WPC # VU:a % 0(b w@4 ) 8 B@ 0J] 0T 0^ 0hY 0r 0|3 0 05 1u 0d: U* B) DC AO4v~ 0@ 0KvN D3! D+T A AOk 0D1 D/u BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- - EDӀD }T3|x d2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd&'!C << G !  #d#     YYY FILEDXNovember20,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHHHV,(hh hd'0F Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("$    ( $ Figure  1  Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva  'dxd'dxd%&', I&mage <=8C HKKKK&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .       \RA'\7XXdd7    ћCHRISTOPHERE.CLABOUGH,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019605CV00200̜VS.      )      ) DavidsonCircuitٜL"#!;+'h|^`  `Lߛ      ) No.93D2075PATRICIAJ.CLABOUGH,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALEDFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEMARIETTAM.SHIPLEY,JUDGEPHILIPE.SMITHPHILLIPROBINSON213ThirdAvenue,NorthNashville,Tennessee37201 AttorneysforPlaintiff/AppellantROSEPALERMO̜CHEATHAM&PALERMO43MusicSquareWestNashville,Tennessee37203 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellee@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.LEWIS,J.  @ OPINION X  Therearetwoquestionsraisedbytheappellantinthisappeal:(1)Didthetrialcourterrbygrantingseparatesupportandmaintenancetothewifewhennosuchreliefwasrequestedinthepleadings?and(2)Didthetrialcourtsactionsdeprivetheappellantofhisrighttodueprocess?Weaffirmthejudgmentbelowbutremandthecauseforadeterminationofwhethertheseparationistobedeemedtemporaryorperpetual.@ I.   ChristopherClaboughfiledacomplaintfordivorceonJune2,1993allegingthathiswife,PatriciaClabough,wasguiltyofinappropriatemaritalconductandthatirreconcilabledifferencesexistedbetweentheparties.Mrs.Claboughfiledananswercontainingageneraldenialandprayingfor(1)supportandmaintenanceforherandtheminorchildren,(2)custodyoftheminorchildren,and(3)generalrelief.  Afterthepartiescompleteddiscoverythecausewassetfortrial.AnamendeddecreefiledonDecember4,1995containsthefollowingfindings: 0    1)ThattheallegationsoftheComplaintastogroundsfordivorcearenotsustainedbutMs.ClaboughisentitledtoseparatesupportandmaintenanceandadivisionofassetspursuanttoT.C.A.364121and365101.Althoughtherewasnofullhearingonthemerits,thepartiesandtheirattorneysstatedtothecourtthatahearingonthegroundsfordivorcewasunnecessaryinϜthatinthesworndiscoverydepositiontheHusbandadmittedhehasnogroundsforabsolutedivorce.Mr.Claboughsattorneyadmittedhistestimonypreventedhimfromreceivingadivorce. 2)Thepartieshaveoneminorchild,andtheWifeisafitandproperpersontohavecustodyofthechild. 3)Thewifespsychologicalconditionhasimproved,butatthistime,sheisstillunabletoobtainfulltimeemployment.Husbandsmaximumpotentialnetearningsarefoundtobe$3600.00permonth. 4)TheWifeispresentlylookingforacondominiumtopurchaseforherpersonalresidence.IfrequiredforWifetoqualifyforamortgage,Husbandshallcosignthemortgagenotepayable. 5)TheCourtspecificallyfindsthatthereisauthoritypursuanttoT.C.A.365101forthisCourttograntsupportandmaintenancetotheWifeandtodividetheassets.      BasedonthosefindingsthecourtawardedseparatesupportandmaintenanceandcustodyoftheremainingminorchildtoMrs.Clabough.Inaddition,thecourtdividedthemaritalpropertyandorderedMr.Claboughtopayfamilysupportof$2400permonth.@ II.   Mr.ClaboughsfirstcontentionisthatthetrialjudgeerredingrantingMrs.Claboughseparatesupportandmaintenancewhenshehadnotaskedforitinherpleadings.Healsoarguesthatthecourtheardnoproofontheamountofsupportnecessaryorthegroundsonwhichitcouldbebased.  Withrespecttotheissueaboutthepleadings,wethinkthepleadingssupportthetrialjudgesactions.WhileMrs.Claboughsanswerdoesnotallegeanyfactsrelatingtoseparatemaintenanceandsupport,theanswerdoescontainaprayerforsuchrelief.  ThecaseofStephensonv.Stephenson,201Tenn.253,298S.W.2d717(1957)involvedalmostidenticalfacts.Inthatcase,thewifefiledacrossbillfordivorcebutlateramendedtheanswertodeletethegroundsallegedandtheprayerfordivorce.Thus,thecasewenttotrialontheoriginalbillandananswercontainingaprayerforseparatemaintenance.Whenthecourtfoundthatthehusbandfailedtoprovehisgroundsfordivorce,thecourtenteredadecreeofseparatemaintenance.Althoughtheproprietyofthatactionwasnotinvolvedinthesubsequentappeal,theSupremeCourtstatedthatthecourtshavetheinherentpowertoawardseparatesupportandmaintenance.Thepowerdoesnotrestonthedivorcestatutesbutisfoundedontheobligationtosupportthewife.  InRobertsv.Roberts,22Tenn.App.651,125S.W.2d199(1939),thiscourtsaid, Therightofawifetoseparatemaintenanceisfoundedonthedutyofthehusbandarisingoutofthemaritalrelationshiptosupportthewife.Shemayhaveitawardedinadivorceproceedingundertheprayerforgeneralreliefeventhoughadivorcebedeniedher.22Tenn.App.at654,125S.W.2dat201.  Weholdthatthetrialcourtsactionwasproperunderthepleadings.  WithrespecttoMr.Claboughsargumentconcerningthelackofproof,thefinaldecreerecitesthatitwasbasedonthe testimonyoftheparties,statementofcounsel,andtheentirerecord....ThereisnotranscriptoftheproceedingsandtheonlyevidenceofwhattranspiredatthetrialisaposttrialaffidavitofMr.Claboughinwhichhesaysthecourtdidnottakeanyproofatthehearingbutdecidedthecaseonthestatementsofthelawyers.  Withoutatranscriptorastatementoftheevidencewemustassumethattherecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldsupportthetrialcourtsfactualfindings.Sherrodv.Wix,849S.W.2d780(Tenn.App.1992).Inthefaceofthistimehonoredprincipleoflaw,wecannotseehowtheappellantcanimpeachthetrialjudgesdecreebyhisownaffidavit,especiallywheretheamendeddecreerecitessomeofthestipulationsmadebycounselatthehearing.Therefore,wefindthattheappellantsissueconcerningthelackofproofintherecordshouldbeoverruled.@ III.   Mr.ClaboughalsoassertsthattheprocedureemployedbythetrialcourtdeniedhimhisrighttodueprocessguaranteedbythefifthandfourteenthamendmentstothefederalconstitutionandarticleI,8oftheTennesseeConstitution.Mrs.Claboughassertsthatthisissuecannotberaisedonappealsinceitwasnotraisedinthetrialcourt.SeeMallicoatv.Poynter,722S.W.2d681(Tenn.App.1986)andLawrencev.Stanford,655S.W.2d927(Tenn.1983).  WethinktheissuecanberaisedonappealbecausetherulefollowedinMallicoatandLawrencepertainstoconstitutionalattacksonstatutes.Itistruetheconstitutionalityofastatutecannotberaisedforthefirsttimeon͜appeal,becausethiscourtsjurisdictionisappellateonly,Tenn.CodeAnn.164108.Thisappeal,however,involvesacomplaintthattheprocedureinthetrialcourtwasfundamentallyunfair.Theonlywaytoraisethatissueisinaposttrialmotionoronappeal.Inacasetriedwithoutajurythereisnorequirementthatanappellantfileaposttrialmotionasaprerequisitetoraisingissuesonappeal.SeeRule3(e),Tenn.R.App.Proc.  Onthemeritsofthisissue,however,wecannotfindthatMr.Claboughsrightstodueprocesshavebeenviolated.Hewasgivennoticeandtherighttobeheard,thetwoessentialelementsofdueprocess.Phillipsv.StateϜBd.ofRegents,863S.W.2d45(Tenn.1993).Evenwhenextendedtoencompassameaningfulrighttobeheard,Lassiterv.DepartmentofSocialServices,452U.S.18,101S.Ct.2153,68L.Ed.640(1981),therighttodueprocesshasnotbeenviolatedinthiscase,sofarastherecordshows.ForthesamereasonssetoutinsectionIIofthisopinionwemustpresumethatMr.Claboughwasgivenameaningfulhearinginthetrialcourt.@ IV.   IntheamendeddecreethetrialjudgeawardedMrs.ClaboughseparatemaintenancepursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.365101.Thatsectionprovidesinsection(a)(1): 0    Whetherthemarriageisdissolvedabsolutely,oraperpetualortemporaryseparationisdecreed,thecourtmaymakeanorderanddecreeforthesuitablesupportandmaintenanceofeitherspousebytheotherspouse,oroutofeitherspousesproperty,andofthechildren,oranyofthem,byeitherspouseoroutofsuchspousesproperty,accordingtothenatureofthecaseandthecircumstancesoftheparties,theorderordecreetoremaininthecourtscontrol....      Theamendeddecreedidnotspecifywhethertheseparationwasperpetualortemporary.Weareoftheopinionthatthepartiesdeservetoknowwhattheirstatusisandhowtheyshouldplanforthefuture.Onremandthetrialjudgeshouldenteranorderdesignatingwhethertheseparationisdeemedperpetualortemporary.@ V.   Mrs.Claboughseeksdamagesforafrivolousappeal.Weareoftheopinionthattheappealisnotfrivolousand,therefore,denytheapplication.  ThejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCounty.Onremandthetrialjudgeshalldeterminewhethertheseparationistobetemporaryorperpetualandenteranorderaccordingly.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.̀      _____________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  @