WPC 3# UD %) 0(/ 0W4w@EV 0DX 0J 0T 0^: 0h 0r 0|r 0 0t 1u 0dy 0@ D3 B)P DCy B AM U*& AQP  0Dg 0D D/ B ; v>v~v2HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH8hZ,Century-WP RegularX($(D(2$ !  X   `   0  a"3|xf RSDTUEV[W[XY[ZӀf(#$  0  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("$    &&&&'dxd% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd d* %C << G<  9p`(Arial*+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd !  +"  ((   YYY FILED(X July30,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk  l !  $   X          Rule10(b)(CourtofAppeals). MEMORANDUMOPINION.TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotcitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentrelatecase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! .   ݛ      X \RA'\ќ\RA'\ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON______________________________________________________________________________ELIZABETHO.SOUTH,   ShelbyCircuitNo.151898R.D.       C.A.No.02A019703CV00054 Plaintiff,       Hon.DArmyBailey,Judge̜*R'/%A1-j|G`  `@Rߛv.       ELWINN.SOUTH,SR., Defendant.DONNAHARKNESS,MemphisLegalServices,Inc.,Memphis,AttorneyforPlaintiff.ELWINN.SOUTH,SR.,PROSE̜ AFFIRMED Opinionfiled:______________________________________________________________________________@ MEMORANDUMOPINION 0   @ A& ) xdExA TOMLIN,Sr.J. @        Thisadivorcecase,inwhichElwinN.South,Sr.(hereafter Husband),ProSe,appealsfromajudgmentoftheCircuitCourtofShelbyCountythatgrantedadivorceandotherrelieftoElizabethO.South(hereafter Wife),theplaintiffherein.Heraisesthreeissuesinthisappeal:Whetherthetrialcourterredin(1)Inthedivisionofmaritalproperty;(2)IndenyingHusbandsMotiontoSetAsidetheJudgmentorintheAlternativeforaNewTrial;and(3)DenyingHusbandsMotionfortheAppointmentofCounselforthepurposesofthetrialbelow.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,weaffirm. Thiscourthasbeenfurnishedwithnotranscriptorstatementoftheevidenceastoanyoftheproceedingsbelow.Accordingly,wehaveonlythetechnicalrecordbeforeus.Forthesakeofclaritywewillrecitetheproceduralhistoryofthiscase.̀ WifefiledsuitfordivorceagainstHusbandonthegroundsofirreconcilabledifferences.SheallegedthatthepartiesweremarriedandlivedtogetheruntilHusbandwasconvictedofafelonyandincarceratedin1993.AtthetimeoftrialHusbandwasresidingintheLakeCountyRegionalPrison. Husbandfiledacrosscomplaintinwhichheaskedthetrialcourttoawardadivorcetobothpartiesandtoequitablydividethemaritalproperty.Husbandalsomovedthecourtbelowtoappointcounselfromthelocalbartorepresenthiminthedivorceproceedingsashewasthenincarcerated.Thismotionwasdenied.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingWifeadivorce.Inaddition,thetrial7XXdXXd7courtawardedhera50%interestinHusbandspension,inasmuchasitfoundthatherinteresthadaccruedduringthecourseofthepartiesmarriage.ThecourtalsofoundthatthemaritalresidenceofthepartieshadbeeninthebeginningtitledinthenameofWife,andwasownedbyherpriortothepartiesmarriage.Thecourtfoundthatthiswashersoleandseparatepropertyandawardedtheresidencetoher.HusbandthereafterfiledaMotiontoSetAsidetheJudgmentorintheAlternativeforaNewTrial,whichmotionwasdeniedbythetrialcourt. Astothefirstissueconcerningthedivisionofthepartiesmaritalproperty,intheabsenceofatranscriptwemustassumethattherecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontainedsufficientevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsfactualfindings.Wordv.Word,937S.W.2d931,932(Tenn.App.1996).WethereforemustresolvethisissueinfavorofWife. AsforthesecondissueraisedbyHusband,thetechnicalrecordindicatesthatHusbandsoughtreliefunderbothT.R.C.P.59and60.02.AtrialjudgesdecisiontograntordenyamotionforanewtrialpursuanttoT.R.C.P.59.02(inanonjurycaseitisamotiontoalteroramendthejudgment)isdiscretionary.Esstmanv.Boyd,605S.W.2d237(Tenn.App.1979).AsforanyreliefpursuanttoT.R.C.P.60.02,againthematterrestsinthesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.Inbothinstances,theburdenisuponthemovanttoshowtheabuseofdiscretion,andinsofarasa60.02motionisconcerned,onemustshowthatbyclearandconvincingevidencethatrelieffromthejudgmentiswarranted.SeeDavidsonv.Davidson,916S.W.2d918,923(Tenn.App.1995). Lastly,wefindnomerittoHusbandscontentionthatthetrialcourterredinnotappointingcounseltorepresenthiminthedivorceproceedingsbelow.Itiswellestablishedlawinthisstate,thatanindigentconvicthasnoconstitutionalrighttotheappointmentofcounselinacivilcase.Lyonv.Lyon,765S.W.2d759,763(Tenn.App.1988).Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsinthiscauseonappealaretaxedtoHusband,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      ________________________________________      TOMLIN,Sr.J.      ________________________________________      FARMER,J.   (CONCURS)      ________________________________________      LILLARD,J.   (CONCURS)