WPC 41z!|k*+/e-c }> 3g~9)T,6߫$f6O'AYM3@̿y Bn. NGj3CWg#NA2.-ظ'ӛ#,裂$)b6kmds8^uYi=mYW6qE J:^C\<]a2G F+ޱ.:y?#2uhܲcMC,e>zB9mVW ;i֮J8fwD[lP~Lp'>۳y*7g_Y[k* qaL?vqk$O\|⚆9{&G`鶔g.~*u;s h RTh<τNbP(5SŇ֒";P2ݓTO} $y *Vb\js1ynAYC$H>; I=m6F`# F UNQ % 0 UN w 4    U: U:)))))))))))))))))))))))) Bccccc D3 0D AOFF 0D  D/P BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($71dXdXd7  HgITR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT(Y Z 6Times New Roman RegularfDgUhEijkDlUmnDoepqrDstuvDwxDyUz{|D}Ӏh&3|x  Xl| XXX   X Xl|   Ad FILED       June28,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. |   AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  Xl| XXX   X Xl|   Ad FILED       June25,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. |   AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !7lXXdXXd7  HXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  }oo}  v7lXdXXd7 }r *<,(j 8 `@Ex tt0"r}r *<,(j 8 `@Ex tt0"r}}@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@LL(ATKNOXVILLE DRUCILLAGAYKILLION,    ) p GREENECHANCERY  T  `     h     ) p (No.97000150)  d  ` Plaintiff/Appellee h     ) $ t  `     h     ) p NO.03A019807CH00229 4  v. `     h     ) D   `     h     ) p HON.THOMASR.FRIERSON,II T  JIMMYDALEKILLION,    ) p CHANCELLOR d   `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellant    ) p AFFIRMED  DavidL.Leonard,Greeneville,forAppellant.L.KirkWyss,Morristown,forAppellee. @(  vOPINION T #v  # `     h      p INMAN,SeniorJudge L p  p ` Thecustodyoftwochildrenistheprincipalissueinthiscase.Asecondaryissueinvolvesthemonetaryvaluationofamobilehome.TheChancellorawardedcustodyofthechildrentotheirmother,andorderedthefathertopayher$9,000.00forhermaritalinterestinthemobilehome.Fatherappeals,insistingthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment. ` vOurreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialCourtisdenovoupon  +\&$ therecordofthetrialCourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App. d/*( P.,Rule13(d)#v #v;Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26(Tenn.1996).#v # 1,*  ` Thepartieshavethreesons,Derek,age15,Chad,age12,andBryan,age11.WhenWifefiledhercomplaintinJuly,1997,Derekwasresidingwithhisfather;hisyoungerbrothersremainedwiththeirmother. ` ThecustodyofDerekwasawardedtohisfatherandisnotanissueonappeal. :l52G  ` qWqrwrhenthepartiesseparated,Wife,withChadandBryan,movedintoahouseownedbyWendellThackerwhowasdisabledasaresultofinjuriessustainedinacarcrashinwhichshsiswifewaskilled.ItistherelationshipbetweenWifeandThackerofwhichHusbandcomplains;heinsiststhattheclearpreponderanceoftheevidenceprovedthattthetWifeandothackerooThackerowereengagedinameretriciousrelationshipowhcihoowhichowassoblatantastorenderherunfittohavethecareandcustodyofChadandBryan.@. I    ` WifetestifiedthatsheperformedhousekeepingservicesforThacker;that  theyoccupiedthesameresidence;thatshehad givenhimfriendlykisses;thattheydidnothaveasexualorelationshpoorelationshipo;thatotheyvactionedootheyvacationedotogether,withtheirochiuldrenoochildreno,inFloridaandGatlinburg.HerrelationshipwithThackerwasenquiredintoexhaustively,andnoevidencewaspresentedofherparentalunsuitabilityotherthanherrelationshipwithThacker. ` TheuCuvcvhancellorobservedthattheWifesassociationwithThackerhadtheappearanceofimpropriety,butspecificallyfoundthatherrelationshipwithhimwasnotsexualorintimate.Thepreservedtestimonyissomewhatjarringonthispoint,butwearemindfulthatwhatmayseewmwxnxtobeoftenisnot.ThecredibilityofWife,amajorfactor,wastheoprepogativeooprerogativeoandresponsibilityoftheChancellor,whosefindingiswellnighconclusive.vԀooGalbreathoov.Harris,811S.W.2d88,91(Tenn.  -\(& App.1990).TheChancellorrecognizedthewellknownandoftexpressedrulesrespectingthebestinterestsofthechildren,andthecomparativefitnessoftheparents.Inre:Parsons,914S.W.2d889(Tenn.1995). 3/,  ` Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheawardofcustody.}}y 8X30 y@pp- II   ` HusbandcomplainsthattheevidenceoZpreonderatesZoopreponderatesoagainstthefindingthat , themarketvalueoftheresidentialmobilehomewas$18,000.00. ` Wifetestifiedthatthemobilehome,withtheadditionsoftwoporches,tzwzoroomsandacloset,wasworth$25,000.00.Husbandtestifiedthatthemobilehome,withanabovegroundswimmingpool,wasworth$7,300.00.Husbandsfatherownedthelandonwhichtheo\movile\oomobileohomewaslocated. ` ThemobilehomewasawardedtoHusband,whowasorderedtopayWifeϜ{${|%|9,000.00forhermaritalinterest.Noproofwasofferedotherthanthetestimonyofthepartiesastothevalueoftheo`movile`oomobileohome,andwecannotfindthatthejudgmentiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. ` Thejudgmentisaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellantandthecaseisremandedforallnecessarypurposes.dd## `     h     e  < efeefe ` ee ee  ee h ee  ee  e_______________________________ `     h     WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeg #b ggghgcoghiCONCUR:i ` j#;#jkjjkj_______________________________HerschelP.Franks,Judgejkjj#T!#kllmmnmmnm_______________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judgem