1-j|‘Õ` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€23509ÌMARJEAN€GEððNELL€PERRYMANà à)ÌCATLETT,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌPAUL€T.€HOUSCHÌ211€Third€Avenue,€NorthÌP.€O.€Box€198288ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„8288Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌVIRGINIA€LEE€STORYÌ136€4th€Avenue,€SouthÌP.€O.€Box€1608ÌFranklin,€Tennessee€37065Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€"„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€"XÔÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€parties€a€divorce,€and€ordered€theÏhusband€to€pay€the€wife€alimony€in€futuro.€€The€parties€were€also€granted€jointÏcustody€of€the€teenage€children,€with€the€husband€to€have€primary€physicalÏcustody.€€On€appeal,€the€husband€challenges€the€nature€and€amount€of€theÏalimony€award,€and€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€order€the€wife€to€pay€child€support.€ÏWe€remand€this€case€to€enable€the€trial€court€to€make€the€findings€of€fact€in€regardÏto€child€support€that€are€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).€€In€allÏother€respects€we€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àJoel€Thomas€Catlett€and€Marjean€GeððNell€Perryman€married€inÏ1976.€€It€was€the€second€marriage€for€both.€€The€parties€separated€on€July€24,Ï1995,€and€were€subsequently€divorced.€The€husband€was€a€framing€contractor,Ïwho€earned€a€substantial€income.€€The€wife€stayed€at€home€and€raised€the€twoÏchildren€of€the€marriage,€Jeffery€Kane€Catlett,€born€on€May€16,€1978,€and€FloydÏJoel€Catlett,€born€on€April€23,€1979.€€The€parties€enjoyed€a€very€comfortableÏstandard€of€living,€but€the€husband€failed€to€accumulate€any€assets€of€value,€andÏdid€not€put€away€any€money€for€emergencies€or€for€retirement.ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€sometimes€worked€part„time€during€the€marriage,€but€sheÏnever€earned€much€above€the€minimum€wage.€€She€had€dropped€out€of€highÏschool€in€her€junior€year,€and€had€problems€with€reading€because€of€dyslexia.€ÏShe€also€suffered€an€injury€during€a€fishing€trip€with€her€husband€that€left€herÏblind€in€one€eye.€€She€was€interested€in€bettering€herself,€and€took€the€real€estateÏlicensing€exam€four€times,€but€was€unable€to€pass.€€After€the€parties€separated,Ïshe€took€her€G.E.D.€exam.€€She€did€not€pass,€but€she€wishes€to€try€again.€ÌÌà àà àThe€proof€showed€that€neither€party€is€afraid€of€hard€work,€but€thatÏthe€husband€has€the€overwhelmingly€greater€earning€capacity€because€of€hisÏskills€and€his€experience€in€the€construction€business.€€The€court€had€someÏdifficulty€in€determining€the€appropriate€amount€of€personal€income€to€attribute€toÏMr.€Catlett€for€the€purpose€of€setting€alimony,€because€he€had€failed€to€file€anyÍincome€tax€returns€for€the€ten€years€prior€to€the€divorce,€and€his€records€wereÏsomewhat€disorganized.€On€the€basis€of€information€he€supplied€as€to€his€incomeÏfor€the€most€recent€five€years,€the€trial€court€found€the€husbandððs€earning€capacityÏto€be€$7,200€per€month.€The€wife€had€most€recently€worked€at€a€country€club,Ïdoing€manual€labor€for€$6.00€per€hour.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€the€wife€$3,000€per€month€asÏalimony€in€futuro,€with€the€obligation€to€be€decreased€to€$1,000€per€month€after€36Ïmonths.€€The€husband€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€should€have€orderedÏrehabilitative€alimony€rather€than€alimony€in€futuro,€and€that€the€amount€ofÏalimony€ordered€was€excessive€in€light€of€the€husbandððs€own€personal€expenses,Ïthe€uncertainty€of€his€income,€and€the€possibility€that€he€might€become€liable€toÏthe€Internal€Revenue€Service€for€substantial€back€taxes€and€penalties.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó ó.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€relies€upon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1),€inÏwhich€our€legislature€has€stated€a€preference€in€divorce€cases€for€rehabilitativeÏalimony€over€alimony€in€futuro.ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIt€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€a€spouse€whoÏis€economically€disadvantaged,€relative€to€the€otherÏspouse,€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€theÏgranting€of€an€order€for€payment€of€rehabilitativeÍtemporary€support€and€maintenance.€€Where€there€is€suchÏrelative€economic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitation€is€notÏfeasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€includingÏthose€set€out€in€this€subsection,€then€the€court€may€grantÏan€order€for€payment€of€support€and€maintenance€on€aÏlong€term€basis€€.€.€.€.€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€see€no€inconsistency€between€the€mandate€of€the€legislatureÏand€the€result€in€this€case.€€The€trial€judge€incorporated€portions€of€the€transcriptÏrelating€to€alimony€into€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce€as€findings€of€fact.€€InÏdiscussing€the€difficulties€the€wife€had€to€deal€with,€the€judge€stated,€ð ðI€thinkÏthereððs€a€good€chance€that€she€can€be€substantially€rehabilitated.€€I€think€thereððs€aÏfair€chance€she€might€not€be.ððÌÌà àà àThe€judge€went€on€to€say€that€he€would€initially€set€the€amount€ofÏalimony€high€because€he€wanted€to€give€the€wife€the€opportunity€to€do€someÏschooling€or€to€take€other€steps€to€improve€her€earning€capacity€in€the€periodÏfollowing€divorce.€€After€that€period,€the€alimony€would€be€reduced,€but€notÏeliminated,€because€the€wifeððs€handicaps€might€make€it€impossible€for€her€toÏbecome€totally€self„supporting.€€Thus,€the€first€period€of€alimony€is€meant€to€beÏð ðrehabilitativeðð€in€fact,€if€not€in€name.€€The€second€period€of€alimony€protects€theÏwifeððs€right€to€long„term€support€if€that€should€remain€necessary.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó ó.ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€the€manner,€amount€and€duration€of€alimony,€the€trialÏcourt€is€directed€by€the€legislature€to€consider€all€relevant€factors€including€thoseÏthat€are€specifically€listed€in€categories€(A)€through€(L)€under€subsection€(d)€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€we€do€not€feel€it€necessary€to€recite€all€those€factors€here,Ïwe€note€that€virtually€all€of€them€indicate€that€the€wife€in€the€present€case€isÏentitled€to€a€generous€amount€of€support€from€her€former€husband.€€Some€of€theÏmost€important€for€the€purposes€of€this€case€are€the€relative€earning€capacities€ofÏthe€parties,€the€lack€of€separate€property€or€other€financial€resources€for€the€wifeÏto€rely€upon,€the€duration€of€the€marriage,€the€standard€of€living€the€partiesÏestablished€during€the€marriage,€and€the€relative€fault€of€the€parties.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€stated€many€times€that€the€amount€of€€alimony€is€aÏmatter€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€that€the€need€of€theÏdisadvantaged€spouse€is€the€most€important€consideration,€followed€by€the€abilityÏof€the€obligor€spouse€to€provide€support.€òò€Lancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671€S.W.2d€501Ï(Tenn.€App.€1984);€òòCampanali€v.€Campanalióó,€695€S.W.2d€193€(Tenn.€App.€1985);ÍòòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772€S.W.2d€48€(Tenn.€App.€1989);€òòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860ÏS.W.2d€409€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àà àBoth€parties€submitted€monthly€income€and€expense€statements€toÏassist€the€court€in€determining€the€appropriate€amount€of€support€to€set.€€TheÏwifeððs€statement€indicates€minimal€income,€and€expenses€in€excess€of€$3,000€perÏmonth.€This€sum€includes€$400€for€psychological€counseling€to€overcome€theÏeffects€of€the€abuse€she€suffered€during€the€marriage.€€The€wife€had€not€yet€begunÏsuch€counseling,€but€she€feels€it€could€be€an€important€component€of€herÏrehabilitation.€She€also€testified€that€she€is€interested€in€enrolling€in€a€juniorÏcollege€after€getting€her€G.E.D.,€but€her€income€statement€did€not€include€theÏprojected€expenses€of€this€plan.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€contends€that€his€income€is€likely€to€be€inadequate€toÏmeet€both€his€own€living€expenses€and€the€alimony€ordered€by€the€court.€€HeÏnotes€that€he€is€self„employed,€that€framing€is€a€highly€competitive€and€cyclicalÏbusiness,€and€that€he€may€become€obligated€to€the€Internal€Revenue€Service€forÏa€large€sum€in€the€near€future.€€He€also€states€that€he€is€no€longer€as€physicallyÏcapable€of€picking€up€heavy€materials€and€climbing€onto€the€structures€on€the€jobÏsite€as€he€was€when€he€was€younger.€ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€submitted€an€expense€statement€which€€indicatesÏmonthly€living€expenses€of€$5,855,€including€the€$2,000€in€alimony€pendente€liteÏthat€the€court€ordered€prior€to€the€filing€of€its€final€order.€€He€also€submitted€anÏincome€statement€that€indicates€a€gross€income€for€his€business€of€$14,000€perÏmonth,€and€a€net€income€after€business€expenses€and€after€income€taxes€ofÏ$4,226,€resulting€in€a€monthly€household€deficit€of€about€$1,628.ÌÌà àà àWe€note,€however,€that€Mr.€Catlett€has€apparently€not€yet€taken€anyÏsteps€to€report€his€taxable€income€to€the€I.R.S.€€We€note€also€that€the€CertifiedÏPublic€Accountant€who€was€hired€to€review€his€business€records€and€to€helpÏprepare€his€income€statement€report€was€unable€to€calculate€his€businessÏexpenses€directly€from€those€records€because€of€their€disorganized€state.€€TheÏCPA€had€to€rely€instead€on€statistics€for€contractors€and€carpentry€workÏnationwide,€even€though€it€is€unclear€whether€Mr.€Catlettððs€business€practices€areÏtypical€of€the€industry€as€a€whole.€€Further,€there€appears€to€be€some€leeway€forÏsavings€on€the€expense€side.€ÌÌà àà àSome€of€the€expenses€Mr.€Catlett€listed€were€$1,400€for€rent,€$380Ïfor€electricity,€$450€for€groceries,€lunches€and€allowances€for€the€two€boys€in€theÏamount€of€$350,€$350€for€gasoline,€another€$350€for€payments€on€a€pickup€truck,Ïand€payments€on€a€jet€ski€of€$215.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€some€of€these€figures€wereÏin€flux,€as€the€husband€was€planning€to€move€to€a€less€expensive€house,€but€hadÍnot€yet€found€one€to€his€liking,€and€he€was€not€yet€making€any€payments€on€aÏpickup€truck,€because€he€was€driving€one€lent€to€him€by€a€builder€he€was€workingÏfor.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€doubt€that€Mr.€Catlett€will€have€some€difficulty€meeting€hisÏalimony€payments.€€We€also€respect€the€strenuous€nature€of€the€work€involvedÏwith€his€chosen€occupation,€and€the€uncertainties€inherent€in€self„employment.ÏWe€do€not€feel,€however,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€basing€the€initial€alimonyÏaward€on€the€future€expenses€the€wife€will€likely€encounter€in€her€efforts€toÏrehabilitate€herself,€and€the€amount€of€income€the€court€believes€to€be€currentlyÏavailable€to€the€husband.€€The€judge€encouraged€Mr.€Catlett€to€honor€hisÏobligations€to€the€I.R.S.,€but€chose€not€to€make€a€premature€adjustment€in€theÏalimony€in€anticipation€of€the€penalties€that€might€be€imposed.€€€€Ìà àÌà àà àWe€note€that€alimony€in€futuro€remains€within€the€jurisdiction€of€theÏcourt,€and€may€be€modified€upon€a€showing€of€a€significant€and€material€changeÏin€circumstances.òò€€Seal€v.€Seal,óó€726€S.W.2d€934€(Tenn.€App.€1986);€òòJones€v.ÏJonesóó,€784€S.W.2d€349€(Tenn.€App.€1989);òò€Bowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2d€563Ï(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Prior€to€any€such€changes,€the€court€relies€upon€itsÏunderstanding€of€the€current€financial€status€of€the€parties.€€On€the€basis€of€theÏrecord€before€us,€we€do€not€feel€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€theÏmanner€in€which€it€fashioned€this€alimony€award.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó ó.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€was€granted€physical€custody€of€the€children€of€theÏmarriage,€with€the€wife€to€receive€ð ðstandard€visitation.ðð€€In€the€final€decree€ofÏdivorce,€the€trial€court€stated€that€ð ðdue€to€Motherððs€lack€of€employment€andÏdisparity€of€income€of€the€parties,€no€child€support€is€set€at€this€time.ððÌÌà àà àThe€wife€notes€that€the€older€boy€turned€eighteen€years€of€age€onÏMay€16,€1996,€five€months€after€the€filing€of€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce.€€TheÏyounger€boy€will€reach€his€majority€on€April€23,€1997.€€The€older€boy€was€workingÏin€the€fatherððs€framing€business€at€the€time€of€trial€and€earning€$10€per€hour.€€TheÏwife€asserts€that€the€younger€boy€is€also€working€with€his€father€now.€Ìà àÌà àà àThe€husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€orderÏthe€wife€to€pay€him€child€support€out€of€her€income€from€alimony€and€part„timeÏwork.€€He€correctly€points€out€that€the€law€creates€a€rebuttable€presumption€thatÏthe€non„custodial€parent€is€obligated€to€pay€child€support€to€the€custodial€parentÏin€accordance€with€the€child€support€guidelines€established€by€the€legislature.€ÏSee€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).€€The€same€statute€goes€on€to€say:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ.€.€.€If€the€court€finds€that€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€thisÏpresumption,€the€court€shall€make€a€written€finding€that€theÍapplication€of€the€child€support€guidelines€would€be€unjustÏor€inappropriate€in€that€particular€case,€in€order€to€provideÏfor€the€best€interest€of€the€child(ren)€or€the€equity€betweenÏthe€parties.€€Findings€that€the€application€of€the€guidelinesÏwould€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€shall€state€the€amount€ofÏsupport€that€would€have€been€ordered€under€the€childÏsupport€guidelines€and€a€justification€for€a€variance€fromÏthe€guidelines.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àIt€appears€to€us€that€while€the€trial€court€may€have€found€theÏapplication€of€the€guidelines€inappropriate€in€this€case,€it€failed€to€fully€complyÏwith€the€above€requirements.€€Those€requirements€are€not€a€mere€formality,€asÏthey€strengthen€a€presumption€which€was€created€to€protect€the€rights€of€minorÏchildren.€€We€therefore€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€with€instructions€to€makeÏthe€required€findings,€unless€it€believes€that€the€application€of€the€guidelinesÏwould€in€fact€be€appropriate,€in€which€case€it€must€order€child€support.ÌÌà@ àò òV.Ìó óÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€but€the€court€is€ordered€toÏamend€its€decree€to€conform€to€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.€€€€Ìà àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌJOEL€THOMAS€CATLETT,€JR.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CH„00244Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€23509Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌMARJEAN€GEððNELL€PERRYMANà à)à àAffirmed€ÌCATLETT,à àà àà àà àà à)à àandà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRemandedÌà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌà@ àò òòòÔ€"¼ÔJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tó óóóÔ€"XÔÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Williamson€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€theÏChancellor€there€is€no€reversible€error.Ìà àà àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed.€€It€isÏfurther€ordered€by€this€Court€that€the€cause€be€remanded€with€instructions€for€theÏtrial€court€to€make€written€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).€à àà àÌà àà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Joel€Thomas€Catlett,€Jr.,ÏPrincipal,€and€Paul€T.€Housch,€Surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.Ìà àà àENTER€_______________________.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEà àà àà àà à