ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX U,Í 0dù U,]U>‰B)ÇDCð AM3U*€ýª˧ rv~}vÓû D3Î B 0@ AO^Æ­ 0Ds D/· Bæ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ LUM N O P Q£RSTÓ€`;p‚ 3|x`((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 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  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMay€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€property€is€in€Fayette€County,€east€of€Moscow,€Tennessee.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€assessing€Husbandððs€separate€interest,€the€trial€court€valued€the€lot€at€$16,700€and€theÏbuilding€thereon€at€$10,000.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€"$!;+'h|ð` Å `€€Lßà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,ÏWESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌENNIS€J.€HURDLE,€JR.,ó óà à)à àFayette€County€ChanceryÏCourtÌà à)à àNo.€10522Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9502„CH„00025Ìà à)Ìò òBETTE€B.€HURDLE,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Fayette€County€at€Somerville.Ìò òHonorable€Dewey€C.€Whitenton,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òWanda€B.€Sheaó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òMitchell€D.€Moskovitzó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òCharles€M.€Caryó ó,ÌDENTON€AND€CARY,€Bolivar,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌò òHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àThe€23€year€marriage€of€Bette€B.€Hurdle€(Wife)€and€Ennis€J.€Hurdle,€Jr.Ï(Husband)€was€dissolved€by€a€final€decree€of€divorce€entered€by€the€trial€court€on€October€18,Ï1994.€€In€this€appeal,€we€are€concerned€only€with€the€trial€courtððs€classification,€division€and/orÏvaluation€of€the€coupleððs€property.€€Wifeððs€issues€on€appeal€are€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€enforce€HusbandððsÏstipulation€as€to€the€value€of,€and€which€party€was€to€receive,€theÏChamber€and€Hancock€Farm?ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€valuing€husbandððs€separateÏproperty€interest€in€Hurdle€Machine€Works,€Inc.€at€$120,000?ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€valuing€husbandððs€separateÏproperty€interest€in€the€real€property€commonly€known€as€the€HurdleÏMachine€Works€lot€at€$26,700?ÌÌÌÌÓÓHusband,€as€appellee,€presents€this€additional€issue:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Trial€Court€erred€in€not€awarding€Mr.€Hurdle€a€maritalÏproperty€interest€in€the€Lynn€Farm.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWifeððs€first€issue€concerns€the€trial€courtððs€alleged€error€in€failing€to€enforceÏHusbandððs€stipulation€as€to€the€value€of,€and€which€party€was€to€receive,€the€Chamber€andÏHancock€Farm,€comprised€of€approximately€777€acres€and€located€adjacent€to€the€maritalÏresidence.× ƒ% ××  ×€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€parties€originally€agreed€that€the€value€of€this€property€wasÏ$450,000€and€that€it€was€to€be€awarded€Wife.€€This€is€evidenced€by€the€ð ðdivision€of€maritalÍproperty€and€marital€indebtednessðð€proposals€submitted€by€each€party€as€well€as€counsel€forÏHusbandððs€comment€during€opening€statement:€ð ð[t]he€value€of€that€farm€is€not€in€dispute.€€The€factÏthat,€I€believe,€itððs€to€be€awarded€to€the€wife€is€not€in€dispute.ðð€€ÌÌà àA€stipulation€is€an€agreement€between€counsel€regarding€business€before€a€court.€€Ïòòò òState€v.€Fordóóó ó,€725€S.W.2d€689€(Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Stipulations€are€favored€by€theÏcourts€and€are€to€be€encouraged€and€enforced€thereby€as€they€expedite€the€business€of€the€courts.€Ïòòò òFordóóó ó,€725€S.W.2d€at€691.€€Oral€stipulations€made€during€the€course€of€trial€are€valid.€€òòò òBearmanÏv.€Camatsosóóó ó,€385€S.W.2d€91,€93€(Tenn.€1964).ÌÌà àA€request€to€withdraw€from€a€stipulation€may€be€granted€where€there€is€shown€toÏexist:€ð ð(a)€mutual€mistake;€(b)€the€occurrence€of€some€facts€that€the€stipulation€did€not€foresee;€orÏ(c)€some€misrepresentation,€fraud,€overreaching,€or€similar€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€opposingÏparty€in€making€the€stipulations.ðð€Lawrence€A.€Pivnick,€Tenn.€Circuit€Court€Practice€ðð€10„6€(3dÏed.€1991).€€When€these€circumstances€are€present,€a€prompt€motion€to€withdraw€from€theÏstipulation€should€be€made.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€83€C.J.S.€òòò òStipulationsóóó ó€ðð€34€(1953)€also€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àStipulations€are€under€the€control€and€subject€to€the€directionÏof€the€court€which€has€power€to€relieve€the€parties€therefrom€onÏproper€application€and€a€showing€of€sufficient€cause,€on€such€termsÏas€will€meet€the€justice€of€the€particular€case;€but€such€matter€rests€inÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€court€and€relief€will€be€granted€onlyÏwhere€necessary€to€prevent€injustice.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€case,€counsel€for€Husband€moved€to€withdraw€from€the€stipulation€on€theÏsecond€day€of€trial€which,€it€is€important€to€note,€occurred€a€month€following€the€day€it€began.€ÏCounsel€reasoned€that€the€initial€appraisal€of€this€property€at€$450,000€by€Mr.€James€Murdaugh,Ïwho€was€jointly€hired€by€the€parties,€was€received€by€counsel€only€the€afternoon€before€the€trialÏwas€to€begin.€€Thus,€he€claimed€he€was€incapable€of€reviewing€a€report€that€he€had€ð ðhad€less€thanÏtwelve€hoursðð€and€that€on€the€first€day€of€trial,€he€ð ðdid€not€have€any€foundation€whatsoever€for€anyÍof€Mr.€Murdaughððs€values.ðð€€During€the€interim€of€the€first€and€second€day€of€trial,€however,€heÏprofessed€discovery€of€certain€ð ðfallaciesðð€within€the€report€and,€thus,€requested€a€second€appraisalÏby€Mr.€Ed€Harris.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€allowed€the€testimony€of€Harris€who€appraised€the€property€atÏ$700,000.€€On€cross€examination,€he€stated,€as€relevant€here,€that€he€made€an€upward€adjustmentÏfor€water€and€sewer€on€the€property.€€He€concluded€that€land€with€sewers€was€more€valuable.€ÌÌà àAmy€McClure,€testifying€on€behalf€of€Wife,€stated€that€she€was€a€former€viceÏmayor€of€the€City€of€Moscow,€having€left€the€position€in€1989,€and€was€familiar€with€the€utilitiesÏand€sewerage€available€there.€€She€related€that€the€city€is€currently€ð ðunder€a€moratorium€and€theÏsewerage€is€full.€.€.€.€thereððs€no€development€in€Moscow€because€they€canððt€tie€into€sewerage.ðð€ÏShe€maintained€that€no€sewerage€was€available€to€the€farm€land€in€question.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Murdaugh€testified€that€he€disagreed€with€Harrisðð€appraisal,€reasoning:ÌÌÓÓà8 àMr.€Harrisððs€report€is€predicated€on€this€property€being€used€as€aÏrecreational€farm€with€the€potential€for€fringe€residential€usage.€.€.€.Ïbased€on€the€fact€that€the€sewage€system€in€Moscow€has€reached€itsÏcapacity,€based€on€the€fact€that€no€development€is€allowed€within€theÏCity€of€Moscow€to€be€attached€to€the€sewer€system,€that€until€thereÏis€some€improvements€made€in€that€regard,€the€utilities€to€thisÏparticular€tract€do€not€lend€any€value€to€the€property.ÌÌà8 àà àI€used€four€sales€that€were€located€within€a€mile€of€theÏsubject€to€arrive€at€my€values.€.€.€.€€They€were€all€sold€for€farmlandÏusage.€€Mr.€Harris€used€five€sales€that€were€located€within€theÏRossville€area€that€all€had€utilities€in€place€and€were€all€available€toÏbe€used.€€In€his€report€his€adjustment€of€three€hundred€dollars€perÏacre€is€based€solely€on€Shelby€County€and€utilities€in€ShelbyÏCounty.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àHusband€presented€the€testimony€of€the€current€mayor€of€Moscow,€Eugene€Oliver,Ïwho€testified€that€there€is€no€moratorium€on€the€city€affecting€sewer€connections.€€A€letter,€datedÍDecember€19,€1990,€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Environment,€Division€of€Water€PollutionÏControl,€rescinding€the€moratorium,€was€then€submitted€into€evidence.€€Oliver€maintained€that€atÏleast€5€new€family€homes€had€been€built€in€Moscow€within€the€last€year.€€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€ruled€as€follows€concerning€this€property:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à[Wife]€also€has€this€farm€that€the€Court€is€awarding.€€Itððs€to€be€soldÏbecause€of€the€great€discrepancy€about€the€value€and€all€that.€€TheÏCourt€could€not€.€.€.€even€if€I€accept€the€other€appraisal,€I€realize€youÏobject€to€it,€there€was€some€question€of€a€stipulation.€€But€we€hadÏone€appraisal€at€some€seven€hundred€thousand,€the€other,€four€fifty.€ÏThere€was€such€a€huge€discrepancy,€the€Court€just€felt€like€that€IÏcould€not€in€fairness€put€a€value€on€that€because€of€the€greatÏcontroversy€and€discrepancy€about€whether€you€can€build€there€orÏnot€build€there,€and€the€mayorððs€testimony,€and€the€other€personððsÏtestimony.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àSo€if€the€parties€cannot€otherwise€agree,€it€will€just€have€toÏbe€sold.€€But€sheððs€due€the€proceeds€of€that€just€because€that€was,€asÏI€understand,€the€agreement€that€she€was€to€receive€that€property.€ÏThe€only€question€was€the€value;€am€I€right€about€that?ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€CARY:€Thatððs€correct.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€appeal,€it€is€Wifeððs€contention€that€Husband€should€be€bound€by€the€stipulationÏbecause€Murdaughððs€report€never€mentioned€that€sewage€had€anything€to€do€with€his€appraisedÏvalue€and€thus,€the€basis€for€the€request€to€withdraw€could€not€be€due€to€any€alleged€error€byÏMurdaugh.€€Wife€cites€òòò òMast€Advertising€&€Pubishing,€Inc.€v.€Moyersóóó ó,€865€S.W.2d€900Ï(Tenn.€1993),€which€holds:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWhen€a€party€makes€a€concession€or€adopts€a€theory€byÏstipulation€and€his€cause€of€action€is€determined€on€this€concessionÏor€theory,€then€that€party€must€abide€by€his€decision€even€on€appealÏby€certiorari.ÌÌà8 àà àThese€stipulations€will€be€rigidly€enforced€by€the€courts€ofÏthis€State.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òMast€Advertisingóóó ó,€865€S.W.2d€at€903€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà àWhile€we€agree€with€the€foregoing€principle,€we€find€it€inapplicable€to€the€presentÏsituation.€€Here,€counsel€for€Husband€moved€to€withdraw€the€stipulation€prior€to€any€determinationÏby€the€trial€court€as€to€the€awarding€of€this€property.€€We,€thus,€hold€counselððs€motion€timely€andÏwithin€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion€to€consider.€€The€question€before€us€is€whether€there€wasÏan€abuse€of€such€€discretion€in€allowing€the€withdrawal.€€Considering€the€evidence€presented,Ïespecially€that€of€Mr.€Oliver€and€the€two€appraisers,€we€hold€that€Murdaugh€was€clearly€mistakenÏas€to€the€existence€of€a€moratorium€on€the€city.€€This€is€evidenced€by€his€own€testimony.€€It€wasÏHarrisðð€testimony€that€the€absence€of€such€moratorium€affects€the€propertyððs€value.€€Ever€mindfulÏof€the€binding€effect€that€stipulations€are€generally€afforded,€we€believe€that€under€the€presentÏcircumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€Husband€to€withdraw€fromÏthe€stipulation.ÌÌà àWife€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€valuation€of€Husbandððs€separate€propertyÏinterest€in€Hurdle€Machine€Works,€Inc.€(HMW).€€HMW€builds€portable€sawmills.€€HusbandÏtestified€that€he€began€the€business€in€1964€in€Holly€Springs,€Mississippi€and€ð ðmade€[his]€firstÏ[sawmill]ðð€in€1968€or€1969€which€he€ultimately€sold€for€$20,000.€€He€then€moved€the€business€toÏMoscow.€€The€couple€married€in€1971€and€prior€thereto,€he€sold€his€second€sawmill€for€$24,000.€ÏThe€business€was€incorporated€in€1977,€with€Husband€receiving€75%€of€the€stock€and€Wife,€25%.€ÏHusband€described€the€business€as€a€ð ðjoint€effortðð€with€Wife€and€declared€that€she€was€a€ð ðbig€partÏof€[HMW].ðð€€Wife€was€the€bookkeeper€for€HMW€from€1974€until€the€partiesðð€separation€inÏOctober€1993.€€ÌÌà àWhen€asked,€ð ð[a]t€the€time€that€you€got€married,€had€you€designed€the€typeÏ[sawmill]€that€youððre€making€today?ðð,€Husband€replied,€ð ð[y]es€sir.ðð€€The€basic€design€is€the€sameÏas€when€he€married,€although€there€have€been€refinements.€€His€design€is€not€patented.€€HusbandÍvalued€the€design€at€the€time€of€the€marriage€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMy€opinion€is€the,€the€first€[sawmill]€I€made,€I€had€someÏmistakes€on€it€but€the€second€one,€I€had€to€get€right€and€itððs€basicallyÏthe€same€thing€today.€€Hydraulic€system,€everything€and€I€sold€theÏ[sawmill]€for€around€Twenty„four€Thousand€Dollars€($24,000.00)Ïand€Iððd€say€the€basic€design€is€worth€about€three€(3)€times€that.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓOn€cross„examination,€Husband€admitted€that€he€did€not€begin€to€build€his€own€carriage€(aÏcomponent€part€of€the€sawmill)€until€1980€and€that€until€then€he€used€ð ðsomebody€elseððs€design€.€.€.Ïon€the€carriage.ðð€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€marriage,€Husband€also€ð ðhad€[his]€complete€machine€shop,ððÏwhich€he€valued€at€$75,000.€€His€machinery€included€his€purchase€of€the€ð ðold€Dyersburg€MachineÏWorksðð€for€$2,500€and€some€new€machinery€purchased€while€in€business€in€Holly€Springs.€€HeÏstates,€ð ðI€still€have€some€of€those€machines€today.€.€.€.€€I€have€four€(4)€lathes€to€start€with.€€I€stillÏuse€two€(2)€of€those€.€.€.€to€this€day.€€Two€(2)€of€the€milling€machines,€I€still€use€.€.€.€.€€Some€ofÏthe€drill€presses,€I€use.€€I€have€improved€on€some,€traded€some€off€.€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà àWife€testified€that€Husband€designed€the€product€which€he€sells€today€in€1969.€ÏWhen€asked€her€opinion€as€to€the€value€of€the€equipment€in€HMW€at€the€time€of€the€marriage,€sheÏreplied,€ð ðI€was€with€Mr.€Hurdle€when€he€bought€what€he€did€at€Dyersburg€.€.€.€I€want€to€say,Ïmaybe€Twenty„five€Hundred€Dollars€($2,500.00)€that€he€bought€that€equipment€.€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€total€value€of€the€business€was€$1,250,000,€withÏHusbandððs€separate€interest€being€$120,000.€€On€appeal,€Wife€asserts€that€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€establishes€that€Husband€has€no€separate€interest€in€HMW.€€She€contends€that€HMW€isÏentirely€a€marital€asset€and€argues€that€any€interest€Husband€may€have€brought€into€the€marriageÏwas€transmuted€into€marital€property.€€Husband€counters€that€Wife€stipulated€that€he€had€a€separateÍinterest€in€HMW.€€Our€review€of€the€record€finds€no€clear€agreement€by€Wife€in€this€regard.€€Nor,Ïhowever,€do€we€find€the€evidence€to€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€thisÏproperty€(the€design€and€original€equipment)€as€separate€property.ÌÌà àUnder€the€doctrine€of€transmutation,€separate€property€becomes€part€of€the€maritalÏestate€when€an€intention€that€it€become€marital€property€is€evidenced.€€òòò òBatson€v.€Batsonóóó ó,€769ÏS.W.2d€849,€858€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Transmutation€may€be€accomplished,€for€example,€byÏpurchasing€property€with€separate€funds,€but€taking€title€in€joint€tenancy€or€by€placing€separateÏproperty€in€the€names€of€both€spouses.€€òòò òBatsonóóó ó,€769€S.W.2d€at€858.€€The€rationale€being€thatÏproperty€dealt€with€in€this€manner€creates€a€rebuttable€presumption€of€a€gift€to€the€marital€estate.€Ïòòò òIdóóó ó.€€We€do€not€find€Wifeððs€employment€in€the€business€or€her€status€as€a€shareholder€in€theÏcorporation€sufficient€evidence€of€an€intention€by€Husband€to€relinquish€separate€ownership€of€hisÏdesign€or€the€original€equipment.€€We€further€find€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€to€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€valuation€of€this€property.ÌÌà àWife€also€alleges€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€valuation€of€Husbandððs€separate€propertyÏinterest€in€the€lot€on€which€HMW€is€located.€€She€does€not€question€Husbandððs€separate€interest€inÏthe€lot,€only€its€valuation€as€determined€by€the€trial€court.€€The€lot€consists€of€16.74€acres€and€wasÏa€gift€to€Husband€from€his€father€in€1974.€€The€record€indicates€that€prior€to€the€transfer,€in€1970,ÏHusband€constructed€the€building€from€which€he€worked€on€this€property.€Husband€testified,Ïð ð[Father]€didnððt€sell€me€the€building,€no.€.€.€.€€I€had€put€the€building€on€there.€€I€paid€for€theÏbuilding€that€was€on€it.€.€.€.€€[Father]€helped€me€build€the€building.ðð€€ÌÌà àHusband€valued€the€lot€at€the€time€of€transfer,€as€did€his€father,€at€$16,700€orÏ$1,000€an€acre.€€Husband€valued€the€building€separately€at€$33,000.€€Husband€agreed€that€theÏdeed€conveying€the€property€includes€the€grantorððs€affidavit,€stating€a€value€of€$8,500.€€The€trialÏcourt€placed€an€entire€value€of€$240,000€on€the€property€and€valued€Husbandððs€separate€interest€atÍ$26,700.× ƒ& ××  ×€€ÌÌà àWife€argues€on€appeal€that€Husband€is€estopped€from€asserting€any€value€for€theÏproperty€other€than€that€as€stated€in€the€deed,€$8,500.€€Estoppel€by€deed€is€said€to€preclude€ð ðoneÏparty€to€a€deed€and€his€privies€from€asserting€as€against€the€other€party€and€his€privies€any€right€orÏtitle€in€derogation€of€the€deed€or€from€denying€the€truth€of€any€material€facts€asserted€in€it.ðð€Ïòòò òBlevins€v.€Johnson€County,ó óóó€746€S.W.2d€678,€684€(Tenn.€1988)€(quoting€òòò òDuke€v.ÏHopperó ó,óó€486€S.W.2d€784€(Tenn.€App.€1992)).€€Under€this€set€of€circumstances,€we€find€theÏdoctrine€inapplicable.€€The€parties€to€the€deed€were€Mr.€Hurdle,€Sr.€and€Husband,€neither€ofÏwhom€now€attempt€to€assert€any€right€or€title€in€derogation€of€the€deed€or€deny€any€material€fact€asÏstated€therein€against€the€other.€€As€no€other€evidence€was€presented€as€to€the€value€of€HusbandððsÏseparate€interest,€we€find€no€error€in€its€valuation.€€ÌÌà àWe€further€find€no€error€by€the€trial€court€in€assigning€separate€values€to€the€realÏproperty€and€improvements€thereon€as€contended€by€Wife.€€The€proof€shows€that€Husband€hadÏexpended€funds€in€the€construction€of€the€improvements€prior€to€a€conveyance€of€the€land.ÌÌà àLastly,€we€address€Husbandððs€contention€that€he€should€have€been€awarded€aÏmarital€property€interest€in€the€Lynn€Farm.€€The€court€found€this€particular€realty€ð ðclearly€separateÏpropertyðð€of€Wife€and€that€ð ðit€was€entitled€to€be€[retained]€as€such.ðð€€The€farm€or€ð ðLynn€Place,ðð€asÏit€is€referenced€in€the€record,€consists€of€311€acres.€€Wife,€the€partiesðð€two€sons€and€Wifeððs€sisterÏeach€own€an€undivided€equal€interest€in€the€property.€€Wifeððs€interest€was€conveyed€to€her€by€herÏmother€at€various€times€beginning€in€December€1980.€€ÌÌà àWife€testified€that€neither€she€nor€her€Husband€had€done€anything€to€cause€theÍproperty€to€appreciate€in€value.€€Her€mother€pays€the€taxes€on€the€property.€€When€asked€if€she€hadÏdone€any€work€on€the€property,€she€replied,€ð ð[w]e€have€not.ðð€€Wife€stated€that€her€undividedÏinterest€in€the€property€had€ð ðno€value.ðð€€She€claimed€that€to€her€knowledge€the€timber€on€theÏproperty€had€never€been€sold.€€On€cross„examination,€she€stated€that€Husband€had€advised€herÏmother€in€marketing€timber€on€their€land€on€one€occasion.€€ÌÌà àWifeððs€mother,€Rosa€Anderson,€testified€that€Husband€never€assisted€her€inÏmanaging€the€property€while€she€owned€it.€€She€stated€that€her€daughter€had€never€contributed€anyÏmoney€to€the€farm.€€She€confirmed€that€she€had€sold€some€timber€off€the€land.ÌÌà àHusband€testified€that€he€assisted€Wife€and€her€family€in€selling€timber€on€theirÏproperty€ð ð[b]ack€in€the€ðð80s.ðð€€He€states,€ð ð[t]hey€had€some€timber€and€they€was€fixing€to€give€itÏaway€.€.€.€€I€know€all€the€[millers],€.€.€.€and€I€know€who€is€honest.€€I€helped€them€sell€it,€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà àMr.€Murdaugh€appraised€the€entire€property€at€$373,200,€but€stated€that€WifeððsÏundivided€interest€had€ð ðno€market€value.ðð€€Mr.€Harris€valued€the€entire€property€at€$754,000€andÏWifeððs€interest€at€$130,832.€€The€trial€court€did€not€value€the€property.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Husband€asserts€that€a€portion€of€the€value€of€the€farm€is€maritalÏproperty.€€He€relies€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(b)(1)(B)€„€(C),€which€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àð ðMarital€propertyðð€includes€income€from,€and€any€increase€inÏvalue€during€the€marriage,€of€property€determined€to€be€separateÏproperty€in€accordance€with€subdivision€(b)(2)€if€each€partyÏsubstantially€contributed€to€its€preservation€and€appreciation€.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà àAs€used€in€this€subjection,€ð ðsubstantial€contributionðð€mayÏinclude,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€direct€or€indirect€contribution€of€aÏspouse€as€homemaker,€wage€earner,€parent€or€family€financialÏmanager,€together€with€such€other€factors€as€the€court€havingÏjurisdiction€thereof€may€determine.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àBy€classifying€the€entire€property€as€separate,€the€trial€court€implicitly€found€noÏsubstantial€contribution€by€Husband€as€to€its€ð ðpreservation€and€appreciation.ðð€€Based€upon€ourÏreview€of€the€record,€we€hold€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€to€support€this€finding.ÌÌà àIt€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€remanded€forÏany€further€proceedings€necessary€and€consistent€herewith.€€Costs€are€assessed€equally€againstÏBette€B.€Hurdle€and€Ennis€J.€Hurdle,€Jr.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à___________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)