ÿWPC€" …# V %aw@g 0)§U:Ð 0m U<w 4³ Ç 0DÖ  0J" 0Tl 0^À 0h 0r† 0|ø 0†t 0ú 1uŠ 0dÿU*cB)DC¶ AMùâFU>(”fv~úvÓx D3K 0@~ B¾ AOÛ Æ*! 0Dð! D/4" Bc"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X fHghÓ€ijkEl[mnÓ€z(oû$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑXÑÑXÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XŽXXXÔÓÓÑ7€n·XXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular((3ÇÅ$¤¤Ý ƒoû!ÝÑ  ÑÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XHÉXXXÔÓÓÑ7€&KXXdd7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Romanz!x3|xz(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ17,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€ÔRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,€with€theÏconcurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€theÏactions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€noÏprecedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€beÏdesignated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€citedÏor€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.€Ô€%ÔÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒKKKK'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÓÓÔ€Ôà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏJACKSONÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òCAROL€DENISE€LICK€STAPLES,€ó óà àà àIN€THEÏCHANCERY€COURT€OFÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFAYETTEÏCOUNTY,€No.€10851Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà àTHEÏHONORABLE€DEWEY€C.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWHITENTON,€JUDGEÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï02A01„9604„CH„00091Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòAFFIRMEDó óóóÌò òMELVIN€RAY€STAPLES,€ó óà àà àà àJohn€S.€Wilder,€Sr.,ÏAndrew€S.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnston€ofÏSomerville,€Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRichard€G.ÏRosser€of€SomervilleÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àForÏAppellantÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|Æ"` à. `€€Lß___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌÑ7€&KXXdXXd7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ& ××  ×Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òòòCRAWFORD,€J.ó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€child€custody€and€visitation€ordered€by€the€trial€court€in€aÏfinal€decree€of€divorce.€Ìà àPlaintiff,€Carol€Denise€Lick€Staples€(hereinafter€Mother),€and€defendant,€MelvinÏRay€Staples€(hereinafter€Father),€were€divorced€by€decree€entered€March€3,€1995.€€TheÏdecree€awarded€each€a€divorce€from€the€other€upon€grounds€of€inappropriate€maritalÏconduct€and€divided€the€marital€property.€€The€decree€awarded€temporary€custody€ofÏtheir€four€year€old€child,€Thomas,€to€Mother,€but€postponed€a€decision€on€the€issue€ofÏpermanent€custody.€€After€hearings€to€determine€the€issue€of€permanent€custody€andÏvisitation,€the€court€entered€an€order€on€September€13,€1995€that€awarded€joint€custodyÏof€the€child€to€the€parties€with€Mother€having€custody€and€control€from€August€15€toÏJune€15€of€each€year,€and€Father€having€custody€and€control€from€June€15€to€August€15Ïof€each€year.€€The€order€granted€Father€visitation€rights€consisting€of€weekends€inÏMinnesota€provided€that€Mother€has€two€weeks€advanced€notice,€half€of€ChristmasÏvacation€and€spring€school€vacation€in€Tennessee.€€The€order€also€provided€that€eachÏparty€may€call€the€child€by€telephone€while€he€is€in€the€custody€of€the€other€and€thatÍeach€party€may€be€with€the€child€on€the€childððs€birthday.€€Father€filed€a€ð ðMotion€toÏAlter,€Amend,€Rehear,€or€for€New€Trialðð€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€Father€hasÏappealed€and€presents€four€issues€for€review:€€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏconsidering€the€report€of€Motherððs€psychiatrist;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€joint€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child€with€Mother€being€designated€as€theÏcustodial€parent;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€order€of€visitation€rights;€andÏ(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Fatherððs€Motion€to€Alter,€Amend,€Rehear€orÏfor€New€Trial.Ìà àFather€testified€that€Mother€tried€to€move€to€Minnesota€with€their€child€andÏtheir€belongings€without€telling€him.€€He€alleged€that€Mother€has€a€problem€withÏprescription€drugs,€marijuana,€and€alcohol,€and€that€she€has€emotional€problems€andÏsuffers€from€depression.€€Father€claims€that€he€did€not€abandon€Mother,€but€that€sheÏtold€him€he€could€not€stay,€and€that€after€the€separation,€he€continued€to€send€herÏmoney.€€Father€claims€that€he€is€patient€with€the€child,€and€has€a€good€relationship€withÏthe€child.€€He€presented€testimony€that€he€is€a€good€father,€and€that€Mother€yelled€atÏand€slapped€the€child.€€Father€lives€with€his€father,€but€would€find€a€suitable€place€to€liveÏif€he€was€awarded€custody.€Ìà àMother€and€the€child€live€with€her€parents€in€Brooklyn€Park,€Minnesota.€€SheÍdescribed€her€parentsðð€home€as€very€comfortable€and€relaxing€with€a€clean€and€wonderfulÏatmosphere€for€the€child.€€She€claims€that€Father€abandoned€her€and€the€child€on€threeÏdifferent€occasions.€€Mother€explained€that€her€prescription€drug€use€and€depressionÏstemmed€from€a€spider€bite,€and€that€she€does€not€have€any€emotional€problems.€€SheÏadmitted€that€she€had€used€the€marijuana€with€Father€in€the€past€but€stated€that€she€noÏlonger€uses€it.€€Mother€presented€testimony€that€she€was€a€good€and€loving€mother,€andÏclaimed€that€she€has€never€slapped€the€child.€€She€claims€that€she€has€a€lovingÏrelationship€with€the€child€and€wants€what€is€best€for€the€child.€€€Ìà àFather,€in€his€first€issue,€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€considering€theÏreport€of€Dr.€Kenneth€Klein,€Motherððs€psychiatrist.€€Father's€counsel€objected€to€the€useÏof€the€report€on€the€grounds€that€the€report€was€inadmissible€hearsay,€that€the€doctorÏwas€not€subject€to€cross„examination,€that€the€doctor€testified€without€being€under€oathÏto€testify€truthfully,€and€that€the€doctor€gave€an€expert€opinion€without€hisÏqualifications€being€presented€or€tested.€€The€Chancellor€requested€a€psychologicalÏevaluation€of€the€parties€which€was€performed€by€a€court„appointed€psychiatrist,€Dr.ÏJohn€Hutson.€€In€addition,€Mother€presented€a€report€by€her€doctor,€Dr.€Klein.€ÏAlthough€both€reports€were€hearsay€and€neither€doctor€was€subject€to€cross„examination,€the€court€considered€both€reports.€€In€his€Trial€Opinion,€filed€August€30,Í1995,€the€Chancellor€stated,€ð ð[T]he€Court€has€considered€the€psychological€reports,Ïrealizing€that€cross„examination€was€not€available€and€that€such€reports€would€normallyÏnot€be€admissible€in€an€adversarial€proceeding.€€The€Court,€of€course,€has€reviewed€all€ofÏthe€testimony€and€evidence€in€the€cause€in€reaching€the€decision€being€delineated€in€thisÏTrial€Opinion.ðð€€At€the€hearing€of€Fatherððs€Motion€to€Alter,€Amend,€Rehear€or€for€NewÏTrial,€the€Chancellor€further€stated€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€made€this€decision€based€„„€you€can€ignore€all€theÏpsychological€reports.€€I€made€this€decision€based€on€theÏevidence€that€I€heard€and€I€put€it€in€there.€€I€stated€that€itÏwas€not€admissible€evidence.€€I€made€this€decision€based€onÏthe€evidence€I€heard€in€Court.ÌÌà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à àÌÌà8 àà8 àI€consider€these€reports€as€advisory€only.€€They€were€notÏadmissible€because€they€were€hearsay€on€both€sides,€and€as€IÏsaid,€I€made€this€evidence€„„€I€considered€this€as€backgroundÏinformation€and€Iððve€so€stated€in€the€Trial€Opinion.€Ìà àÌÓÓà àThese€reports€were€hearsay€and€should€not€have€been€admitted€in€evidence.€SinceÏwe€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€report€into€evidence,€weÏmust€now€consider€the€effect€of€such€error.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òRule€36ó ó.€ò ò(b)€Effect€of€Error.ó ó€€A€final€judgment€from€whichÏrelief€is€available€and€otherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€setÏaside€unless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€aÏsubstantial€right€more€probably€than€not€affected€theÏjudgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicialÍprocess.ÌÌÓÓà àAfter€examining€the€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€the€admission€of€theÏreports€was€harmless€error€because€the€Chancellor€based€his€decision€on€the€evidenceÏnot€the€reports.€€There€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€findings€of€theÏtrial€court.€€ò òòòSee€Bishop€v.€R.E.B.€Equipment€Service,€Inc.ó óóó,€735€S.W.2d€449€(Tenn.€App.Ï1987).€€Therefore,€the€error€in€the€admission€of€the€report€does€not€merit€reversal€of€theÏtrial€court's€decision.Ìà àIn€his€second€and€third€issues,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏawarding€primary€custody€to€Mother€and€in€allowing€only€limited€visitation€rights€toÏFather.€€Father€asserts€that€the€proof€at€trial€showed€that€the€childððs€best€interest€wouldÏhave€been€served€by€granting€him€sole€custody€of€the€child.Ìà àTrial€courts€are€vested€with€wide€discretion€in€matters€of€child€custody€and€theÏappellate€courts€will€not€interfere€except€upon€a€showing€of€erroneous€exercise€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòò òMimms€v.€Mimmsó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€739,€744„45€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€€In€childÏcustody€and€visitation€cases,€the€welfare€and€best€interests€of€a€child€are€the€paramountÏconsiderations€and€the€rights,€desires€and€interests€of€the€parents€become€secondary.€Ïò òòòNeely€v.€Neelyó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€539,€542€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€In€òòò òBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2dÏ663€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€the€Court€established€some€guidelines€for€making€theÍdetermination€of€best€interest:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWe€adopt€what€we€believe€is€a€common€senseÏapproach€to€custody,€one€which€we€will€call€the€doctrine€ofÏ"comparative€fitness."€€€The€paramount€concern€in€childÏcustody€cases€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€child.€Ïòòò òMollish€v.€Mollishó óóó,€494€S.W.2d€145,€151€(Tenn.€App.Ï1972).€€€There€are€literally€thousands€of€things€that€must€beÏtaken€into€consideration€in€the€lives€of€young€children,òòò òÏSmith€v.ó óóó€òòò òSmithó óóó,€188€Tenn.€430,€437,€220€S.W.2d€627,€630Ï(1949),€and€these€factors€must€be€reviewed€on€aÏcomparative€approach:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àFitness€for€custodial€responsibilities€isÏòòò òlargely€a€comparative€matteró óóó.€€€No€humanÏbeing€is€deemed€perfect,€hence€no€human€canÏbe€deemed€a€perfectly€fit€custodian.€€ÏNecessarily,€therefore,€the€courts€mustÏdetermine€which€of€two€or€more€availableÏcustodians€is€more€or€less€fit€than€others.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòò òEdwards€v.€Edwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.2d€283,€290„91€(Tenn.€App.Ï1973)€(emphasis€supplied).€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòBahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666.Ìà àThe€trial€court€must€also€consider€the€factors€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106Ï(1996):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àò ò36„6„106.€€Child€custody.€„„ó ó€In€a€suit€forÏannulment,€divorce,€separate€maintenance,€or€in€any€otherÏproceeding€requiring€the€court€to€make€a€custodyÏdetermination€regarding€a€minor€child,€such€determinationÏshall€be€made€upon€the€basis€of€the€best€interest€of€theÏchild.€€The€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors€includingÍthe€following€where€applicable:Ìà8 àà8 àà à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existingÏbetween€the€parents€and€child;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€theÏchild€with€food,€clothing,€medical€care,€education€and€otherÏnecessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€has€beenÏthe€primary€caregiver;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€childððs€lifeÏand€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,Ïsatisfactory€environment;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€theÏchild;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelveÏ(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€€The€court€may€hear€theÏpreference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferencesÏof€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greater€weightÏthan€those€of€younger€children;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€theÏchild,€to€the€other€parent€or€to€any€other€person;€andÌà8 àà8 àà à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€personÏwho€resides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€suchÏpersonððs€interactions€with€the€child.€€€ÌÌÓÓà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€caseÏò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€theÏtrial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirmÏabsent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13€(d).€€This€presumption€applies€in€child€custody€cases.€Ïò òòòHass€v.€Knightonó óóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€was€faced€with€conflicting€evidence€concerning€the€fitness€ofÍMother€and€the€fitness€of€Father€as€a€parent.€€The€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact€had€theÏopportunity€to€observe€these€parties€and€their€manner€and€demeanor€on€the€witnessÏstand,€and€the€weight,€faith€and€credit€accorded€to€their€testimony€by€the€trial€judge€isÏentitled€to€great€weight€in€this€Court.€€ò òòòMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€347,€351„52Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992);€ò òòòSisk€v.€Valley€Forge€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€640€S.W.2d€844,€849€(Tenn.€App.Ï1982).€Ìà àBearing€in€mind€the€mandate€of€a€comparative€fitness€test€and€a€review€of€theÏentire€record€in€this€case,€we€have€reached€the€conclusion€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€the€award€of€joint€custody€withÏprimary€custody€to€Mother€is€in€the€best€interest€of€this€child.€€The€ChancellorÏconsidered€carefully€the€factors€set€out€by€our€General€Assembly€and€the€testimony€ofÏthe€witnesses,€and€he€gave€their€testimony€the€weight,€faith€and€credit€which€he€felt€theÏtestimony€deserved.€€Ìà àFather's€next€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€decision€onÏvisitation.€€He€claims€that€the€visitation€granted€by€the€trial€court€is€limited€andÏinequitable.€€In€ò òòòEdwards€v.€Edwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.2d€283,€291€(Tenn.€App.€1973),€thisÏCourt€stated:€"[T]he€details€of€custody€of€and€visitation€with€children€are€peculiarlyÏwithin€the€broad€discretion€of€the€Trial€Judge€whose€decisions€are€rarely€disturbed."€ÍT.C.A.€ðð€36„6„301€(1996)€provides:ÌÓÓò òà8 àà8 àà à36„6„301.€€Visitation.€„„ó ó€After€making€an€award€ofÏcustody,€the€court€shall,€upon€request€of€the€non„custodialÏparent,€grant€such€rights€of€visitation€as€will€enable€the€childÏand€the€non„custodial€parent€to€maintain€a€parent„childÏrelationship€unless€the€court€finds,€after€a€hearing,€thatÏvisitation€is€likely€to€endanger€the€childððs€physical€orÏemotional€health.€€€ÌÌÓÓà àWe€disagree€with€Fatherððs€assertion€that€the€visitation€schedule€ordered€by€theÏtrial€court€is€ð ðlimited.ðð€€We€conclude,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€that€theÏChancellorððs€decision€should€not€be€disturbed.€€The€best€interests€of€the€child€are€servedÏby€his€decision,€and€Father€and€the€child€will€still€be€able€to€maintain€a€parent„childÏrelationship.Ìà àFinally,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€Motion€toÏAmend,€Alter,€Rehear€or€for€New€Trial.€€He€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏallowing€him€to€present€evidence€in€support€of€his€position€that€the€visitation€scheduleÏwas€inequitable.€€The€Chancellor€refused€to€hear€any€new€evidence€about€circumstancesÏafter€the€entry€of€the€Custody/Visitation€Order.€€The€Chancellor€stated,€ð ð[A]nythingÏthatððs€happened€since€the€„„€the€entry€of€the€Order€is€a€whole€new€situation€that€youððllÏhave€to€file€for€relief€on.€€If€sheððs€in€contempt€of€Court€or€whatever€for€not€complyingÏwith€the€Decree,€as€far€as€visitation€or€anything€else€.€.€.€then€it€seems€to€me€thatððs€aÍwhole€new€„„€thatððs€a€separate€petition.ðð€€The€hearing€on€the€Motion€to€Alter,€Amend,ÏRehear€or€for€New€Trial€was€not€an€evidentiary€hearing€but€was€an€opportunity€to€argueÏmistakes€of€law€by€the€trial€court.€€The€Chancellor€correctly€refused€to€consider€mattersÏnot€properly€encompassed€in€a€post„trial€motion.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€appeal€areÏassessed€against€the€appellant.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó ó