WPC 5w`Sj[]A q}X" .gVc>|ȓX@k=.tRO&/p^s ]K=䣹*`q.9W]8tVj{ԓAѳ!@f`f>8ءǙ\dCNXAZA q,OA-|tlA{HߗW(l3]kƤt.uy;aF3Ca |Vo ]2+PxF ^6n@dE>Jr]qnI_? O4Q>n`/cWu8&R2b7WC#Oo<C*|qd>!$PE ?=d]h# 0Dq % 0 UNC  z  ^ iwu4ySNE"" m""??????baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0iiii BTT 0q D3 D-H 0Kuu AS 0 0D} A B5l B*HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(#$  0  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  R3$      1  X#X  _Itisanelementalruleofappellatepracticethatpartiesmaynotattachtotheirbriefs  evidentiarymaterialneverintroducedattrial.SeeRichmondv.Richmond,690S.W.2d534,535  (Tenn.Ct.App.1985);Pattersonv.Hunt,682S.W.2d508,51718(Tenn.Ct.App.1984);seealso  Westv.State,No.03C019108CR00239,1992WL5240,at*3n.1(Tenn.Crim.App.Jan.15,  1992),perm.app.denied(Tenn.May4,1992). C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptn(L ~( Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|x        U         - -(|G23$ !.84dd8         0  X#X d(|3A$ !.84dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.84dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK1Large Dashed d&0 d d !.84dd8     _48#XXdd8    &sQ(dOsQdO@ 4INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE#4^#Ԉ  @kk$4ATNASHVILLE#4#Ԉ , X#X4 #4XX#P#  PETERGREGGMcKEEv.PENNYMARIEPEARSALLMcKEE  H X#X4@3 3  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMauryCounty ( x @ No.96493JimT.Hamilton,Chancellor  h @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  8  @No.M199700204_COA_ԄR3_ԄCV_Ԉ 7  AV) ` dE<` A    @  OPINIONDENYINGPETITIONFORREHEARING    Koch,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichTodd,P.J.,M.S.,andCantrell,J.,joined.      PeterGreggMcKeehasfiledapetitionpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.14and39requesting  thiscourttoreconsideritsMay23,2000opinioninlightofthepostjudgmentsaleoftheparties v houseandlotinNorthCarolina.Hepointsoutthathebroughtthissaletothecourtsattentionin f hisbriefandsuggeststhatweoverlookedthisinformationinpreparingourMay23,2000opinion. V WedidnotoverlookthefootnoteandappendixcontainingthisinformationinMr.McKeesbrief. F Wedid,however,declinetoconsideritbecause,absentTenn.R.Civ.P.60groundsforrelief,post 6 judgmentchangesinthevalueofmaritalpropertycannotprovideabasisforsecondguessingatrial &v courtsotherwisepropervaluationdecision. f   Whilethisdivorceproceedingwaspending,thepartiesdecidedtoselltheNorthCarolina F propertyandlisteditwithanaskingpriceof$565,000.Theyhadreceivednooffersatthetimeof 6 thetrial.However,Mr.McKeetestifiedthattheequityinthehomewas$500,000;whileMs.McKee & estimatedtheequitytobe$530,000.Thetrialcourtvaluedthepropertyat$500,000forthepurpose   ofdividingthemaritalestate.Fourmonthsaftertheentryofthefinaldivorcedecree,thepartiessold !  thepropertyfor$508,000andreceived$447,940.90afterdeductingthesalescommission,federal "! capitalgainstax,andapplicableNorthCarolinataxes. #"   Inlightofthissale,Mr.McKeeassertsthatweshouldhavevaluedtheNorthCarolina v% $ propertyat$447,940ratherthanat$500,000.Wedisagreeforfourreasons.First,theappellate f&!% recorddoesnotcontainanyevidenceregardingthepostjudgmentsaleoftheproperty. #  1      ׀Second,Mr. V'"& McKeedidnotrequestconsiderationofpostjudgmentfactswhenhefiledhisoriginalbrief.Third, F(#'' Mr.McKeedidnotseekrelieffromthisportionofthejudgmentunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60andhas  notarticulatedanygroundsforthissortofrelief.Fourth,neitherMr.McKeenorMs.McKeetook  issueintheirbriefswiththetrialcourtsvaluationoftheirinterestintheNorthCarolinaproperty.    Thiscourtsreviewoffactualquestionsisgenerallyconfinedtotheevidencepresentedat p trialandcontainedintherecordonappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.13(c).Wemayconsidercertain `  postjudgmentfactsinaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.14,butthesefactsshouldbeunrelatedto P  themerits.SeeTenn.R.App.P.14advisorycommncmt.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasheld @  thatTenn.R.App.P.14doesnotprovideavehicleforrelitigatingdisputedfactualissuesbyplacing 0  beforeanappellatecourtevidencenotheardorconsideredbythetrialcourt.SeeDuncanv.Duncan,  p  672S.W.2d765,768(Tenn.1984).Accordingly,intheabsenceofgroundsforTenn.R.Civ.P.60 `  relief,wehavedeclinedtoconsiderevidenceregardingpostjudgmentincreasesinthevalueof P  propertyawardedtoaspouse.SeeWadev.Wade,897S.W.2d702,72223(Tenn.Ct.App.1994); @  Duncanv.Duncan,789S.W.2d557,564(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Thesameruleshouldapplyto 0  evidenceregardingpostjudgmentdecreasesinthevalueofproperty.     AfteragainreviewingtheevidenceintheappellaterecordregardingthevalueoftheNorth  Carolinaproperty,wehavedeterminedthatthe$500,000valueplacedonthispropertybythetrial  courtiswithintherangeofvaluetestifiedtobythepartiesthemselvesandthattheevidencedoes  nototherwisepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdecisiontovaluethepartiesinterestinthis  propertyat$500,000.Mr.McKeespetitionforrehearingandforconsiderationofpostjudgment p factsis,therefore,respectfullydenied. `   IntheprocessofreviewingourMay23,2000opinion,wediscoveredtwoerroneous @ calculationsregardingthepartiesinterestinthemaritalproperty.Wenowcorrecttheseerrorson 0 ourownmotionbecausetheymateriallyaffectthedivisionofthemaritalestate.Wehavealready  p determinedthatMs.McKeeisentitledto37%ofthemaritalestateor$400,477.However,inthe ` tableonpage8oftheMay23,2000opinion,wecalculatedthevalueofMs.McKeesinterestinthe P OakValleyDrivepropertyandtheNorthCarolinapropertybasedon35%ratherthan37%.When @ herinterestintheseassetsisproperlycalculated,Ms.McKeesinterestintheOakValleyDrive 0 propertyis$18,500,andherinterestintheNorthCarolinapropertyis$185,000.Asaresultofthese   corrections,Ms.McKeescashawardmustbereducedfrom$180,274to$169,274.Basedonthis ! reduction,Mr.McKeewillberequiredtopayMs.McKee$1,411permonthovertenyearsifhe "  electstopaythecashawardtoMs.McKeeininstallmentsratherthaninalumpsum.Wehave #! attachedtothisopinionarevisedpagethatshouldbesubstitutedforpage8oftheMay23,2000 $" opinion. % #