WPC # VUNa % 0Nb 0  0D w@0 p mr 4   0J2 0T| 0^ 0h. 0r 0| 0 0  1u 0d BsU >B)DC AM:U* D3/ 0@v~vd AO7 0DL D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2La$ y!     XwX   `   0  (#$  0   67D89D:>D?@DAӀKUD 3|xKSMITH V. SMITH - CONCURRING OPINION - TODD   4 ' 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 d<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial$$$$'dxd % !  #d#%%   ))   YYY FILED)XOctober4,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !  #d#%%   $    %X         ݛRandolphv.Randolph,App.No.03S019510CV00119,slipop.at1415(Tenn.Sept.9,1996)(Opiniondesignated ForPublication).("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %%       \RA'\7Wdd7    %ԛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE %JIMMYE.SMITH,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      ) WarrenGeneralSessions      ) No.6212VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019602GS00074CONNIESUEARGOSMITH,  )ٜL(+';+'h|P`  `Lߛ      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )%@ OPINION@ CONCURRINGINPARTAND@ DISSENTINGINPART % IconcurwiththemajoritysconclusionthatthecriteriafordeterminingthevalidityofantenuptialagreementsannouncedinRandolphv.Randolph,___S.W.2d___,___(Tenn.1996) ,   כshouldbeappliedtoreconciliationagreements.IalsoagreewiththemajoritysdeterminationthatthereconciliationagreementinvolvedinthiscaseisnotenforceablebecauseMr.SmithhasnotdemonstratedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethathedisclosedthevalueofhisinterestinNationalSheetMetalCompanytoMs.SmithorthatMs.Smithhadindependentknowledgeofthenature,extentandvalueofthisinterest.Accordingly,Iagreethatthetrialcourterredbyenforcingthereconciliationagreement. Icannotagree,however,withthemajoritysconclusionthatthetrialcourtsdecisiontoenforcethereconciliationagreementwasharmless.ThereisevidenceintherecordindicatingthatthevalueofMr.SmithsinterestinNationalSheetMetalCompanycouldbeworthasmuchas$1,000,000.Mr.SmithrebuffedMs.Smithsattemptstoascertainthevalueofhisinterestinthebusinessduringdiscoveryandwas,asthemajoritypointsout,unresponsivetosimilarquestionsduringthetrial.ThemajoritysharmlesserrorfindingrewardsMr.Smithfortheverytypeofconductthatthecourtsshouldnottolerateorcondone. Thepartiesmaritalestate,notincludingtheincreaseinthevalueofMr.Smithsinterestinhisbusinessduringthemarriage,isrelativelymodest.Treatingthisinterestasmaritalpropertycouldaffectthedivisionofthemaritalestateandtheawardofspousalsupport.EveniftheincreaseinthevalueofMr.Smithsinterestinhisbusinessduringthemarriageistreatedasmaritalproperty,theessentialpurposeofthereconciliationagreementcanbefulfilledbyawardingtheinterestinthebusinesstoMr.SmithandbymakinganoffsettingcashawardtoMs.Smith. Accordingly,IwouldremandthecasetothetrialcourtwithdirectionstotreattheincreaseinthevalueofMr.SmithsinterestinNationalSheetMetalCompanyasmaritalproperty,toplaceavalueonthisinterest,andthentoreconsiderthedivisionofmaritalpropertyandMs.SmithsrequestforϢspousalsupport.      ____________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE