WPC # VU>a % 0(4w@ 0L0 0l| 0D <, h 0Jp 0T 0^ 0hl 0r 0|F 0 0H 1u 0dMU 6B) 0LDC\ AMU* B3 D3Crvv~ 0@fv AOy 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX($D xx3|x  ID{DӀ > $Small Circle0 ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  c:\wpwin60\template\brief.wpt2 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`(Courier New% Line 7 d>c$"Small Circle"0 ####7Border 1dd-%C << G<  9p`(Arial d  !  #d#"  ''   YYY FILED'XDecember6,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  (((('dxd h !#d#"   $       "CourtofAppealsRule10(b):8 TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated"MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h("$    Styl{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'\ ` X X \RA'\7lXdd7  ћ DIXIEMILLBURNSELBY, )  )#` XxX# Plaintiff/Appellee, ) AppealNo.  ) 01A019604CH00159v.  )  ) RutherfordChancery̜R&)%A1-j|$`  `@RߛLANDONSELBY, ) No.94DR775  ) Defendant/Appellant. )  "COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORRUTHERFORDCOUNTYATMURFREESBORO,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEDONR.ASH,CHANCELLOR ` XX   "XDAVIDW.GARRETT214SecondAvenue,NorthSuite103Nashville,Tennessee37201 ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLEETERRYA.FANNWaldronandFann202WestMainStreetMurfreesboro,Tennessee37130 ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANT/APPELLANT  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  "SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  "MEMORANDUMOPINION +     #` ` X# "XThisisanappealbydefendant/appellant,LandonSelby,fromadecisionofthechancerycourtwhichgrantedappellantandplaintiff/appellee,DixieMillburnSelby,adivorceanddistributedtheparties'maritalandseparateassets.Thefactsoutofwhichthiscasearoseareasfollows. Thepartiesmarriedon17July1987.Atthetimeofthemarriage,appellantwasfortynineandappelleewasfortyseven.Bothpartiesenteredthemarriagewithseparateproperty.AppelleeownedsixduplexesonGlazeCourtandfivelotsinDixielandEstates("thelots").Theduplexeswereencumberedbya$140,000.00debt.Appellantownedahouse,atruck,andaboatandtrailerallofwhichwerefreeofdebt. Threeyearsafterthewedding,appellantlosthisjob.HebeganmanagingtheGlazeCourtduplexesandthelotsinsteadofobtainingoutsideemployment.Appellantclaimedthathismanagementincreasedthepropertyvalues.Inaddition,hepointedoutthatatthetimeofthedivorcethepartieshadreducedthedebtontheduplexesto$29,365.00andclaimedthatthiswasdue,inpart,tohismanagement. Duringthemarriage,appelleeaccumulatedretirementbenefitsof$14,809.15andappellantaccumulatedretirementbenefitsof$8,538.30.Thepartiesmaintainedjointbankingaccounts.Inaddition,theyhadtwocertificatesofdepositworth$10,000.00each.Thepartiesalsopurchasedaseventhduplexat102628GlazeCourt. Thepartiesseparatedon11July1994.Onthatdate,appelleewithdrewatotalof$44,000.00fromtheparties'jointaccountandtheduplexaccount.Appelleefiledhercomplaintfordivorceon15July1994.On11August1995,thepartiesfiledaJointStipulationandStatementinCompliancewithRule12.02ofthelocalrules.Twooftheitemsleftblankinthestipulationweretheagreedvaluesoftheappreciationofthepropertiesbroughtintothemarriagebyappellee. Thecourtentereditsfinaldecreeofdivorceon7September1995.Thecourtawardedthepartiesadivorceanddistributedthemaritalandseparateproperty.Appellantreceived:1)one$10,000.00certificateofdeposit;2)equityintheThompsonMechanicretirementaccount($8,593.29);3)appreciationinthehouseonHolstonDrive($7,000.00);4)duplexat103133GlazeCourt($40,000.00);5)JohnDeeretractor($1,750.00);6)fundsincashinvestmentaccount($16,259.50);7)checkingaccount($13,500.00);8)homeonHolstonDrive,histruck,andhisboatandtrailer;and9)furnitureandotherpersonalitems.Inaddition,thecourtheldthattheThompsonMechanicretirementaccountequitywasamaritalassetandthatthehomeonHolstonDrive,thetruck,andtheboatandtrailerwereseparateassets.Appelleereceived:1)appreciationonthe6GlazeCourtduplexesbroughtintothemarriagebyappellee($50,000.00);2)duplexat102628GlazeCourt;3)appreciationonthelots($20,000.00);4)one$10,000.00certificateofdeposit;5)responsibilityforthenoteontheduplexes($29,265.91);6)ϜtheGlazeCourtduplexes;7)duplexaccount($28,702.00);8)1992CapriceClassic($12,500.00);9)VAthriftsavingsplan($9,641.27);10)SEPaccount($5,167.88);11)thelots;12)furnitureandotherpersonalitems;and13)CalvaryBankcheckingaccount.Moreover,thecourtspecificallyheldthattheappreciationinthepropertiesownedbyappelleepriortothemarriagewasamaritalassetaswellastheduplexlocatedat102628GlazeCourt.Astoappellee'sseparateproperty,thecourtheldthatthepropertiesbroughtintothemarriagebyappelleeandherCalvaryBankcheckingaccountwereseparateassets.Althoughthecourtdidnotclearlyidentifyeachassetasmaritalorseparateorvalueeachasset,itfoundthatithadawardedappellant$97,102.79inmaritalassetsandappellee$106,644.09inmaritalassets. On19September1995,appellantfiledamotiontoalteroramend.Appellantarguedthatthecourtfailedtoconsiderthe$44,000.00inwithdrawalsmadebyappelleeandthereductioninthedebtontheGlazeCourtproperties.On29December1995,thecourtenteredanorderonappellant'smotion.Thecourtfoundthatitshouldhaveconsidered$26,000.00ofthe$44,000.00whichappelleehadwithdrawnfromtheparties'jointaccount.Thus,thecourtadjustedtheparties'cashawardsbyorderingappelleetopayappellant$5,520.00.Thecourtheldthatappellant'sclaimastothereductionindebtwaswithoutmerit. Appellantfiledhisnoticeofappealon5January1996andpresentedthefollowingissues:,"` ` < (#X,8 1.0 Whetherthetrialcourterredinitsvaluationanddistributionoftheseparateandmaritalpropertyoftheparties?8 2.0 Whetherthetrialcourterredbyfailingtovaluetheequitygainedintheduplexpropertiesasmaritalproperty,andtoincludeastheequitypositionoftheduplexpropertiesdebtreductionwhichwaspaidduringthemarriage,aswellastheappreciationinsaidrealproperty?Inherreplybrief,appelleerespondedtotheseissuesandrequestedattorney'sfeesonappeal. Wehavereviewedthisrecordandareoftheopinionthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt'sdivisionofthemaritalpropertyoroftheseparateproperty.Theevidencefurtherdoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt'sevaluationoftheequityintheduplexproperties. Weareoftheopinionthatappelleeisentitledtoanawardofattorney'sfeesonappeal.Onremand,thetrialcourtshalldetermineareasonablefeefortheattorney'srepresentationofappelleeonappeal. Therefore,itresultsthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallthingsaffirmed,andthecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.Costsonappealaretaxedtothedefendant/appellant,LandonSelby.   __________________________________   SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S.̜WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,J.DISSENTINGINSEPARATEOPINION