WPC( !(%E\ϴ*$De)~obc:; 0DJ.[2|-Qe5DG~8x,%oXq ƈl4*^p[ğR3V OI!>g }ۮD\{KSfV*dF&Zg4.G]C9_!ΘYy 1NKO%B'}$2 EF1ISZt +j ~ 6^,pF7ib5b#B1Q!_c.`I٠ᵙ;m_wein??/#:=?wY "ᓮ;bپ*SxUa_]nBOycjaɋ,u= L-X ZƟ ?΍MΡr9a#!NUNo % 0U<v N w 4   m _ U:S ^ 0D AQ . 0 0 0D D3 B HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman{Z='X lT 3|xU U [f"  X$XXX  _ XXXX$ yX X   Ad FILED XX y  October5,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,yAZ"Arial RegularmF'L (#$  0  Z[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3f$ 7!  8wXXdd8  X$XXX  (3f$ 7!  8wXXdd8  X$XXX  ($$   1  ````'dxd d 7!  8wXXdd8  X$XXX  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T___@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)ATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________ SUZANNEW.GIBSON,    ` PetitionerAppellant, `     h     ShelbyChanceryNo.1038801Vs. `     h     C.A.No.02A019908CH00237   xY _B2.jz e  `@E e 8tt}P x JAMESE.PROKELL,     ` RespondentAppellee.____________________________________________________________________________@& OPINIONANDORDER   ____________________________________________________________________________ ` OnAugust30,1999,theappellant,SuzanneW.Gibson,filedinthisCourtaRule10T.R.A.P.applicationforextraordinaryappealandaRule7T.R.A.P.motiontostayfurtherproceedingsinthetrialcourt.PursuanttotheauthorityofRule10(d)T.R.A.P.,thisCourtenteredanOrderonAugust30,1999,directingtheappelleetofileananswer.TheappelleefiledhisansweronSeptember1,1999.ByOrderenteredSeptember2,1999,theCourtgrantedtheappellantsRule10T.R.A.P.applicationandstayedenforcementofthetrialcourtsorderofvisitationpursuanttoRule7T.R.A.P. ` OnSeptember23,1999,theappelleefiledamotiontoremandthecausetothetrialcourtandalsoaskedtheCourtforspecificdirectionregardingpreparationoftheappeal.AppellantsresponsetothemotionassertsthatthegrantoftheT.R.A.P.10appealencompassesnumerousissuesotherthantheactofthetrialcourtgrantingspecificvisitationtoappelleeovertheLaborDayweekend.WedisagreewithappellantsinterpretationoftheorderofthisCourtgrantingtheT.R.A.P.10application.ThisCourtdidnotintendtoenlargethescopeoftheT.R.A.P.10extraordinaryappealbeyondtheactionofthetrialcourtingrantingspecificvisitationtoappelleefortheLaborDayweekend.IfthereisanydoubtaboutthescopeoftheT.R.A.P.10application,thatdoubtisnowerased.TheorderofthisCourtwasspecificallydirectedtothetrialcourtsordergrantingunsupervised :66 visitationovertheLaborDayweekendwithoutconductinganevidentiaryhearing.  TheproceduralhistoryofthecaseissetoutinthisCourtsorderofSeptember2,  1999,andisincorporatedhereinbyreference.ThisCourtdidnotbyitsorderof  September2,1999stayanyfurtheractionbythetrialcourt,nordidthisCourt   undertaketoconsideranyotherinterlocutoryordersofthetrialcourt.Accordingly,   thepurposeoftheT.R.A.P.10appealhasbeenaccomplishedandthereremains   nothingfurtherforthisCourttoconsider.    ` Therefore,itisorderedthatthiscauseberemandedtothetrialcourtforsuch  furtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,andthecostsofthisappealareassessedto  theappelleeforwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.   `     h      p _________________________________   `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,   `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.     `     h      p __________________________________   `     h      p ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE    `     h