WPC! # VUNa % 0N 0 b w@ 4 , ; m= T 0D\  0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0d BgU>B)DC AM. D3{U*1 0@ Iv~v' AOI 0D! D/S! B!HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   (}(2$ y!     XX `   0  - - DDDEӀD 3|xU(#$  0  smith v. duncan - opinion   ' 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$$$$'dxd<  9p`(Arial ' !  #d#&&   ++   YYY FILED+XFebruary28,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$      !#d#&&   $    &X       Tenn.Ct.App.R.10(b)providesasfollows:8  TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.  !#d#&&   $    &X       Weareunabletodiscernwhattranspiredatthishearingbecausethepartieshavefiledneitheraverbatimtranscriptoftheproceedingsnorastatementoftheevidence.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &&          \RA'\  \RA'\7/5dd7    ̛@ & INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜&R),(A1-j|`  `@R̛ FRANKSMITH,    )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      ) FentressCircuit      ) No.7240VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019602CV00077STONEYC.DUNCAN,   )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )̛̜@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORFENTRESSCOUNTY@ ATJAMESTOWN,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLECONRADTROUTMAN,JUDGE̛̜ForthePlaintiff/Appellee:    FortheDefendant/Appellant:MichaelA.Walker     JohnE.AppmanJamestown,Tennessee     Jamestown,Tennessee̛̜@ & AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED@ ANDREMANDED &       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE&@ MEMORANDUMOPINION & ThisappealinvolvesthecompensationofthreedeputyclerksemployedbytheclerkoftheCircuitCourtforFentressCounty.InresponsetoapetitionfiledpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.820101(1993),theCircuitCourtforFentressCountyenteredanorderonOctober12,1995,raisingtheannualsalaryofthethreedeputyclerksto$17,665.00effectiveJuly1,1995.TheFentressCountyexecutivetakesissueonthisappealwiththeevidentiaryfoundationofthetrialcourtsopinion.WehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtsdecisionshouldbeaffirmedasmodifiedinaccordancewithTenn.Ct.App.R.10(b). .   כ@ I.  OnJune22,1994,theChanceryCourtforFentressCountyenteredanordersettingthesalariesofthedeputyclerksemployedintheFentressCountyTrusteesoffice.AftertheFentressCountyCommissiondeclinedtoprovidecomparablesalaryincreasestothethreedeputyclerksemployedinhisoffice,theClerkoftheCircuitCourtforFentressCountyfiledapetitionto equalizehisdeputyclerkssalarieswith thesalariesestablishedforotherdeputyclerkswithintheFentressCountycourthouse.TheFentressCountyexecutiveansweredthepetitioncontendingthattheaffecteddeputyclerksshouldbepaidasDeputiesI,II,andIIIinaccordancewiththechancerycourtsJune22,1994order. ThetrialcourtconductedahearingofsomesortonAugust15,1995. /   ׀OnOctober12,1995,thetrialcourtenteredanorderrecitingthemanydutiesofthecircuitcourtclerksofficeandsettingthesalaryofthreedeputyclerksat$17,665.00peryear.Thecountyexecutivehasappealedfromthisdecision.@ II.  Appealsincasesofthissortaretobetreatednodifferentlythananyotherlawsuit.Dulaneyv.McKamey,856S.W.2d144,146(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Accordingly,theappellantshavetheburdenofestablishingwhereerrorexistsintheappellaterecord.Louisville&NashvilleR.R.v.Connor,56Tenn.(9Heisk.)19,24(1871);HohenbergBros.Co.v.MissouriPac.R.R.,586S.W.2d117,119(Tenn.Ct.App.1979).Thus,unlessplainerrorappearsonthefaceofthepleadingsorotherpapersfiledwiththetrialcourt,appellantsmustprovidetheappellatecourtwitharecordthatincludesatranscriptorstatementoftheevidencecontainingtheportionsoftheproceedingsrelatingtotheissuesitintendstoraiseonappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(b),(c).Withoutthisrecord,theappellatecourtmustpresumethattheverdictorjudgmentisproper,Kincaidv.Bradshaw,65Tenn.102,103(1973),andthattherecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontainedevidencetosupporttheverdictorjudgment.J.C.Bradford&Co.v.MartinConstr.Co.,576S.W.2d586,588(Tenn.1979);Leekv.Powell,884S.W.2d118,121(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). Alltheissuessoughttoberaisedbythecountyexecutiveinthiscaserelatetothereceptionofevidencebythetrialcourt.Thepartiesrespectivebriefscontaindifferentversionsoftheproceedingsbeforethetrialcourt.Regrettably,theappellaterecord,limitedonlytothepleadingsandpapersfiledinthetrialcourt,providesnobasisforthiscourttodeterminewhatactuallytranspired.Therefore,wemustpresumethatsufficient,competentproofwaspresentedtothetrialcourttosupportthefactualfindingsintheOctober12,1995order.@ III.  Thetrialcourtsopinionalsoawardedthelawyerrepresentingthecircuitcourtclerka$250.00feeforhisservices.Whilethelawyerunquestionablyrenderedserviceswarrantingcompensation,Tenn.CodeAnn.820107(1993)doesnotempowerthetrialcourttoawardattorneysfeesagainstthecountyoritsrepresentatives.Moorev.Cates,832S.W.2d570,572(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Anysuchaward,ifmade,mustbepaidoutofthefeescollectedbythepetitioningpublicofficial.Jenkinsv.Armstrong,31Tenn.App.33,3738,211S.W.2d908,910(1947);Tenn.CodeAnn.820107.Accordingly,thejudgmentshouldbemodifiedonremandtopermitthecircuitcourtclerktodefrayhiscourtapprovedlegalexpensesfromthefeeshecollectsinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.820107.@ IV.  Weaffirmthejudgmentasmodifiedandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.WetaxthecostsofthisappealinequalproportionstoStoneyC.DuncanandtoFrankSmithforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:________________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S.________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE