WPCh$ # VUNa % 0N 0 b w@  4  m 0D   0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0d BgU>B) D3DC AMa 0@U*0qH9v~rv AO"# 0D# D/$ BK$HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   (}(2$ y!     XdX `   0  - - KDLDMDNOPDQDRSӀ]Selby v. Selby - Dissenting Opinion - Lewis   # ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   D U(#$  0  3|x]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 d<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$'dxd))))7Border 1dd-+C << G("$    <  9p`(Arial & !  #d#((   ..   YYY FILED.XDecember6,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   g !#d#((   $    (X       Ms.Selbytestifiedthatthevalueoftheonebedroomduplexeswas$34,900andthatthevalueofthetwobedroomduplexeswas$37,300. v !#d#((   $    (X       Mr.Selbysappraisertestifiedthatthevalueoftheonebedroomduplexeswas$45,000andthatthevalueofthetwobedroomduplexeswas$47,000.  !#d#((   $    (X       Mr.SelbycosignedthenotewhenMs.SelbyrefinancedthemortgageontheduplexesinSeptember1992.Healsoworkedonafulltimebasisfrom1990to1994toimproveandmaintaintheduplexes.  !#d#((   $    (X       ThelocalrulesofcourtfortheSixteenthJudicialDistrictrequirepartiesincontesteddivorceproceedingstofileastatementidentifyingthedisputedissuesandthewitnessestheyexpecttocall.Italsorequiresthepartiestoidentifyandvalueallseparateandmaritalproperty.Theformprovidedinthelocalrulesgreatlyassiststhetrialcourtinvaluinganddistributingthepartiesmaritalestate.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   inion Geneva  inion Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . ((          \RA'\  \RA'\7_ dd7    ћ @ ( INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE( DIXIEMILLBURNSELBY,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      ) RutherfordChancery      ) No.94DR775VS.      )      ) AppealNo.̜R,/+A1-j|`  `@Rߛ      ) 01A019604CH00159LANDONSELBY,   )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )(@ DISSENTINGOPINION ( IconcurwiththecourtsconclusionthattheincreaseduringthemarriageoftheequityinMs.SelbyssixGlazeCourtduplexesismaritalproperty.However,Ihavepreparedthisseparateopiniontoaddressanissueconcerningthevaluationofthismaritalpropertythatisnotaddressedinthemainopinion.Sincethetrialcourtundervaluedthisinterest,Iwouldremandthecaseforfurtherproceedings.@ I.  DixieSelbyownedsixduplexesonGlazeCourtbeforeshemarriedLandonSelby.AccordingtoMs.Selby,themarketvalueoftheseduplexesatthetimeofthemarriagewas$208,200.Theywereencumberedbya$140,000mortgage,andaccordingly,theirnetvalueatthetimeofthemarriagewas$68,200.Atthetimeofthedivorce,thefairmarketvalueoftheduplexeswasbetween$216,600 0   ףand$276,000. 1   ףThepartiesrefinancedthedebtduringthemarriage,andthedebtapplicabletotheduplexeswasϜ$29,365.91atthetimeofthedivorce.Thus,thenetvalueoftheduplexesatthetimeofthedivorcewasbetween$187,234and$246,634. ThetrialcourtfoundthattheduplexesareMs.Selbysseparatepropertybecausesheownedthempriortothemarriage.ItalsofoundthattheincreaseinthevalueoftheseduplexesduringthemarriagewasmaritalpropertybecauseMr.Selbyhadsubstantiallycontributedtotheduplexespreservationandappreciation. 2   כSeeTenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(B)(1996).Thetrialcourtthendeterminedthattheequityintheduplexeshadincreasedby$50,000duringthemarriage.@ II.  Thetrialcourtdidnotconsiderthereductioninthedebtontheduplexeswhenitcalculatedtheincreaseintheirequityduringthemarriage.Thisoversightappearstohavebeencausedbyanambiguityinthe JointStipulationandStatementinCompliancewithRule12.02" 3   ׀filedpriortothehearing.Thisstatementrequiresthepartiestolistdebtsseparatelyfrompropertyandalsorequiresthepartiestostatethe valueofpropertywithoutstatingwhetherthevalueshouldbemarketvalue,netvalueincludingassociateddebts,orsomeothervalue.Itdoesnotrequirethepartiestoindicatetheexistenceofacorrelationbetweenaparticularpieceofpropertyandadebt. Thecourtsshouldapportionmaritaldebtsinmuchthesamewaythattheydividemaritalproperty.Cutsingerv.ϢCutsinger,917S.W.2d238,243(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Mahaffeyv.Mahaffey,775S.W.2d618,62324(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Theyshouldalso,whenthefactsrequire,considerthemaritaldebtsinconjunctionwithassociatedmaritalproperty.Houghlandv.Houghland,844S.W.2d619,624(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Mondelliv.Howard,780S.W.2d769,773(Tenn.Ct.App.1989). ThetrialcourtshouldhaveconsideredboththeincreaseinmarketvalueandthedecreaseintheassociateddebtwhenitcalculatedtheincreaseintheequityofthesixGlazeCourtduplexesduringthemarriage.Mr.Selbybroughtthisoversighttothetrialcourtsattentioninatimelyposttrialmotion.Accordingly,IwouldremandthecasewithdirectionsthatthetrialcourtrecalculatetheincreaseintheequityofthesixGlazeCourtduplexesandthendeterminewhetheradjustmentsshouldbemadeinitsoriginaldistributionofthemaritalestate.PlacingahighervalueonthisincreaseinequitydoesnotnecessarilyrequireadifferentdistributionofmaritalpropertysinceTenn.CodeAnn.364121(a)(1)(1996)requiresanequitabledivision,notnecessarilyanequalone.Ellisv.Ellis,748S.W.2d424,427(Tenn.1988);Batsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).      ____________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE