ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0—H 0Dß 0J# 0Tm 0^Á 0h 0r‡ 0|ù 0†u 0û 1u‹ U, 0d,U,U>¼U*úB)$DCM AM BÝ D3úÿ-±, 0@Ýv~vÓ› AOnƽ 0Dƒ D/Ç Bö˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÛUÜEÝÞEßàDá-eâgãÓ€ïyJÚ Pdd3|xï(G(2ô$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ô —ôXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d))))'ÿÿdxd õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAugust€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó §Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€$ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€allÏjudges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandumÏopinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€byÏmemorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€be€published,€and€shallÏnot€be€cited€or€relied€upon€for€any€reason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.ÌÔ€$Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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€-‚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  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌRICHARD€GLENN€KITCHENS,€SR.,à à)ó óà àFrom€the€Shelby€County€CircuitÏCourtò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óat€Memphis,€TennesseeÌà àà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óThe€Honorable€Kay€S.€Robilio,€JudgeÌò òvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Circuit€No.€142270€R.D.Ìò òœÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€(+';+'h|ŠÆ` Å `€€Lß›DEBORAH€HIZER€KITCHENS,à àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.Ï02A01„9503„CV„00047Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)à àAFFIRMEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óClyde€W.€KeenanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àAttorney€for€AppellantÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àBruce€Kelley,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àAttorney€for€Appelleeò òÌòòà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà@ àóóÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ, ××  ×Ìà@ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏóóòòÌó óóóÌòòò òHIGHERS,€J.óóÌÌÓÓó óÌà àIn€this€divorce€case,€the€primary€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏenforce€a€property€settlement€agreement€allegedly€executed€ten€years€prior€to€theÏfiling€of€the€present€complaint€for€divorce.ÌÌà àIn€1983,€Richard€Kitchens,€Sr.€(ð ðhusbandðð)€retained€James€Eikner,€attorney,€toÏprepare€a€divorce€complaint€and€a€property€settlement€agreement.€€Deborah€KitchensÏ(ð ðwifeðð)€refused€to€sign€the€agreement€prepared€by€Eikner.€€Wife€obtained€independentÏcounsel,€Ed€Johnson,€who€drafted€a€second€property€settlement€agreement.€ThisÏagreement€provided€for€child€support,€division€of€marital€property,€and€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€two€minor€children.€€Wife€signed€the€agreement€on€April€18,€1983,€before€aÏnotary€public.€€Husband€stated€that€after€wife€signed€the€agreement,€she€presented€it€toÏhim€for€his€signature.€€Husband€testified€that€he€signed€the€agreement€and€retained€aÏcopy.€€œHusband›€could€not€remember€the€precise€date€on€which€he€signed€theÏagreement,€nor€Ñ7€vmXdìXXdì7Ñcould€he€remember€who€notarized€his€signature.€€At€trial,€husbandÏproduced€his€copy€of€the€agreement.€€However,€the€agreement€lacked€the€last€page,Ïwhich€would€have€contained€the€notary€of€his€signature.€€Husband€was€unable€toÏproduce€the€missing€page.€€Ìà àWife€denies€that€she€gave€husband€the€agreement€for€his€signature.€€AccordingÏto€wife,€her€attorney€sent€the€agreement€to€husbandððs€attorney€in€April€1983.€€WifeÏwithdrew€from€the€agreement€on€July€5,€1983,€because€she€felt€that€the€agreementÏcontained€insufficient€provisions€for€child€support.€€Her€attorney€communicated€herÏwithdrawal€to€husbandððs€attorney€by€letter€the€same€day.€ÌÌà àWife€elected€not€to€pursue€the€divorce€due€to€financial€reasons.€€Since€1983,€theÏparties€have€lived€separately.€€Husband€did€not€learn€that€wife€had€not€followedÏthrough€with€the€divorce€proceedings€until€1989.€€Husband€filed€the€present€complaintÏfor€divorce€in€1993.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€husband€sought€to€enforce€the€terms€of€the€1983€settlement€agreement.€ÏThe€trial€court€refused€the€enforce€the€agreement,€finding€that€the€agreement€was€notÏproperly€executed€and€that€the€wifeððs€offer€was€withdrawn€prior€to€husbandððsÏacceptance.€€Ìà àFollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€orally€granted€a€divorce€to€wife€on€grounds€ofÏhusbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€ordered€husband€to€pay€$300.00€per€monthÏrehabilitative€alimony€for€a€period€of€five€years,€awarded€the€equity€in€the€home€to€wife,Ïallowed€husband€to€retain€all€title€and€interest€in€the€real€property€that€he€had€acquiredÏsince€1983,€and€ordered€the€parties€to€pay€their€own€attorneyððs€fees.€Ìà àÌà àHusband€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€findings€of€fact,€and€wife€filed€aÏproposed€Final€Decree€of€Divorce.€€Prior€to€the€hearing€on€husbandððs€motion€forÏfindings€of€fact,€the€trial€judge€sent€a€letter€to€both€parties€in€which€the€judge€stated€thatÏshe€was€adopting€the€first€four€paragraphs€of€the€proposed€final€decree€as€her€findingsÏof€fact.€ÌÌà àOur€review€of€this€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).ÌÌà àHusband€argues€that€the€parties€executed€the€agreement€on€or€about€the€sameÏdate,€April€18,€1983;€€therefore,€the€agreement€was€a€valid€and€enforceable€contract.€ÍIn€addition,€husband€contends€that€this€court€should€enforce€the€agreement€becauseÏthe€parties€have€abided€by€its€terms€since€its€execution.€€We€find€these€contentions€toÏbe€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€wife€testified€that€she€did€not€present€the€agreement€toÏhusband€for€his€signature.€€Moreover,€she€testified€that€she€withdrew€from€theÏagreement€prior€to€husbandððs€acceptance.€€Although€husband€disputes€these€facts,€heÏwas€unable€to€produce€the€last€page€of€the€agreement€that€would€have€contained€theÏdate€and€notary€of€his€signature.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing€evidence,€coupled€with€theÏfact€that€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€are€afforded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€weÏdecline€to€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€determination€on€this€issue.€€Additionally,€we€findÏinsufficient€evidence€from€the€record€of€the€partiesðð€adoption€or€ratification€of€theÏagreement.ÌÌà àAlternatively,€husband€argues,€if€we€elect€not€to€enforce€the€1983€agreement,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€was€improper€and€its€distribution€ofÏmarital€property€was€inequitable.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„settled€that€an€award€of€alimony€is€largely€within€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€òòLoyd€v.€Loydóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€€After€reviewing€theÏrecord€and€considering€the€factors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(d),€we€find€no€abuseÏof€discretion€with€respect€to€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony.€€Similarly,€an€evaluationÏof€the€evidence€in€light€of€the€factors€delineated€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„4„121(c),€leads€us€to€theÍconclusion€that€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€divided€the€marital€property€wasÏequitable€and€fully€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌà àFinally,€husband€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€make€writtenÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€our€opinion,€however,€the€trial€courtððsÏadoption€of€the€first€four€paragraphs€contained€in€the€proposed€final€decree€of€divorceÏand€the€subsequent€hearing€that€was€conducted€on€the€matter€sufficiently€compliedÏwith€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€52.01.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€òòin€totoóó.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€taxed€to€husband.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.