ÿWPCh :# <U:G % 0û‡ ‚4ˆœ 0?« 0Dê . 4 : @ w@H ˆ Ž 0Ž Æ¥ 0@k AQ« 0Dü 0J@ U@Š eÊ 0TË 0^ 0h} 0rå 0|W BÓ 0†ð D3v 0© D/9 1uh BÝ 0dúU *^B)ˆDC± AMô˜AU>Ùv~vÓ•˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7ÑÈRäzz!#3|xÎ(ï(3ÔŸ$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÏ“XXXÔÑ7€Ï“XXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÈRÈRHR ÅÊÆÇEÈÉDÊÊËÊÌÓ€ÍÎHR(ï3ß^$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÏ“XXXÔÑ7€Ï“XXdædæ7ÑÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô**'÷ÿ dxd!"#%' ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)üÿP PdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔó óÌò òÔ€2¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€2XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€2ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ< Œ 9p`(&Times New RomanPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€2ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›ò òœÓ  ÓÔ% € ÔÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌœWESTERN›€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE̜ـÙßR€564A1-j|`þ,- `€€@ÿRß›„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌœÌÌÌÌ›ÌÓ  ÓÌÌœKENNETH€DALE€NANCE,ó ó›à àà à)Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àó óà à)à àœHENRY€CHANCERY›Ìà àœPlaintiff\Appellant›à àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌœò òTINA€LOUISE€NANCE,›à àà àà àó ó)à àAppeal€No.€œ02A01„9603„CH„00042Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant\Appellee›à àà à)̛̜̜ÌÌÌ›ÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€œCHANCERY›€COURT€OF€œHENRY›€COUNTYÌAT€œPARIS,›€TENNESSEEÌTHE€HONORABLE€œWALTON€WEST,€CHANCELLOR›ÌÓ  Ӝ̛̜ÌÌ̛̜ò òW.€BROWN€HAWLEY,€IIà à›à àà àœTHOMAS€V.€VENTIMIGLIAó ó›Ìœò òTERESA€McCAIG€MARSHALLà àà àó ó117€East€Wood€StreetÌ308€W.€Washington€St.à àà àà àà àParis,€TN€38242ÌParis,€TN€38242à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€for€AppelleeÌAttorneys€for€Appellantà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÔ% € Ôà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÓÓà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÑ  ÑÌóóó óÔ% € Ôà àCustody€of€the€five„year€old€son€of€these€parties€was€awarded€to€his€mother,Ïthe€propriety€of€which€the€appellant„father€questions.€€Our€review€of€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„225(3)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€ofÏMcMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€584€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€cannot€substitute€our€judgment€forÏthat€of€the€trial€judge,€and€we€are€not€positioned€to€evaluate€the€credibility€of€theÏparties€or€their€witnesses.€€òòWalls€v.€Magnolia€Truck€Lines,€óó622€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.Ï1981).Ìà àThe€mother€was€17€and€pregnant€when€she€and€the€appellant,€ten€yearsÏolder,€were€married.€€Their€post„marriage€years€have€been€unhappy€ones,Ïexacerbated€beyond€description€here€by€the€motherððs€confessed€adultery€withÍDerrick€Poole,€to€whom€she€is€now€married,€and€by€whom€she€became€pregnantÏwhile€yet€married€to€the€appellant.Ìà àNumerous€witnesses,€including€family€members,€testified€about€theÏrespective€habits,€conduct,€and€character€of€the€parties.€€We€do€not€believe€it€wouldÏbe€profitable€to€memorialize€this€testimony€because€much€of€it€was€advocativeÏexcept€for€the€admitted€gross€misconduct€of€the€appellee.€€The€thrust€of€theÏevidence€revealed€an€abundance€of€mutual€fault,€but€the€lascivious€conduct€of€theÏmother€eventually€destroyed€the€marriage.Ìà àHer€then„paramour,€now€husband,€Derrick€Poole,€came€under€close€scrutinyÏrespecting€his€affinity€for€recreational€drug€use.€€The€five„year€old€son€related€to€anÏexperienced€officer€the€observation€of€Poole€apparently€manufacturing€crackÏcocaine.€€The€testimony€of€the€officer€was€disallowed€because€hearsay,€and€theÏappellant€complains€of€this€fact,€more€or€less€on€practical,€common„sense€grounds.€ÏBut€to€allow€the€officer€to€derive€an€opinion€based€on€his€conversation€with€the€boyÏobviously€cannot€be€allowed€and€we€need€not€belabor€the€point.€€There€was€otherÏevidence€offered€in€substantial€derogation€of€Pooleððs€character,€all€of€which€theÏChancellor€made€plain€that€he€fully€considered.Ìà àThe€Chancellor€filed€an€excellent€opinion,€a€portion€of€which€we€reproduce:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ H ÒÒ ` ÒÒ r ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€2ôÔÔ€7Ôð ðThe€goal€of€every€custody€proceeding€is€to€place€the€child€in€an€environment€that€will€bestÏserve€his€or€her€physical€and€emotional€needs.€€òòLentz€v.€Lentz,óó€717€S.W.2d€876,€877€(Tenn.Ï1986);€òòBah€v.€Bah,€óó668€S.W.2d€663,€665„666€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€The€proceeding€isÏnot€for€the€purpose€of€rewarding€or€punishing€a€parent€for€past€conduct€but€rather€toÏpromote€the€childððs€best€interests.€€òòSutherland€v.€Sutherland,€óó831€S.W.2d€283,€286€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1991);€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhill,€óó826€S.W.2d€443,€453€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Thus,Ïthe€childððs€interests€are€paramount,€òòLuke€v.€Luke,óó€651€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€1983),€andÏthe€parentsðð€interests€are€secondary.€€òòGriffin€v.€Stone,óó€834€S.W.2d€300,€302€(Tenn.€Ct.ÍApp.€1982);€òòNeely€v.€Neely,€óó737€S.W.2d€539,€542€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€ððThe€goal€ofÏfacilitating€the€childððs€best€interests€is€certainly€a€noble€one,€but€the€notion€that€courts€canÏever€know€with€any€certainty€what€will€truly€be€in€a€given€childððs€best€interest€is€perhapsÏunrealistic.ðð€òòTaylor€v.€Taylor,€óó849€S.W.2d€319,€326€(Tenn.€1993).€ÌÌà8 àIn€òòBevins€v.€Bevins,€óó383€S.W.2d€780€(1964),€the€court€observed:ÌÌà8 àThe€real€matter€to€be€considered€is€what€is€the€best€thing€to€do€with€theseÏchildren€that€they€may€be€left€in€a€home€where€they€are€nurtured,Ïappreciated€and€where€the€environment€is€such€that€is€conducive€not€onlyÏto€the€physical€welfare€of€the€child,€but€to€its€emotional€and€moralÏwelfare,€and€where€it€can€have€the€instructions€from€those€who€haveÏcontrol€over€it€to€inspire€it€to€activities€so€as€to€develop€a€personalityÏprepared€for€a€life€of€service,€and€to€successfully€compete€in€the€societyÏwhich€the€child€faces€when€an€adult.ÌÌà à383€S.W.2d€at€783.ÌÌà àThe€paramount€concern€in€child€custody€cases€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€theÏchild.€€òòBah€v.€Bah,€óó668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€In€determining€where€the€bestÏinterest€of€a€child€lies€when€awarding€custody,€the€court€considers€many€factors€of€which€aÏnonexclusive€list€is€found€in€the€òòBahóó€opinion,€668€S.W.2d€at€666.€€Those€factors€include:€Ï(1)€the€age,€habits,€mental€and€emotional€makeup€of€the€child€and€those€parties€competingÏfor€custody;€(2)€the€education€and€experience€of€those€seeking€to€raise€the€child;€(3)€theirÏcharacter€and€propensities€as€evidenced€by€their€past€conduct;€(4)€the€financial€and€physicalÏcircumstances€available€in€the€home€of€each€party€seeking€custody€and€the€specialÏrequirements€of€the€child;€(5)€the€availability€and€extent€of€third€party€support;€(6)€theÏassociations€and€influences€to€which€the€child€is€most€likely€to€be€exposed€in€theÏalternatives€afforded,€both€positive€and€negative;€and€(7)€where€is€the€greater€likelihood€of€anÏenvironment€for€the€child€of€love,€warmth,€stability,€support,€consistency,€care€and€concern,Ïand€physical€and€spiritual€nurture.ÌÌà àIn€òòBah€v.€Bah,€óó668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€the€court€stated:ÌÌà8 àThis€court€believes€that€the€so„called€ð ðtender€years€doctrineðð€is€a€factor€„„Ïbut€only€one€factor€„„€to€be€considered€in€the€overall€determination€of€whatÏis€in€the€best€interests€of€the€child.ÌÌà8 àWe€adopt€what€we€believe€is€a€common€sense€approach€to€custody,€on[e]Ïwhich€we€will€call€the€doctrine€of€ð ðcomparative€fitness.ðð€€The€paramountÏconcern€in€child€custody€cases€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€child.€ÏòòMollish€v.€Mollish,€óó494€S.W.2d€145,€151€(Tenn.€App.€1972.€€There€areÏliterally€thousands€of€things€that€must€be€taken€into€consideration€in€theÏlives€of€young€children,€òòSmith€v.€Smith,€óó220€S.W.2d€627,€630€(1949),Ïand€these€factors€must€be€reviewed€on€a€comparative€approach:€ð ðFitnessÏfor€custodial€responsibilities€is€largely€a€comparative€matter.€€No€humanÏbeing€is€deemed€perfect,€hence€no€human€can€be€deemed€a€perfectly€fitÏcustodian.€€Necessarily,€therefore,€the€courts€must€determine€which€of€twoÏor€more€available€custodians€is€more€or€less€fit€than€others.ðð€(CitationsÏomitted).ÌÌà8 àTo€the€extent€the€ð ðtender€yearsðð€doctrine€has€continued€efficacy€it€isÏsimply€one€of€many€factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€custody,€notÏan€unyielding€rule€of€law.€€The€only€rigid€principle€is€and€must€be€thatÏthe€best€interests€of€the€child€are€paramount€in€any€custody€detrmination.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.€.€.€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àTimes€have€changed.€€Many€mothers€now€work,€either€by€necessity€orÏchoice,€and€no€longer€assume€the€primary€nurturing€role€for€smallÏchildren.€€We€believe€the€ð ðpresumption€of€tender€yearsðð€expoused€[sic]€inÏòòWeaveróó€[261€S.W.2d€145,€148€(Tenn.€1953)]€is€no€substitute€for€anÏindividualized€investigation€involving€custody€in€every€case.€€Such€factorsÏas€the€warmth,€consistency,€and€continuity€of€the€relationship€betweenÏparent€and€child€and€not€the€sex€of€the€parent€actually€govern€a€childððs€bestÏinterest.€€These€things€can€be€provided€by€the€father€as€well€as€the€mother.ÌÌ668€S.W.2d€at€666.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€36„6„101(d)€permits€the€courts€to€consider€the€ð ðtender€years€doctrineðð€inÏexamining€questions€of€custody.€€òòTaylor€v.€Taylor,€óó849€S.W.2d€319,€325€(Tenn.€1993).€Ïð ðThe€legislative€history€of€the€provision€in€subsection€(d)€indicates€that€it€was€intended€toÏcodify€case€lawððs€ððtender€years€doctrineðð,ðð.€€òòId.óó€at€325,€footnote€6.€€òòWeaver€v.€Weaver,óó€261ÏS.W.2d€145,€148,€(1953),€sets€forth€the€tender€years€doctrine€in€these€terms:€ð ðA€mother,Ïexcept€in€extaordinary€circumstances,€should€be€with€her€child€of€tender€years.€€Normally,Ïsuch€a€child€will€not€be€taken€away€from€its€mother€unless€it€is€demonstrated€that€to€leaveÏthe€child€with€its€mother€would€jeopardize€its€welfare,€both€in€a€physical€and€in€a€moralÏsense.ðð€€However,€the€tender€years€doctrine€is€not€controlling€but€is€simply€an€element€to€beÏconsidered€by€the€court€in€determining€custody.€€òòShelby€v.€Shelby,€óó696€S.W.2d€360,€361Ï(Tenn.€App.€1985).Ìà àÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€partiesðð€child€is€five€(5)€years€old,€one€of€many€factors€theÏCourt€is€considering€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Law.ÌÌà àSexual€infidelity€or€indiscretion€does€not€òòipso€factoóó€disqualify€a€parent€from€beingÏawarded€custody;€however,€when€the€parentððs€sexual€activities€or€indiscretion€involve€neglectÏof€the€minor€child,€such€neglect€may€be€considered€in€relation€to€the€best€interest€of€theÏminor€child.€€òòSutherland€v.€Sutherland,€óó831€S.W.2d€283,€268€[286]€(Tenn.€App.€1991).ÌÌà8 àThere€are€various€factors€to€consider€in€custody€decisions€as€set€out€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„6„105:ÌÌà8 àà àSection€36„6„105€òòò òChild€Custody.ó óóó€€In€a€suit€for€annulment,Ïdivorce,€separate€maintenance,€or€in€any€other€proceeding€requiring€theÏcourt€to€make€a€custody€determination€regarding€a€minor€child,€suchÏdetermination€shall€be€made€upon€the€basis€of€the€best€interest€of€theÏchild.€€The€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors€including€the€followingÏwhere€applicable:ÌÌà8 àà à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€theÏparents€and€child;ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,Ïclothing,€medical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€and€the€degree€toÏwhich€a€parent€has€been€the€primary€caregiver;ÌÌà8 àà à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€childððs€life€and€the€lengthÏof€time€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactory€environment;€ÌÌà8 àà à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;ÌÌà8 àà à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;ÌÌà8 àà à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;ÌÌà8 àà à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€ofÏage€or€older.€€The€court€may€hear€the€preference€of€a€younger€child€uponÏrequest.€€The€preference€of€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greaterÏweight€than€those€of€younger€children;ÌÌà8 àà à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€theÏother€parent€or€to€any€other€person;€andÌÌà8 àà à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€inÏor€frequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€personððs€interactions€with€theÏchild.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONÌÌó óà àIt€is€apparent€that€both€parties€love€their€child€and€that€the€child€loves€both€parents.€ÏIt€is€further€apparent€that€both€parents€are€fit€and€competent€parents€to€have€custody€of€theirÏchild.Ìà àThe€Court€finds€that€during€the€course€of€the€partiesðð€marriage€the€mother€was€theÏprimary€caretaker€of€the€child€although€it€appears€the€father€has€also€contributedÏsignificantly€to€the€rearing€of€the€child.€€It€is€evident€from€the€testimony€that€both€partiesÏhave€certain€negative€traits€but€also€have€some€very€positive€traits.€€Unfortunately,€theÏparties€have€themselves€elected€to€dissolve€their€marriage€and€this€election€results€in€the€factÏthat,€under€the€circumstances,€one€parent€will€of€necessity€be€required€to€be€the€primaryÏcustodian€of€the€child.€€The€Court€finds€that€the€father€has€an€ongoing€proclivity€to€indulgeÏin€alcohol€to€excess.€€His€present€work€schedule€prevents€access€to€the€child€in€the€afternoonÏand€evenings.€€While€acknowledging€the€acts€of€infidelity€of€the€mother,€her€conduct€doesÏnot€appear€to€have€resulted€in€any€neglect€of€the€partiesðð€child.€€Considering€all€of€theÏfactors€contained€in€the€legal€authorities€hereinabove€cited,€and€considering€the€respectiveÏenvironments€in€which€the€child€will€be€reared,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€child€will€be€served€by€placement€with€the€mother.ðð€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ r ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€2Ôà àÌà àÔ€2XÔWe€are€unable€to€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment,€which€is€affirmed€at€the€cost€of€the€appellant.€€The€case€is€remanded€forÏall€appropriate€purposes.Ìà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌ›ÓÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€œJudge›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌœAlan€E.€Highers,€JudgeÌ›ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌœHolly€Lillard,€Judge›ÌÔ% € ÔÇÑ7€rXXdðXXdð7ÑÓ  Óà àœò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌ„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌKENNETH€DALE€NANCE,ó óà àà à)Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àó óà à)à àHENRY€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌò òTINA€LOUISE€NANCE,à àà àà àó ó)à àAppeal€No.€02A01„9603„CH„00042Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÓÓ________________________________________________________________Ìà@ àò òJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€TÌó ó________________________________________________________________ÌÌà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€regularly€heard€and€considered€by€this€Court,Ïand€for€the€reasons€stated€in€the€Opinion€of€this€Court,€of€even€date,€it€is€Ordered:Ìà àÌà à1.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà à2.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellant€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.Ìà à3.€€The€case€is€remanded€for€all€appropriate€purposes.Ìà àÌà àENTER:ÌÓÓà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÓÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAlan€E.€Highers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHolly€Lillard,€JudgeÔ% € Ô›