WPC# # VU:a % 0(b  w4 0J K 0TZ 0^ 0h 0rt 0| 0b 0 1ux U, 0d U,} U* B) DC AM?v~ Bv8 D3  0@> AO~ 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- -e#Ӏ D 2 0Indent123  3|x 2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G  !  #d#     YYY FILEDXSeptember6,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@ dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$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'\\RA'\7XXdd7    JOSEPHTYREEGLANTON,  )      ) Plaintiff/Respondent/  )  Appellee,    )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019601PB00013VS.      )      ) DavidsonProbate      ) No.85D2766BRENDARICHARDSONGLANTON, )L"#!;+'h|^`  `L(CHERRY)     )      ) Defendant/Petitioner/  ) Appellant.    )@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALEDFROMTHEPROBATECOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEMARIETTAM.SHIPLEY,JUDGEROBERTA.ANDERSON2021RichardJonesRoad,Suite350Nashville,Tennessee37215 AttorneyforPlaintiff/Respondent/AppelleeTIMOTHYL.TAKACS201WaltonFerryRoadHendersonville,Tennessee370770364 AttorneyforDefendant/Petitioner/Appellant@ AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSEDINPART;@ ANDREMANDED        BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.LEWIS,J.  @ OPINION X   Thisappealinvolvesapostdivorcecontemptproceeding.Theappellant,Mrs.BrendaCherry,filedanunverifiedcomplaintintheProbateCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingtorecoverunpaidchildsupportfromherformerhusband,Mr.SongolekeKuranteKotunu(formerlyJosephTyreeGlanton).Mr.KotunufiledaMotiontoDismissarguingtheComplaintwasdefectivesinceMrs.Cherryhadnotverifiedit.TheprobatecourtagreedwithMr.Kotunu,anddismissedMrs.Cherryssuit.ThecourtalsoawardedMr.Kotunuhisattorneysfees.Mrs.Cherryassertsonappealthattheprobatecourterredbyrequiringhertohaveverifiedhercomplaint,andingrantingMr.Kotunusattorneysfees.WepartiallydisagreewithMrs.Cherry,andthereforeaffirmtheprobatecourtinpart. @ I.   In1986theDavidsonCountyProbateCourtgrantedthepartiesadivorce.ThecourtawardedcustodyoftheirminorchildtoMrs.Cherry,andorderedMr.Kotunutopaychildsupport.OnApril10,1995,Mrs.CherryfiledaComplaintintheDavidsonCountyProbateCourtagainstMr.Kotunu,allegingthathewasincontemptoftheprobatecourtsorderrequiringhimtopaysupport.TheComplaintprayedthatthecourtsentencehim totheworkhouseforaperiodofsixmonthsoruntilhepurgeshimselfofcontempt.  InresponsetoMrs.CherryscomplaintMr.KotunufiledaMotiontoDismisspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(1).Mr.KotunusdefensivepleadingassertedthatthecourtdidnothavejurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterbecauseMrs.CherryhadnotverifiedherComplaint.Thetrialcourtheldthatinasuitofthisnature,Tenn.CodeAnn.211108(2)(B)(I)requireslitigantstoverifytheircontempt7XXdXXd7complaints.ThecourtdismissedMrs.CherryssuitandawardedMr.Kotunuhisattorneysfees.@ II.  Webeginourdeterminationbyobservingthelawsurroundingtheverificationofcomplaints.Tenn.R.Civ.P.11providesthat exceptwhenotherwisespecificallyprovidedforbyruleorstatute,pleadingsneednotbeverifiedoraccompaniedbyaffidavit.Tenn.CodeAnn.364107requiresspousestoverifytheirpetitionsfordivorcebyaffidavit,unlesstheyclaimirreconcilabledifferencesasthegroundsforthesuit.  InJonesv.Jones,thisCourtstated: 0   0   Theoriginalproceedingisoneofdivorce.Assuch,itandallsubsequentproceedingsthereunderareinherentlyequitableinnature.EventhoughthematteristriedintheCircuitCourt,itisyetaChancerymatter.Inhearingmattersofthisnature,theCircuitJudgeisclothedwithallthepowersofaChancellorandthematteristriedasaChancerymatterandgovernedbytherulesoftheEquityCourt.(Emphasissupplied.)       486S.W.2d927,931(Tenn.Ct.App.1972);citingBrochv.Broch,164Tenn.219,47S.W.2d84(1932);Kizerv.Bellar,192Tenn.540,241S.W.2d561(1951).  InthisappealtheComplaintsoughttherecoveryofunpaidchildsupportawardedintheoriginaldivorce.Thus,weconsiderthecasea subsequentproceedingtotheoriginaldivorceandtherefore,equitableinnature.  InTennesseecourtsindivorceandsupportproceedingssitascourtsofequity.Hoylev.Wilson,746S.W.2d665,671(Tenn.1988);citingKizarv.Bellar,192Tenn.at545,241S.W.at563;Mayerv.Mayer,532S.W.2d54,58(Tenn.Ct.App.1975).WerecognizethatthesubstantivelawgoverningdivorceinTennesseeispurelystatutory,andthatdivorceisnot aproceedinginequityinthetraditionalsense.Atchleyv.Atchley,585S.W.2d614,619(Tenn.App.1978).TheTennesseeSupremeCourtinLingnerv.Lingnerstated: 0   0   Althoughadivorcesuitisinthenatureofasuitinequity...neverthelessadivorcesuitisSuigeneris.Theprocedureiscontrolledbystatute.Pleadingandpracticeindivorcecases,asgovernedbystatute,differinmanyparticularsfrompleadingandpracticeinequitycasesgenerally...suchcasesstandupongroundspeculiartothemselves,anddonotfallwithintheordinaryrulesgoverningchanceryproceedings.       56S.W.2d749,751(Tenn.1933);citingHackneyv.Hackney,28Tenn.(9Humph.)450(1848).  Despitecasesdescribingdivorceasaproceedingwhichisnotequitableinthe traditionalsense,Atchleyv.Atchleyat619,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatcourtsindivorcecasessitascourtsofequity.Hoylev.Wilson,at671.Theyalsoholdthatdivorcesareinthe natureofchancery.Brochv.Broch,47S.W.2d84(Tenn.1932);Lingerv.Lingerat751,Browderv.Browder,221S.W.2d526,527(Tenn.1949);Kizerv.Kizer,241S.W.2d561,563(Tenn.1951).  OurSupremeCourthasalsoheldthatdivorces aretriedaccordingtotheformsofchanceryandforallintentsandpurposesarechanceryproceedings.Ballardv.Ballard,455S.W.2d592,593(Tenn.1970).Therefore,despitethestatutorybasisofdivorce,trialcourtswhoheardivorceactionssitinequity,andtheproceedingsaremostappropriatelytriedaschancerymatters.  ContemptactionsinchancerycourtfollowthestatutoryguidelinessetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.211108whichstates: 0   0    Therulesofpracticeofthechancerycourt,madebythechancellors,arebythisCodemadesuch,asfollows:...8 (2)CONTEMPT...(B)Inallcasesofcontemptcommittednotinthepresenceofthecourt,themodeofprocedureshallbeasfollows:(I)Apetitionshallbefiledstatingthecontemptcomplainedofsupportedbyaffidavit,togetherwithsuchexhibitsandreturnsofofficers,orcertifiedcopiesthereof,asmayfullyshowhowthecontemptarose.(Emphasissupplied.)         Becausethiscaseinvolvedasubsequentproceedingtoadivorceitshouldbetriedasanequitablematter.Litigantsinchancerycourtmustsupporttheirpetitionsforcontemptwithaffidavits.BecauseMrs.Cherrydidnotverifyherpetitionweaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontodismissit.@ III.  Wenowturntotheissueofattorneysfees.Ordinarily,alitigantcannotcollecthisattorneysfeesfromhisadversary,despitethemeritsofthesuitordefensestoit.CorinthBank&TrustCo.v.SecurityNatlBank,252S.W.1001(Tenn.1923).Theprevailingpartycannotobtainattorneysfeesabsent:(1)astatuteorruleofcourt,or(2)contractualprovisionsbetweenthelitigants.Local984,IntlBhd.ofTeamstersv.HumkoCo.,287F.2d231(6thCir.)cert.denied,366U.S.962,81S.Ct.1922,6L.Ed.2d1254(1961).   H3H3   Theprobatecourtawardedthedefendant,Mr.Kotunu,hisattorneysfees.However,thecourtdidnotprovideanyauthoritytosupporttheaward.Mrs.Cherryobjected,andrequestedahearingwhichthetrialcourtgranted.Mr.KotunufiledaresponsetoMrs.CherrysobjectionandclaimedthatTenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)empoweredtheprobatecourttoawardattorneysfees.Thatstatutestates: 0   0   Theplaintiffspousemayrecoverfromthedefendantspouse,andthespouseorotherpersontowhomcustodyofthechild,orchildrenisawardedmayrecoverfromtheotherspousereasonableattorneyfeesincurredinenforcinganydecreeforalimonyand/orchildsupport,orinregardtoanysuitoractionconcerningtheadjudicationofthecustodyorthechangeofcustodyofanychild,orchildren,oftheparties,bothupontheoriginaldivorcehearingandatanysubsequenthearing,whichfeesmaybefixedandallowedbythecourt,beforewhomsuchactionorproceedingispending,inthediscretionofsuchcourt.(Emphasissupplied.)         Notably,thestatutedoesnotstatethatadefendantspousemayrecoverfromaplaintiffspouse.Further,feeawardsundersubsectionTenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)arenotprimarilyforthebenefitofthecustodialparentbuttofacilitateachildsaccesstothecourts.Sherrodv.Wix,849S.W.2d780(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Thisappealinvolvesadefendantspouserecoveringfromaplaintiffspousewhoisattemptingtoenforceadecreeforchildsupport.Thus,Tenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)doesnotprovideastatutorybasisforMr.Kotunusaward.  InhisresponsetoMrs.CherrysobjectionMr.KotunualsocitedGaddyv.Gaddy,861S.W.2d236(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),acaseinvolvingapetitiontomodifyacustodyarrangement.ThepetitioningspouseprevailedandthecourtawardedhimattorneysfeespursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.365103(c).Thus,unlikethiscase,thecourtawardedaplaintiffhisfees.  Mr.Kotunucitesthreecasesinhisappellatebrieftosupporthisassertionthat [u]nderTennesseelawthetrialcourtisvestedwithwideandbroaddiscretionintheallowanceofattorneysfeesindivorceandpostdivorcedomesticproceedings.Thefirstofthese,Elliotv.Elliot,involvedahusbandwhopetitionedthecourttomodifyhisfinaldivorcedecree.825S.W.2d87,92(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Thecourtrefused,andawardedhisformerwifeherattorneysfeessaying [i]twasthehusbandwhobroughtthislitigationforcingthewifetoseekcounsel.Id.OnitsfaceElliotappearstoprovideMr.Kotunutheprecedentneededtoobtainattorneysfees.However,theElliotcourtcitedThreadgillv.Threadgillasitssupportingauthority.740S.W.2d419,426(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).WebelievetheElliotCourtmistakenlyreliedonThreadgillv.Threadgill.  Threadgillv.Threadgillinvolvedapetitionerseeking,amongotherthings,childsupportarrearage.ThecourtinThreadgillawardedthepetitionerherattorneysfeesbutdidnotrefertoTenn.CodeAnn.365103(c).TheThreadgillcourtdidstate: 0   0   Thetrialcourtisvestedwithwidediscretioninmattersoftheallowanceofattorneysfees,andthisCourtwillnotinterfereexceptuponashowingofanabuseofthatdiscretion.       Id.,citingMarminov.Marmino,238S.W.2d105(Tenn.Ct.App.1950).  InMarminothisCourtstated: 0   0   TheCourtisvestedwithwidediscretioninmattersofdivorce,alimonyandattorneysfee,custodyandsupportofminorchildrenandappellatecourtswillnotinterfereexceptuponaclearshowingofanabuseofthatdiscretion.       Id.at105;citingBanksv.Banks,18Tenn.App.347,77S.W.2d74(Tenn.1934);Waldenv.Walden,13Tenn.App.337(1930);Rileyv.Riley,9Tenn.App.643(1929).  WehavereviewedBanks,Riley,andWalden.Noneofthesecasesprovidetheauthoritytoextendattorneysfeestoadefendantspouseinasubsequentproceedingtoadivorce.Therefore,wedonotviewThreadgillv.ThreadgillorElliotv.ElliotassupportingcaselawforKotunusassertionthatthetrialcourtsawardofattorneysfeeswereproper.Accordingly,wereversetheaward.̀@ IV.   Fortheforegoing,weaffirmthelowercourtsdismissalofthepetitionforcontempt.WereversetheawardofattorneysfeesandremandthecausetotheProbateCourtofDavidsonCourtforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.Taxthecostsonappealtothepartiesequally.      _______________________________       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE        CONCUR:%  _______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE   X