ÿWPCÓ% J# UN' %u 0 ({UP£w@ó43GV 0l^ 0DÊ D3 0JA AO‹ÆÚ 0T  0@ô 0D4 0^x D/Ö B B" 0h? 0r§ 0| 0†• 0 1u« 0d U >„ U6 B)ø DC! AMdU*± Û—æ5}á²—“‚*ø¬Þ¤v~‚vÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular xyDzD{V|U}D~V€Ó€Œ R¦"3|xŽ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó++++'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô%'(*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,,'÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd26 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!&)-./01 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d<<<<7Border 1dd%'=Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÔ€?ÔÔ€?ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€?XÔÌÌò òJune€6,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€?ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔThe€bulk€of€the€facts€set€forth€in€the€first€paragraph€under€theÏheading€ð ðFactsðð€were€admitted€by€Wife€when€she€failed€to€respond€to€HusbandððsÏrequest€for€admissions.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€36,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔHusband€did€not€testify€in€person.€€Apparently,€Wife€did€not€object€toÏHusband€ð ðtestifyingðð€by€affidavit.Ì ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔThe€intention€of€remaining.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔT.C.A.›€ðð€36„4„104(a)€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àA€divorce€may€be€granted€for€any€of€the€aforementionedÏcauses€if€the€acts€complained€of€were€committed€whileÏthe€plaintiff€was€a€bona€fide€resident€of€this€stateÏor€if€the€acts€complained€of€were€committed€out€ofÏthis€state€and€the€plaintiff€resided€out€of€the€stateÏat€the€time,€if€the€plaintiff€or€the€defendant€hasÏresided€in€this€state€six€(6)€months€next€precedingÏthe€filing€of€the€complaint.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔBy€way€of€a€footnote,€the€court€in€ò òòòElkinsóóó ó€recognized€that€a€state€hasÏa€significant€interest€in€determining€who€can€become€a€domicile:ÌÌà àà8 à.€.€.€the€question€of€who€can€become€a€domiciliary€ofÏa€State€is€one€in€which€state€governments€have€theÏhighest€interest.€€Many€issues€of€state€law€may€turnÏon€the€definition€of€domicile:€for€example,€who€mayÏvote;€who€may€hold€public€office;€who€may€obtain€aÏdivorce;€who€must€pay€the€full€spectrum€of€stateÏtaxes.€€In€short,€the€definition€of€domicileÏdetermines€who€is€a€full„fledged€member€of€the€polityÏof€a€State,€subject€to€the€full€power€of€its€lawsÌà àà à.€.€.ÌÌòòò òElkinsó óóó,€98€S.Ct.€at€1347„48,€n.16.Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔAs€an€evidentiary€matter,€a€statement€by€an€alien€to€the€United€StatesÏGovernment€in€connection€with€that€personððs€application€for€nonimmigrantÏstatus€is€not€conclusive.€€òòSee€óóRule€803(1.2),€Tenn.R.Evid.€(ð ðStatementsÏadmissible€under€this€exception€[to€the€hearsay€rule]€are€not€conclusive.ðð)Ì ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔò òòòLingner€v.€Lingneróóó ó,€165€Tenn.€525,€56€S.W.2d€749€(1933);€ò òòòKnoxÏTenn.€Rental€Company€v.€Jenkins€Insuranceóóó ó,€755€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€1988);Ïò òòòWinters€v.€Allenóóó ó,€166€Tenn.€281,€62€S.W.2d€51€(1933);€ò òòòTennessee€IceÏCompany€v.€Raineóóó ó,€64€S.W.€29,€107€Tenn.€151€(1901);€ò òòòWyatt€v.€Brownóóó ó,€39ÏTenn.App.€28,€281€S.W.2d€64€(1955);€ò òòòInvestors€Syndicate€of€America€v.ÏAllenóóó ó,€198€Tenn.€288,€279€S.W.2d€497€(1955);€ò òòòIn€Re€Conservatorship€ofÏClayton,€óóó ó914€S.W.2d€84€(Tenn.App.€1995).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€;ÔÑ7€¬†XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÙ€%ÙßR€>@=A1-j|è` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌAEYON€CHO,à àà àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9608„CV„00257Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€INTERLOCUTORY€APPEAL€PURSUANT€TOÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€RULE€9,€T.R.A.P.,€FROM€THEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€KNOX€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDAE„YOUNG€JEONG,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€BILL€SWANN,Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellant.)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌFor€œAppellant›à àà àà àà àà àFor€œAppellee›ÌÌJAMES€M.€CRAINà àà àà àà àà àJEAN€MUNROEÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLAURA€RULE€HENDRICKSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEldridge,€Irvine€&€HendricksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€;ÔÔ€;XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÓÓà àà àWe€granted€œthe€application€of€Dae„Young›€Jeong€œ(Husband)Ïfor›€an€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€9,€œT.R.A.P.,›€toÏconsider€whether€the€trial€court€has€subject€matter€jurisdictionÏto€grant€his€wife,€the€plaintiff€Aeyon€Cho€(Wife),€an€absoluteÏdivorce.ÌÌà àà àOn€December€20,€1995,€Wife€filed€a€complaint€seeking€aÏdivorce€from€Husband€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differencesÏand€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€Wifeððs€complaint€was€met€byÏHusbandððs€motion€to€dismiss,€in€which€he€asserted€that€the€trialÏcourt€ð ðlack[ed]€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€award€a€divorceÏbetween€these€two€non„domiciliaries€œof›€Tennessee.ðð€€The€trialÏcourt€denied€the€motion€and€this€appeal€followed.ÌÌà àà àHusband€raises€a€number€of€issues€that€can€beÏencapsulated€into€three€questions:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Does€Wifeððs€nonimmigrant€status€œunder›ÏU.S.C.€ðð€1101(a)(15)(F)€preclude€her,€as€aÏmatter€of€law,€from€establishing€a€domicile€inÏTennessee?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€determination€that€Wife€had€theÏrequisite€intent€to€establish€a€domicile€inÏTennessee?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Did€Wife€enter€this€country€and€does€sheÏremain€in€this€country€based€on€falseÏstatements€to€the€United€States€immigrationÏauthorities€or€the€trial€court€so€thatÏequitable€principles€bar€her€divorce€action?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àI.€€òòFactsóóÌÌà àà àThe€parties€are€citizens€of€the€Republic€of€Korea.€ÏTheir€child,€Min„gu€Jeong,€was€born€in€Korea€on€October€6,€1994.€ÏHe€too€is€a€citizen€of€Korea.€€Wife€entered€the€United€States€as€aÏnonimmigrant€alien.€€At€all€relevant€times,€her€alien€status€wasÏdefined€œeither€by›€subsection€œ(i)›€œor€by›€(ii)€of€8€U.S.C.€ððÏ1101(a)(15)(F):ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àœ(i)›€An€alien€having€a€residence€in€a€foreignÏcountry€which€he€has€no€intention€ofÍabandoning,€who€is€a€bona€fide€studentÏqualified€to€pursue€a€full€course€of€study€andÏwho€seeks€to€enter€the€United€StatesÏtemporarily€and€solely€for€the€purpose€ofÏpursuing€such€a€course€of€study€at€anÏestablished€college,€university,€seminary,Ïconservatory,€academic€high€school,€elementaryÏschool€or€other€academic€institution€or€in€aÏlanguage€training€program€in€the€UnitedÏStates,€particularly€designated€by€him€andÏapproved€by€the€Attorney€General€afterÏconsultation€with€the€Secretary€of€Education,Ïwhich€institution€or€place€of€study€shall€haveÏagreed€to€report€to€the€Attorney€General€theÏtermination€of€attendance€of€each€nonimmigrantÏstudent€and€if€such€institution€of€learning€orÏplace€of€study€fails€to€make€reports€promptlyÏthe€approval€shall€be€withdrawn,€and€(ii)€theÏalien€spouse€and€minor€children€of€any€suchÏalien€if€accompanying€him€or€following€to€joinÏhim.ÌÌÌÌÓÓœWife›€initially€entered€the€United€States€pursuant€to€subsectionÏ(ii)€of€8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101€(a)(15)(F).€€At€the€same€time,€œher€husband›Ïentered€this€country€pursuant€to€subsection€œ(i).›€€When€WifeÏentered€this€country,€she€ð ðwas€required€to€attest€that€she€had€aÏresidence€in€the€Republic€of€Korea,€to€which€she€intended€toÏreturn€when€her€husbandððs€course€of€study€was€completed.ððœ× ƒA ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àThe€œstatement›€of€œevidence›€filed€pursuant€to€Rule€24(c),ÏT.R.A.P.€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àMs.€Cho€testified€that€she€and€[Mr.€Jeong]Ïwere€married€on€Christmas,€1993,€and€shortlyÏthereafter€came€to€the€United€States€so€thatÏ[her€husband]€could€pursue€his€studies€at€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee.€€She€stated€that€sheÏhad€remained€here€all€of€her€married€life.€ÏShe€testified€that€all€of€her€family€were€inÏð ðher€countryðð€(i.e.,€The€Republic€of€Korea);Ïthat€neither€she€nor€[her€husband]€had€aÏseparate€residence€in€the€Republic€of€Korea,Ïand€that€she€had€no€property€or€belongings€inÏthe€Republic€of€Korea.€€She€testified€that€sheÏdesired€to€make€Knoxville€her€home,€that€sheÏhas€friends€in€Knoxville,€that€she€wasÏinvolved€in€a€church€(Greystone€PresbyterianÏChurch),€that€she€had€acquired€a€driverððsÏlicense,€a€credit€card,€and€a€social€securityÏnumber,€that€she€has€leased€an€apartment€underÏa€six€month€lease,€which€was€renewable€at€theÏend€of€that€term,€that€she€has€applied€for€aÏð ðF„1"€visa€(i.e.,€for€non„immigrant€status€asÏdefined€[in]€8€U.S.C.€œ1101(15)(F)(i)).›€.€.€.ÏShe€testified€that€if€she€returned€to€Korea,Ï[her€husbandððs]€parents€would€immediatelyÏobtain€custody€of€her€minor€son.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€had€established€aÏrelationship€with€local€doctors,€.€.€.€.€SheÏfurther€testified€that€she€had€established€aÏð ðrelationshipðð€with€Child€&€Family€Services,€.Ï.€.€She€testified€that€she€had€a€MasterððsÏdegree,€that€her€family€was€willing€to€supportÏher€while€she€was€in€the€United€States.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€wished€to€remain€inÏTennessee€for€as€long€as€necessary€to€obtain€aÏdivorce€and€maintain€custody€of€her€son€duringÏhis€minority.ÌÌà àà8 àMs.€Cho€testified€that€she€had€come€to€theÏUnited€States€to€be€with€her€husband€while€heÏcompleted€his€education.€€She€was€asked€whyÏshe€changed€[her]€mind,€.€.€.€In€response€sheÏstated€that€her€husband€mistreated€her,€thatÏhe€consumed€too€much€alcohol.€€She€testifiedÏthat€she€wanted€him€to€change,€and€that€heÏcould€change,€but€he€would€not.€€She€was€askedÏhow€she€wanted€him€to€change,€and€she€statedÏthat€she€wanted€him€to€consume€less€alcohol.€ÏShe€was€asked€why€she€had€any€concerns€aboutÏher€husband€having€custody€of€her€minor€child,Ï.€.€.€In€response,€she€related€an€event€inÏwhich€her€husband€had€consumed€considerableÏalcohol,€and€over€her€objection€took€theirÏminor€child€out€for€a€drive€around€the€parkingÏlot.€€She€stated€that€law€enforcement€officersÏhad€come€to€their€apartment€complex,€one€cameÏto€the€doorÌà àà8 à.€.€.€.€She€then€testified€that€the€officerÏhad€told€her€that€her€husband€was€operating€aÏvehicle€under€the€influence,€that€he€shouldÏnot€do€so,€particularly€because€of€the€dangerÏto€their€minor€child.€€Ms.€Cho€testified€thatÏshe€wanted€to€obtain€a€divorce€from€herÏhusband€and€retain€custody€of€her€minor€child,Ïso€that€her€child€can€get€to€know€his€mother.€ÏShe€said€that€she€had€no€particular€objectionÏto€a€Korean€divorce€if€she€could€be€assured€ofÏseeing€her€minor€child€on€a€regular€basis.€ÏShe€further€testified€that€Korean€law€did€notÏprotect€battered€spouses.ÌÌà àà8 àOn€cross„examination,€she€testified€that€sheÏhad€returned€to€Korea€on€two€occasions€duringÏthe€two€years€between€her€initial€arrival€inÏthis€country€and€[the]€filing€of€this€suit,Ïthat€upon€one€occasion€she€had€attempted€toÏobtain€a€divorce€from€her€husband€in€Korea,Ïbut€was€unable€to€do€so;€that€her€driverððsÏlicense€was€a€restricted€driverððs€license,Ïrequiring€the€presence€of€a€licensed€driver€inÏthe€vehicle€when€she€was€operating€same;€thatÏshe€had€obtained€a€checking€account€at€a€localÍbank;€and€that€her€purpose€of€claimingÏdomicile€was€so€that€she€could€obtain€aÏdivorce€from€her€husband€and€custody€of€herÏchild.€€She€further€testified€that,€in€makingÏapplication€for€an€ð ðF„1"€student€visa,€she€hadÏfiled€a€statement€with€the€United€StatesÏgovernment€that€she€had€a€home€in€Korea€whichÏshe€had€no€intention€of€abandoning,€and€thatÏshe€wished€to€remain€in€the€United€StatesÏsolely€to€pursue€her€education.€€When€asked€ifÏshe€had€lied€when€she€made€that€statement,€sheÏresponded€in€the€affirmative.ÌÌà àà8 à[Ms.€Cho]€called€Mark€L.€Knisely€as€a€witness.€ÏHe€testified€that€he€was€the€pastor€ofÏGreystone€Presbyterian€Church,€that€he€knewÏ[Ms.€Cho],€that€she€had€been€attending€hisÏchurch€for€some€two€years,€and€had€been€anÏactive€member€for€over€one€year.€€He€was€askedÏwhat€she€had€told€him€concerning€her€intentionÏto€remain€in€the€United€States,€.€.€.€ReverendÏKnisely€then€testified€that€Ms.€Cho€had€toldÏhim€that€she€wished€to€remain€in€the€UnitedÏStates,€that€she€had€enrolled€in€a€class€toÏenhance€her€ability€to€understand€the€EnglishÏlanguage€and€that€she€had€applied€forÏadmission€to€the€University€of€Tennessee.€€OnÏcross„examination€he€reaffirmed€his€testimonyÏthat€Ms.€Cho€and€her€son€had€been€regularÏparticipants€at€the€church€for€a€year,€butÏtestified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€she€andÏher€son€had€returned€to€Korea€at€any€timeÏduring€that€year.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€record€reflects€that,€in€addition€to€the€facts€establishedÏthrough€Husbandððs€œrequest›€for€œadmissions›€and€the€evidence€setÏforth€in€the€œstatement›€of€œevidence,›€the€trial€court€alsoÍconsidered€the€affidavit× ƒB ××  ×€of€Husband€submitted€in€support€of€hisÏmotion€to€dismiss:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àMy€name€is€Dae„Young€Jeong,€and€I€am€a€citizenÏof€the€Republic€of€Korea.€€My€wife,€theÏPlaintiff€Aeyon€Cho,€is€similarly€a€citizen€ofÏthe€Republic€of€Korea.€€We€were€married€inÏKomi,€Korea€on€December€25,€1993.ÌÌà àà8 àI€am€a€student€at€the€University€of€Tennessee,Ïhaving€been€admitted€to€the€United€StatesÏunder€a€student€visa€to€allow€me€to€pursue€myÏeducation.€€My€wife€was€admitted€to€the€UnitedÏStates€under€a€visa€allowing€her€to€accompanyÏme€as€a€member€of€my€family.€€To€the€extentÏthat€my€wife€and€I€have€resided€in€Tennessee,Ïwe€have€done€so€as€temporary€residents.€€WeÏhave€not„„and€according€to€my€understanding€ofÏthe€immigration€laws€of€the€United€States€ofÏAmerica,€we€could€not„„have€become€domiciledÏin€Tennessee,€because€the€basis€upon€which€weÏwere€admitted€to€the€United€States€precludesÏthe€establishment€of€a€permanent€residenceÏhere.ÌÌà àà8 àMy€wife€came€to€the€United€States€on€or€aboutÏDecember€30,€1993.€€She€returned€to€Korea€lessÏthan€four€months€later,€on€or€about€April€12,Ï1994,€and€remained€in€Korea€until€February€23,Ï1995.€€During€her€stay€to€[sic]€Korea,€ourÏminor€child,€Min„gu€Jeong,€was€born€in€theÏRepublic€of€Korea.€€My€wife€returned€to€theÏUnited€States€on€February€23,€1995,€andÏremained€here€until€October€3,€1995,€when€sheÏagain€returned€to€the€Republic€of€Korea.€€SheÏreturned€to€Tennessee€on€or€about€November€20,Í1995,€and€left€our€apartment€on€or€aboutÏNovember€25,€1995.ÌÌà àà8 àUpon€completion€of€my€course€of€study€at€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee,€I€will€be€returningÏto€the€Republic€of€Korea.€€Indeed,€under€myÏpresent€immigration€status,€I€must€do€so.€€ItÏis€my€understanding€that€upon€the€terminationÏof€my€wifeððs€status€as€a€member€of€my€family,Ïshe€also€must€return€to€the€Republic€of€Korea.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌà@ àII.€€òòTrial€Courtððs€DecisionóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€ð ðthere€is€a€sufficientÏòòanimus€manendióó× ƒC ××  ×€for€wife€to€have€a€Tennessee€domicile€as€of€theÏtime€of€[the]€hearing.ðð€€The€court€relied€ð ðon€wifeððs€testimony€asÏto€her€intent€to€retain€custody€of€her€baby,€which€she€believes€isÏmost€likely€under€the€laws€of€this€country.ððÌÌà àà àFollowing€its€finding€in€favor€of€subject€matterÏjurisdiction,€the€trial€court€granted€Husband€an€interlocutoryÏappeal€pursuant€to€Rule€9,€T.R.A.P.€€We€granted€the€same€relief€byÏorder€entered€September€18,€1996.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€òòStandard€of€ReviewóóÌÌà àà àHusband€filed€what€amounted€to€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€òòseeóó€Rule€12.03,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.;€however,€the€trial€courtÏelected€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€issues€raised€by€theÏmotion.€€œBecause€of€this€election,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€theÏrecord.€€Rule›€13(d),€T.R.A.P.€€The€record€is€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness,€which€we€must€honor€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€courtððs€findings.€€òòId.óó;€òòò òUnionÏCarbide€Corporation€v.€Huddlestonó óóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€not€afforded€theÏsame€deference.€€òòò òAdams€v.€Dean€Roofing€Co.,€Inc.ó óóó,€715€S.W.2dÏ341,€343€(Tenn.App.€1986).ÌÌà àà àWe€embark€upon€our€analysis€mindful€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[a€trial€judge],€on€an€issue€which€hinges€onÏwitness€credibility,€will€not€be€reversedÏunless,€other€than€the€oral€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,Ïconcrete€and€convincing€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryó óóó,€526€S.W.2d€488,€490Ï(Tenn.App.€1974).ÌÌà@ àIV.€òòLaw€and€AnalysisóóÌÌà àThe€parties€agree€that€the€jurisdictional€language€of€T.C.A.Ïðð€36„4„104(a)× ƒD ××  ל€„„€ð ðbona›€fide€resident€of€œthis›€œstateðð€„„€requires›€aÏshowing€that€a€given€person€is€domiciled€in€this€state.€€òòò òBrown€v.ÏBrownó óóó,€150€Tenn.€89,€261€S.W.€959€(1924).€€The€subject€of€domicileÏis€discussed€in€the€case€of€òòò òSturdavant€v.€Sturdavantó óóó,€189ÏS.W.2d€410€(Tenn.App.€1944):ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àBefore€a€new€domicile€can€be€acquired€a€homeÏmust€be€actually€established€with€theÏòòintention€toóó€òòremainóó.€€No€change€of€domicileÏcan€be€effected€by€a€mere€statement€of€anÏintention€not€accompanied€by€some€act€inÏaccord€with€this€intention.€€There€must€be€aÏconcurrence€of€actual€change€of€residence€andÍthe€intention€to€abandon€the€old€and€acquire€aÏnew€domicile.ÌÌÌÌòòò òÓÓIdó óóó.€at€411€(Emphasis€added).€€òòSee€also€ò òSparks€v.€Sparksó óóó,€114ÏTenn.€666,€88€S.W.€173,€174€(1905).ÌÌà àà àð ðIn€determining€whether€or€not€a€change€of€domicile€hasÏbeen€made,€it€is€proper€to€consider,€along€with€the€statement€ofÏthe€party€of€his€intent€in€the€matter,€his€conduct€andÏdeclarations€and€all€other€facts€that€throw€light€upon€theÏsubject.ðð€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€€While€an€individual€can€have€numerous€places€ofÏresidence,€he€or€she€ð ðcan€have€but€one€domicile.ðð€€ò òòòBrownóóó ó,€261€S.W.Ïat€959.ÌÌà@ àA.€€òòNonimmigrant€StatusóóÌÌà àà àHusband€argues€that€Wifeððs€nonimmigrant€status€under€8ÏU.S.C.€ðð€1101€(a)(15)(F)€is€an€absolute€impediment€to€œher›Ïformation€of€the€requisite€intent€to€ð ðacquire€a€new€domicile.ðð€Ïò òòòSparksó óóó,€88€S.W.€at€174.€€He€points€out€that€Wife€acknowledged,€byÏfailing€to€respond€to€his€œrequest›€for€œadmissions,›€that€she€hadÏpreviously€ð ðattest[ed]€[to€the€United€States€Government]€that€sheÏhad€a€residence€in€the€Republic€of€Korea,€to€which€she€intended€toÍreturn€when€her€husbandððs€course€of€study€was€completed.ðð€€He€alsoÏpoints€out€œthat,›€when€she€subsequently€filed€for€nonimmigrantÏstatus€under€subsection€œ(i)›€of€the€same€code€œsection€in€order€to›Ïattend€the€University€of€Tennessee,€she€acknowledged€that€she€hadÏa€ð ðresidence€in€a€foreign€country€which€[s]he€[had]€no€intentionÏof€abandoning.ðð€€òòSeeóó€8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101€œ(a)(15)(F)(i).›ÌÌà àà àWe€recently€held€that€a€party€has€the€legal€capacity€toÏacquire€a€domicile€in€Tennessee€even€though€he€or€she€is€a€citizenÏof€a€foreign€country.€€ò òòòAnene€v.€Aneneó óóó,€C/A€No.€03A01„9511„CV„00387€(Tenn.App.€at€Knoxville,€October€2,€1996).€€However,€HusbandÏcorrectly€points€out€that€in€òòò òAnene,ó óóó€we€did€not€consider€the€effectÏof€8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101(a)(15)(F)€on€a€nonimmigrant€alienððs€attempt€toÏestablish€a€new€domicile€in€this€state.€€Husband€contends€that€theÏinstant€case€is€a€case€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee,€and€weÏhave€found€no€authority€to€indicate€otherwise.ÌÌà àà àWhile€this€issue€does€not€appear€to€have€been€addressedÏby€an€appellate€court€in€this€state,€it€has€been€faced€by€a€numberÏof€other€jurisdictions.€€The€clear€weight€of€authority€is€to€theÏeffect€that€the€nonimmigrant€status€of€8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101(a)(15)(F)Ïis€not€a€òòper€seóó€absolute€bar€to€the€acquisition€of€a€new€domicileÍin€this€country,€but€œonly›€one€factor€to€be€considered€along€with€aÏmyriad€of€other€relevant€factors.€€œòòSee,€e.g.,€ò òAlves›€v.€Alvesóó,Ïó ó262€A.2d€111€(D.C.App.€1970);€ò òBustamante€v.€Bustamante,ó ó€645ÏP.2d€40€(Utah€1982);€ò òòòCocron€v.€Cocronó óóó,€84€Misc.2d€335,€375ÏN.Y.S.2d€797€(N.Y.Sup.Ct.,€Spc.Term,€1975);€ò òòòIn€re€Marriage€ofÏDickó óóó,€15€Cal.App.4th€144,€18€Cal.Rptr.2d€743€(Cal.2nd€Dist.Ct.App.Ï1993);€ò òòòPerez€v.€Perezóóó ó,€164€So.2d€561€(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.€1964).ÌÌà àà àWe€find€the€reasoning€of€these€cases€œpersuasive.›€€In€theÏò òòòBustamanteóóó ó€case,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Utah€made€pertinentÏstatements,€which€we€adopt€as€a€part€of€the€rationale€for€ourÏholding€in€this€case:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àEven€if€the€plaintiffððs€professed€intention€toÏestablish€an€actual€and€bona€fide€residency€isÏinconsistent€with€the€terms€of€her€right€ofÏentry€into€the€United€States,€she€is€notÏthereby€disqualified€from€becoming€aÏdomiciliary€for€divorce€purposes.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 àð ðA€visa€is€a€document€of€entry€required€ofÏaliens€by€the€United€States€Government€and€isÏa€matter€under€the€control€of€the€government.€ÏIt€has€little€relevance€to€the€question€ofÏdomicile.ðð€€ò òòòAlves€v.€Alvesóóó ó,€262€A.2d€111,Ï115€(D.C.App.€1970).€€A€state€must€determineÏwho€qualifies€as€a€resident€under€its€ownÏlaws,€and€need€not€assist€the€FederalÏGovernment€in€enforcing€the€immigration€andÍnaturalization€laws.€€Numerous€cases€have€heldÏthat€nonimmigrating€aliens€may€form€theÏrequisite€intent€to€establish€a€permanentÏresidence€necessary€for€divorce€jurisdiction.€Ï(citations€omitted).€€Given€the€uncertaintyÏconfronting€an€alien€in€knowing€whether€he€mayÏbe€accorded€the€right€to€remain€indefinitelyÏor€permanently€under€certain€situations,€weÏhold€that€an€alien€may€have€a€ð ðdual€intentðð„„an€intent€to€remain€if€that€may€beÏaccomplished€and€at€the€same€time€an€intent€toÏleave€if€the€law€so€commands.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ645€P.2d€at€42.€€The€same€conclusion€was€reached€in€the€case€of€ò òòòInÏre€Marriage€of€Dickóóó ó€wherein€the€California€Court€of€AppealsÏstated€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àWe€conclude€that€husbandððs€nonimmigrant€statusÏdoes€not€preclude€a€finding€of€residence€underÏCalifornia€law€for€purposes€of€obtaining€aÏdissolution€of€marriage.€€We€agree€withÏòòò òBustamante€óóó óand€ò òòòCocronó óóó€that€a€nonimmigrantÏalien€in€the€United€States€on€a€renewable€visaÏmay€have€the€dual€intention€of€remaining€inÏthis€country€indefinitely€by€whatever€meansÏincluding€renewal€of€a€visa€and€of€returningÏto€his€or€her€home€country€if€so€compelled.€ÏAt€most,€ð ðalien€status€can€.€.€.€operate€as€anÏevidentiary€fact€against€the€personððs€allegedÏintention€to€remain€in€the€state€permanentlyÏ[citation].ðð€€(ò òòòCocron€v.€Cocron,€supraóóó ó,€375ÏN.Y.S.2d€at€p.€809.)ÌÌà àà8 àThis€conclusion€is€buttressed€by€the€differentÏaims€and€purposes€of€immigration€andÏdissolution€law;€ð ð[t]here€is€no€rationalÏground€for€intermingling€these€two€distinctÏareas€of€law€.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòò òWilliams€v.ÍWilliams,€supraó óóó,€328€F.Supp.€at€p.€1383.)€ÏIt€is€not€necessary€for€the€courts€of€thisÏstate€to€carry€out€immigration€policy€byÏdenying€nonimmigrant€aliens€a€judicial€forumÏwhen€they€otherwise€meet€domiciliaryÏrequirements€and€when€they€are€subject€to€theÏcourts€of€this€state€for€other€purposes.€Ïòò(Ibid.€óó[ððThe€enforcement€of€immigration€lawsÏproperly€remains€with€those€to€whom€it€isÏentrusted€by€law€and€does€not€need€in€aid€ofÏenforcement€the€judicially€created€civilÏdisability€of€exclusion€from€our€divorceÏcourts.ðð];€òòò òPirouzkar€and€Pirouzkar,€supraó óóó,Ï626€P.2d€at€p.€384€[ððThe€enforcement€of€theÏimmigration€laws€is€the€function€of€theÏfederal€government.ðð].)ÌÌÌÌÓÓ18€Cal.Rptr.2d€at€747„48.ÌÌà àà àœDespite€the€wealth€of€authority€against€his€position,ÏHusband›€œnevertheless€argues€that€the›€United€States€Supreme€CourtððsÏdecision€in€the€case€of€òòò òElkins€v.€Morenoóóó ó,€435€U.S.€647,€98€S.Ct.Ï1338,€55€L.Ed.2d€614€œ(1978)€supports€his€contention.›€€That€caseÏinvolved€an€attempt€by€nonimmigrant€aliens€residing€in€Maryland€toÏobtain€the€benefits€of€ð ðin„stateðð€status€at€the€University€ofÏœMaryland,€i.e.,€lower€tuition€and€other€benefits.›€€The€plaintiffsÏin€that€case€were€dependents€of€parents€who€were€in€this€countryÏunder€a€ð ðG„4€visaðð„„a€visa€granted€to€ð ðofficers,€or€employees€of€.Ï.€.€international€organizations,€and€the€members€of€theirÏimmediate€familiesðð€pursuant€to€8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101€(a)(15)(G)(iv).ÌÌà àà àIn€ò òòòElkinsóóó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€federal€law€wasÏnot€an€impediment€to€an€attempt€by€a€nonimmigrant€alien€toÏestablish€a€domicile€in€the€United€States€in€those€cases€where€theÏalien€òòwas€notóó€required€to€maintain€a€residence€in€a€foreignÏcountry.€€The€Supreme€Court€œexpressly›€declined€to€consider€whetherÏa€nonimmigrant€alien€who€òòwasóó€required€to€maintain€such€a€residenceÏœcould›€œnevertheless›€establish€a€domicile€in€this€œcountry.€€ThatÏissue€was€not€before€the€court€in€ò òòòElkinsóóó ó.€€Because€that€issue€wasÏnot€addressed€in€ò òòòElkinsóóó ó,€we›€agree€with€those€courts€that€have€heldÏò òòòElkinsóóó ó€is€not€controlling€precedent€œon€the€question€of€whether€anÏ8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101€(a)(15)(F)€alien€can€acquire€a€domicile€in€thisÏcountry€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€a€divorce.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€ò òòòIn€reÏMarriage€of€Dickóóó ó,€18€Cal.Rptr.2d€at€748.€€ò òòòElkinsó óóó€simply€doesÏnot€apply€to€the€issue€of€domicile€in€a€divorce€case;€for€thisÏreason,›€we€do€not€find€the€reasoning€in€that€case€œto€be€persuasive›Íin€the€resolution€of€the€instant€case.œ× ƒE ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àWe€hold€that€Wifeððs€nonimmigrant€status€under€8€U.S.C.€ððÏ1101(a)(15)(F)€is€not€an€absolute€bar€to€a€finding€of€ð ðbona€fideÏresidentðð€status€under€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„104(a).€€It€is€only€one€ofÏmany€facts€that€bear€upon€the€question€of€whether€a€nonimmigrantÏhas€the€requisite€intent€to€remain€indefinitely€in€this€state.× ƒF ××  ×ÌÌà àà àHusbandððs€first€issue€is€without€merit.Ì̜Ǜà@ àB.€€òòTrial€Courtððs€Finding€of€DomicileóóÌÌà àà àHusband€argues€that€even€if€the€federal€immigration€lawsÏare€not€an€absolute€bar€to€Wifeððs€acquisition€of€a€new€domicile€inÏTennessee,€nevertheless€she€failed€to€establish€the€dualÏrequirements€of€residence€and€œð ðintent[]›€to€œremainðð›€in€TennesseeÏindefinitely.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€focused€on€Wifeððs€professed€intent€toÏremain€here€until€her€child€reached€his€majority„„some€16€years€inÏthe€future€as€of€the€date€of€the€hearing€below.€€It€found€this€toÏbe€a€clear€indication€that€Wife€intended€to€remain€indefinitely€inÏTennessee.€€This€is€certainly€a€logical€conclusion€since€it€isÏclear€that€Wife€believes€she€will€encounter€problems€with€respectÏto€the€custody€of€her€child€if€she€returns€to€Korea.€€If€oneÏbelieves€Wife,€and€the€trial€court€œobviously›€did,€it€cannot€beÏseriously€contended€that€Wife€wants€or€intends€to€resideÏindefinitely€in€Korea;€if€not€in€Korea,€then€œwhere€does€she€intendÏto€live?›€€We€believe€the€question€answers€itself.ÌÌà àà àHusband€argues€that€Wife€intends€to€remain€in€TennesseeÏonly€because€she€views€her€presence€here€as€a€way€to€obtain€aÍdivorce€and€secure€custody€of€her€child.€€Our€focus€is€on€WifeððsÏòòtrueóó€intent€rather€than€on€her€reason(s)€for€forming€that€intent.€ÏIf€Wife€òòintendsóó€to€remain€in€Tennessee€òòindefinitelyóó,€she€is€aÏð ðbona€fide€residentðð€of€this€state,€regardless€of€the€reason(s)Ïfor€that€intent.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€had€to€decide€if€there€wasÏa€ð ðconcurrence€of€actual€change€of€residence€and€the€intention€toÏabandon€the€old€and€acquire€a€new€domicile.ðð€€ò òòòSturdavantóóó ó,€189ÏS.W.2d€at€411.€€It€is€clear€that€there€has€been€an€ð ðactual€changeÏof€residence.ðð€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóWife€came€to€Tennessee€shortly€after€herÏmarriage€in€December,€1993.€€She€has€œlived›€in€Knox€County€everÏsince,€except€for€two€visits€to€Korea.€€Since€her€separation€fromÏHusband,€she€has€rented€an€apartment€in€Knox€County€on€a€six„monthÏlease€that€is€renewable.€€She€does€not€have€a€separate€residenceÏin€Korea€and€has€no€property€or€belongings€in€that€country.€€TheÏð ðresidence€prongðð€of€the€domicile€test€has€clearly€been€met.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€second€prong€of€the€test,€œð ðthe›€intention€toÏabandon€the€old€and€acquire€a€new€œdomicile,ðð›€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€the€trial€courtÏhad€to€consider€ð ð[Wifeððs]€statement€of...€[her]€intent€in€theÏmatter,€[her]€conduct€and€declarations€and€all€other€facts€thatÍthrow€light€upon€the€subject.ðð€€ò òòòSparksó óóó,€88€S.W.€at€174.€€The€trialÏcourt€basically€had€to€decide€if€Wife€sincerely€intended€to€remainÏin€Tennessee€indefinitely.€€ò òòòSturdavantóóó ó,€189€S.W.2d€at€412.€€InÏdoing€so,€it€had€an€advantage€that€we€do€not€have„„it€was€able€toÏhear,€and€observe€the€demeanor€of,€the€two€witnesses€who€testifiedÏin€person,€i.e.,€Wife€and€her€minister.€€Because€of€this,€theÏtrial€court€was€in€a€much€better€position€than€are€we€to€decideÏwhether€these€witnesses€testified€truthfully;€more€specifically,Ïwhether€Wife€was€sincere€when€she€said€that€she€wanted€to€ð ðmakeÏKnoxville€her€home.ðð€ÌÌà àà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€all€of€the€evidence€beforeÏthe€trial€court.€€It€is€clear€that€Wifeððs€credibility€was€anÏimportant€issue€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€chose€to€believeÏœher›€testimony€œand€the€other€evidence€tending€to€support›€a€findingÏthat€Wife€œintends›€to€remain€indefinitely€in€Tennessee.€€We€are€notÏin€a€position€to€second„guess€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€theÏcredibility€of€Wife€and€œthe€credibility€of€the€other€evidenceÏfavorable€to€her€position.›€€òòò òTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corpó óóó.,€526ÏS.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.App.€1974).€€Furthermore,€œwe€cannot€say€thatÏthe€facts€relied€upon€by€Husband„„including€Wifeððs€statements€toÏthe€federal€government„„preponderate€against€a€finding€that€Wifeððs›Íòòpresentóó€intent€œis€to›€establish€a€domicile€in€Tennessee.€€It€isÏclear€to€us€that€Wife€òòwantsóó€to€remain€indefinitely€in€Tennessee.€ÏAs€we€view€it,€what€she€may€or€may€not€be€òòcompelledóó€to€do€by€theÏfederal€government€does€not€change€œthat€òòpresentóó€intent.›€€It€goesÏwithout€saying,€that€life€is€filled€with€uncertainties.€ÏUnexpected€events€can€and€do€occur€that€impact,€and€even€cause€aÏperson€to€change,€a€previously„formed€intent€to€stay€in€a€givenÏlocale€indefinitely.€€œThe€child€of€a€sick€parent€may€feel€duty„bound€to€permanently€abandon€his€or€her€home€to€care€for€theÏailing€parent.€€Marriage›€may€prompt€one€to€œgive€up›€his€or€herÏlongtime€residence.€€œLoss›€of€œemployment€can€bring€about€the€sameÏresult.›€€A€devastating€tornado€may€convince€a€œlifelong€resident›€ofÏthe€flatlands€to€move€elsewhere.€€As€pertinent€to€this€case,€theÏfederal€government€may€compel€a€person€to€leave€this€country€evenÏthough€that€person€œhas›€previously€formed€a€firm€intent€to€remainÏhere€indefinitely.€€The€issue€œregarding€domicile€is›€not€what€mayÏhappen€in€the€future,€because€no€one€can€predict€the€œfuture;€the›Ïreal€œquestion€is€what€is€the€subject€personððs›€òòpresentóó€intent.ÌÌà àà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[e]ach€state€as€a€sovereign€has€a€rightful€andÏlegitimate€concern€in€the€marital€status€ofÍpersons€domiciled€within€its€borders.€€TheÏmarriage€relation€creates€problems€of€largeÏsocial€importance.€€Protection€of€offspring,Ïproperty€interests,€and€the€enforcement€ofÏmarital€responsibilities€are€but€a€few€ofÏœ[the]€commanding›€problems€in€the€field€ofÏdomestic€relations€with€which€the€state€mustÏdeal.€€Thus€it€is€plain€that€each€state€byÏvirtue€of€its€command€over€its€domiciliariesÏand€its€large€interest€in€the€institution€ofÏmarriage€can€alter€within€its€own€borders€theÏmarriage€status€of€the€spouse€domiciled€there,Ïeven€though€the€other€spouse€is€absent.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòWilliams€v.€State€of€North€Carolinaóóó ó,€63€S.Ct.€207,€213,€317ÏU.S.€287,€87€L.E.€279€(1942).€€We€do€not€believe€that€ourÏœdetermination„„that›€Wife€has€established€a€domicile€in€œTennessee,Ïwhich€brings€her€marriage€relationship€within€the€ambit€of€thisÏstateððs€concerns„„in›€any€way€offends€the€œfundamental€concept›€ofÏdue€œprocess€embodied€in€the€federal€constitution.€€She€has€been€inÏTennessee€since€1993;€she€obviously€did€not€come€into€this€stateÏfor€a€ð ðquickieðð€divorce.›ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€œfactually„driven€determination›€that€Wife€œhas›€the€requisiteÏintent€to€establish€her€domicile€in€Tennessee.€€The€second€issueÏis€found€adverse€to€Husband.Ì̜Ǜà@ àC.€€òòEquitable€ConsiderationsóóÌÌà àà àHusband€argues€that€Wife€has€worked€a€fraud€either€onÏthe€federal€government€or€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€of€Knox€CountyÏsuch€that€her€claim€of€domicile€and€entitlement€to€divorce€shouldÏbe€denied€and€dismissed€out€of€hand.€€We€have€reviewed€the€casesœ× ƒG ××  ×›Ïcited€by€Husband€and€do€not€find€that€any€of€them€are€applicableÏto€the€facts€of€this€case.€€As€we€have€previously€pointed€out,Ïthere€is€a€difference€between€the€goals€and€purposes€of€theÏfederal€immigration€laws,€and€a€stateððs€need€to€address€theÏmarriage€relationship,€and€issues€attendant€thereto,€of€a€personÏwho€resides€here€and€intends€to€remain€here€indefinitely.€€We€findÏno€basis€for€holding€that€Wife€is€equitably€estopped€from€pursuingÏher€claims€for€relief€in€this€case.ÌÌà àà àHusbandððs€final€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àV.€òòConclusionóóÌÌà àà àIt€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant€and€hisÏsurety.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€notÏinconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€œJ.ÌÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.