WPC # VUNa % 0Nb 0 w@ 4$ 8 0DG   0J 0Tc 0^ 0h 0r} 0| 0k 0 1u 0dU >ZB) BDC AM!U*n.c D3)v~\v 0@ AO< 0D D/F BuHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2Lq$ y!     XX   `   0   789:E;<=>e?ӀID c3|xI(#$  0  MAYFIELD V. MAYFIELD - CONCURRING OPINION (TODD) 7 ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2 0Indent123  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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd-%C << G<  9p`(Arial $ !  #d#""   ''   YYY FILED'XApril30,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   Y !#d#""   $    "X         Thisamountincludesthe$16,792.56inmaritalpropertyidentifiedbythetrialcourtandthe$50,000 alimonyinsolido.Thetrialcourtcharacterizedthe$50,000 [a]sfurtherpropertydivisionandinconsiderationofhercontributionstotheappreciationofthehomeplaceandhereffortstomakeahomeforMr.Mayfieldandraisethechild.$$$$'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . ""          \RA'\\RA'\7Odd7    "ԛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE "JOANNEDALLEMAYFIELD, )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  )      ) DavidsonCircuit      ) No.95D1525VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019611CV00501̜R&(%A1-j|M`  `@RߛJOHNDREWMAYFIELD,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )"@ CONCURRINGOPINION " IconcurwiththecourtsopinionandwithitsfindingthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatMs.MayfielddidnotcontributesubstantiallytotheappreciationinthevalueofMr.Mayfieldsseparateproperty,exceptfortheTrimbleRoadhouse.Ihavepreparedthisseparateopiniontoelaborateonthesignificanceofthisfindinginthecontextofthiscase. Aspousescontributionstomaritalandseparatepropertyhaveatwofoldsignificance.First,thesecontributionsaffecttheclassificationofpropertyasmaritalorseparate.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(B)(1996).Second,theyaffecttheequitabledivisionofthepropertyinthemaritalestate.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(5). ThefindingthatMs.MayfielddidnotcontributesubstantiallytoMr.ϢMayfieldsseparatepropertyeffectivelyremovesthispropertyfromthemaritalestatewithtwoexceptions.Thefirstexceptionisthe$50,000increaseinthevalueoftheTrimbleRoadhousebecausethetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthatMs.Mayfieldhadcontributedtotheappreciationinthehousesvalue.Thesecondexceptionisthe$26,104.57increaseinthevalueofMr.ϢMayfieldsindividualretirementaccountbecausetheappreciationinthevalueofthisaccountismaritalpropertyevenwithoutsubstantialcontributionsbyMs.Mayfield.Cohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2d823,830(Tenn.1996).ThetrialcourtdidnotincludeinthepartiesmaritalestatetheincreaseinthevalueoftheTrimbleRoadhouseorMr.Mayfieldsindividualretirementaccount.Addingthesetwovaluableassetstothemaritalestatebringsitsvalueupto$109,689.67ratherthan$33,585.11asfoundbythetrialcourt. TheonlyremainingquestionconcernswhetherMs.Mayfieldreceivedanequitableshareofthemaritalproperty.Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)requiresanequitableratherthananequaldivisionofmaritalproperty,Batsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.Ct.App.1988),anddoesnotrequirethateachpartyreceiveashareofeachpieceofmaritalproperty.Thompsonv.Thompson,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Individingmaritalpropertythecourtsconsiderthecontributionsofeachspousetotheacquisition,preservation,andappreciationofthemaritalorseparateproperty.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(5). ThetrialcourteffectivelyawardedMs.Mayfield$66,792.56or61%ofthepartiesmaritalestate. )   ףIfindthisdistributionequitableinlightoftheconsiderationsinTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c).      ________________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE