WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ U, 0d UBV % U, U6 B) DC) AMl U* - Bv~-v D3~ 0@ AO@ 0D D/J By~| 3|x?($ +D,-E./D01E23D4Ӏ2 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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial # !  #d#  ##   YYY FILED#X April25,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk  dPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#        \RA'\7XXdd7L"$!;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION ̛̜SHIRLEYIRENEBRAYCOX,  )C/ANO.03A019511GS00394      )  Appellant,  )ROANEGENERALSESSIONS      )v.      )HON.THOMASA.AUSTIN,      )JUDGETOMEDCOX,JR.,   )      )AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED  Appellee.   )ANDREMANDED̛̜HAROLDD.BALCOM,JR.,Kingston,forAppellant.J.POLKCOOLEY,COOLEY,COOLEY&AGEE,Rockwood,forAppellee.̛̜@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  Inthisdivorceaction,thewifeappealsthefindingsbytheTrialCourtrelativetothepropertydistribution,andthehusbandarguestheCourterredinadmittinganexhibit.  ThepartiesweremarriedfortwentyfiveyearsandthewifedisputestheTrialCourtsvaluationofthemaritalhomeat$130,000.00andalotborderingthemaritalhomeat$4,000.00.  Ourreviewofthecaseisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsofthetrialcourt.T.R.A.P.13(d);Hazardv.Hazard,833S.W.2d911(Tenn.App.1991).  Thevalueofamaritalassetisdeterminedbyconsideringallrelevantevidenceregardingvalue,withtheburdenonthepartiestoproducecompetentevidenceofvalue.Wallacev.Wallace,733S.W.2d102(Tenn.App.1987).Thetrialcourtisfreetovalueamaritalassetwithintherangeofcompetentevidenceofvalue.Id.;Kochv.Koch,874S.W.2d571(Tenn.App.1993).  Thehusbandtestifiedthehomewasworth$130,000.00.Thehusbandsexpertrealestateappraisertestifiedthevaluewas$130,000.00,andhusbandhadvaluedthehomesteadat$130,000.00inloanpapers.Insurancecoverageforthehousewasintheamountof$150,000.00,andthewifetestifiedshethoughtthehomewasworth$200,000.00.Giventherangeofestimatesandtherealestateappraisersassessmentoftheconditionofthehouse,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsfindingthatthehousehadavalueof͜$130,000.00.Rule13(d)T.R.A.P.  Thelotnexttothehomewasvaluedbythewifeat$30,000.00.Thehusbandvalueditat$2,000.00.Giventhesmallsizeandundevelopedstateofthelot,andthefactthataccesstothepropertyisonlyavailablebythedrivewayofthemaritalhome,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtssettingthevalueat$4,000.00.  Next,thewiferaisestheissueofwhethertheTrialCourterredinnotawardingherthecashvalueofShopatHome,Inc.Stocks.Testimonydifferedoverwhetherhusbandstillownedanyoftheshares.Heclaimedhehadsoldallofthatstockandthewifeintroducedrecordspurportingtoshowthatheremainedastockholder.  TheTrialJudgedidnotmakeafindingontheissueofownership.TheTrialCourtsopiniondoesstate allothercapitalstockownedbyeitherparty,whichisnototherwiseexpresslydisposedofherein,shallbedividedinequalsharesbetweentheparties. IfthehusbandownedtitletoShopatHomestock,thedecreewouldrequirehimtogiveonehalfoftheirworthtothewife,butonthisrecordashereinafterexplainedthereisnoevidenceofstockownershipatthetimeofthedivorce.  Next,shechargestheTrialCourterredindeterminingtheproceedsfromthesaleofrealproperty,inOneida,Tennessee,wereseparateproperty.  Tennesseedefinesseparatepropertyas allrealandpersonalpropertyownedbyaspousebeforemarriage;propertyacquiredinexchangeforpropertyacquiredbeforethemarriage... .T.C.A.364121(b)(2).  TheTrialCourtdeterminedthattwoinvestmentaccountsofhusband,totaling$108,105.73,hadbeenpurchasedwiththeproceedsofseparatepropertyownedbeforethemarriageandhadremainedseparatepropertythroughoutthemarriage.Thewifewasawarded$1,894.27fromthesefunds.  Husbandtestifiedthatheownedthepropertybeforethe1969marriage,thedeedswereinhisname,andproceedsfromthe1981and1986saleofthepropertieswerekeptinhisname.TheywerelenttoafriendforseveralyearsandthendepositedinDeanWitterandPrudentialinvestmentaccountsinthenameofthehusband.  Thewifecontends,however,thatthepropertywasnotseparatebecausethedeedsthatconveyedtheseparatepropertieswereinthenameofbothTomandShirleyCox.Inaddition,evidenceattrialshowedthat$13,400.00wastransferredfromthepartiesjointbankaccountintotheseparateDeanWitteraccount.Theuseofbothnamesinthedeedandtheapparentcominglingofmoniesinthejointsavingsaccountestablishesthatsomeofthepropertywastransmutedintomaritalproperty.Batsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,858(Tenn.App.1988);Barnhillv.Barnhill,826S.W.2d443(Tenn.App.1991).  TheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheTrialCourtsfindinginpartandwefind$13,400.00ofthatfundtobemaritalproperty.WeconcludeitwouldbeequitableforthewifetoreceiveonehalfofthatamountfromthehusbandoverandabovetheTrialCourtsaward.  Finally,thehusbandarguesthattheTrialCourterredinadmittinganExhibitintoevidence,purportingtoshowShopatHomestockpurchasesandsales.Theauthenticityofaprivatewritingmustbeestablishedbeforeitmaybeadmittedintoevidence.HauryandSmithRealtyCo.V.PiccadillyPartnersI,802S.W.2d612(Tenn.App.1990).TennesseeRulesofEvidenceprovidethatanitemmaybeidentifiedorauthenticatedbythetestimonyofawitnesswithpersonalknowledgethatthematteriswhatitisclaimedtobe.Thehusbandstestimonydoesnotappeartomeetthe901(a)standardϜthatthedocumentisauthenticatedifthereis evidencesufficienttothecourttosupportafindingbythetrieroffactthatthematterinquestioniswhatitsproponentclaims. Thehusbandtestifiedrepeatedlythathewasnotfamiliarwiththedocumentandhisonlyclueastoitsoriginweretheassertionsofhiscrossexaminer,andthewords ShopatHome acrossthetopofthedocument. TheTrialCourtsdecisiontoadmittheexhibit,baseduponanassertionbytheattorneyandtheuncertainresponsesofthehusband,wasimproper,Haury.CompareMartinv.Martin,755S.W.2d793(Tenn.App.1988),holdingtherewasnoabuseofdiscretioninadmittingbusinessrecordswherepresentcustodianoftherecordstestifiedthattothebestofherknowledgetherecordswereauthentic.  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,asmodified,andthecauseremandedfortheentryofamodifiedjudgmentinaccordancewiththisopinion.  Thecostoftheappealisassessedonehalftoeachparty.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________DonT.McMurray,J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.