ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ4åù w" 0J* 0Tt 0^È 0h& 0rŽ 0| 0†| 0 1u’ U, 0d3 U,— U>à B)DC* AMmU*º%ä B v~&vÓ¤ D3w 0@ª AOêÆ9 0Dÿ D/C Br˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-nnG |XX0`3|x¾±Ó€»¼½¾2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌFebruary€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†fXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑSYBLE€B.€STEPHENSON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLawrence€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€5349€91ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|÷`  `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9507„CH„00328ÌWILBER€D.€STEPHENSON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€LAWRENCE€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€LAWRENCEBURG,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌROBERT€D.€MASSEYÌP.O.€Box€409ÌPulaski,€Tennessee€€38478ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌPaul€BatesÌChristopher€V.€SockwellÌBOSTON,€BATES€&€HOLTÌ235€Waterloo€StreetÌP.O.€Box€235ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€€38464ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÇSYBLE€B.€STEPHENSON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLawrence€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€5349€91ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9507„CH„00328ÌWILBER€D.€STEPHENSON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€divorce€proceeding,€the€plaintiff,€Syble€B.€Stephenson,€has€appealed€from€aÏjudgment€entered€by€the€Trial€Court€on€April€11,€1995,€overruling€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€aÏjudgment€previously€entered€on€November€14,€1994,€dealing€with€distribution€of€maritalÏproperty€and€indebtedness€thereon,€child€support€arrearage,€future€child€support€and€medicalÏexpenses,€visitation€and€possession€of€a€list€of€personal€belongings.ÌÌà àThis€cause€was€before€this€Court€on€a€previous€appeal€which€was€concluded€by€anÏorder€stating:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€In€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€Court€that€because€theÏTrial€Court's€division€of€marital€property€may€affect€the€awardÏof€attorney's€fees€to€wife,€this€Court€cannot€address€this€issueÏuntil€the€Trial€Court€places€a€value€on€the€husband's€retirementÏaccount.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏLawrence€County€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÏnecessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€remand€the€Trial€Court€conducted€a€hearing€on€a€number€of€issues€and€entered€theÏjudgment€presently€under€review.ÌÌà àFirst€issue€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà àà8 à1.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€in€setting€the€value€of€the€husband's€retirementÏaccount.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€contains€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€It€appeared€to€the€Court€that€the€present€value€of€defendantÏWilber€Don€Stephenson's€retirement€account€is€Thirty„EightÏThousand€Five€Hundred€Dollars€($38,500.00)€as€agreedÏbetween€the€parties,€but€that€the€net€present€value€of€same€afterÏFederal€Income€Taxes€is€Twenty„Eight€Thousand€Eight€HundredÏSeventy„Five€Dollars€($28,875.00).€€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€allocation€of€assets€in€this€caseÏshould€require€the€plaintiff€to€assume€Fifteen€Thousand€DollarsÏ($15,000.00)€of€the€indebtedness€on€the€realty€at€102€PondÏDrive,€which€has€been€awarded€to€her.€€In€order€to€more€evenlyÏdivide€the€marital€estate,€the€Court€further€finds€that€theÏdefendant€should€be€awarded€the€entirety€of€the€parties'€silverÏcertificates,€making€the€net€result€of€this€transaction€a€decrease€inÏthe€assets€awarded€to€plaintiff€of€Eighteen€Thousand€Thirty„Seven€Dollars€($18,037.00).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€by€the€Court€that€the€prior€allocationÏand€distribution€of€the€marital€estate€is€modified€to€provide€thatÏthe€property€indicated€in€Exhibit€1€awarded€to€defendant€isÏmodified€to€include€the€entirety€of€the€parties'€silver€certificates,Ïand€the€plaintiff€will€assume€Fifteen€Thousand€DollarsÏ($15,000.00)€of€the€indebtedness€on€the€realty€awarded€her€atÏ102€Pond€Drive.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€argues€that€it€was€error€for€the€Trial€Court€to€discount€the€present€value€of€theÏretirement€to€the€extent€of€income€taxes€to€be€due€thereon.€€Plaintiff€cites€òòKendrick€v.ÏKendrick,€óóTenn.€App.€1994,€902€S.W.2d€918,€in€which€this€Court€determined€that€it€wasÏimpractical€to€attempt€to€establish€the€present€value€of€the€retirement€and€ordered€that,€whenÍdistribution€began,€the€installments€should€be€divided€between€the€parties€as€paid.€€ThisÏdisposition€would€require€each€party€to€pay€income€tax€on€the€portion€of€the€retirementÏpayments€received.€€Thus,€there€was€no€occasion€to€consider€the€effect€of€anticipated€incomeÏtaxes.€€The€cited€authority€is€not€contrary€to€the€action€of€the€Trial€Judge€in€the€present€caseÏwhere€the€entire€retirement€was€assigned€to€the€defendant€and€other€marital€property€wasÏassigned€to€plaintiff€in€lieu€of€an€interest€in€the€retirement.ÌÌÌÌà àT.C.A.€Section€36„4„121(c)(9)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àC.€€In€making€equitable€distribution€of€marital€property,€theÏcourt€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors,€including:ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(9)€€The€tax€consequences€to€each€party.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€right€to€receive€taxable€income,€such€as€a€retirement,€is€not€as€valuable€as€the€rightÏto€collect€non„taxable€income,€such€as€principal€payments€upon€an€installment€note.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€Section€36„4„121(a)(1)€requires€the€courts€to€equitably€divide€the€marital€estateÏin€divorce€cases.ÌÌà àThe€courts€are€afforded€wide€discretion€in€dividing€the€interest€of€the€parties€in€jointlyÏowned€property.€€Its€distribution€will€be€given€great€weight€on€appeal,€and€will€be€presumedÏcorrect€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòLloyd€v.€Lloyd,€óóTenn.€App.Ï1993,€860€S.W.2d€409;€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhill,€óóTenn.€App.€1991,€826€S.W.2d€443.ÌÌà àIn€making€an€equitable€distribution€of€marital€assets,€it€is€necessary€for€the€court€toÏevaluate€the€assets.€€The€judgment€of€the€Trial€Courts€as€to€the€value€of€assets€must€be€accordedÏthe€same€respect€as€the€judgment€allotting€the€various€assets€to€the€parties.ÌÌà àThe€opinion€of€this€Court€upon€the€former€appeal€included€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€Husband€also€argues€that€Wife's€interest€in€his€retirement€asÏmarital€property€should€be€based€on€the€amount€of€pensionÏreceived€by€husband€after€federal€income€taxes€have€been€paid.€ÏWe€agree.€€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€remand,€counsel€agreed€that€an€expert€had€valued€the€retirement€at€$38,500.€€At€theÏsecond,€July€15,€1994,€hearing,€defense€counsel's€opening€statement€to€the€Trial€CourtÏincluded€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€So€we're€here€as€I€understand€it€on€the€child€support€issue.€ÏThe€value€of€the€retirement€is€thirty„eight€five.€€One€thing€Mr.ÏMassey€failed€to€mention€was€in€the€Court€of€Appeals'€decision,ÏYour€Honor€will€remember,€on€the€fourth€or€fifth€page,€theyÏsaid€it€ought€to€be€figured€on€after€tax€dollars.€€After€tax€dollars.€ÏSo€the€present€value€is€thirty„eight€five.€€Whatever€tax€bracketÏhe's€in€I€used€twenty„five€percent.€€I€don't€think€that'sÏunreasonable.€€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThere€was€no€other€statement€or€evidence€as€to€the€appropriate€reduction€for€taxes.ÌÌà àIn€the€same€hearing,€defendant€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Back€when€you€first€talked€to€me,€your€check€stub€showedÏyou€were€making€three€forty„six€fifteen€a€week,€but€now€you'veÏgot€a€raise.ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€That's€correct.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Now€you're€making€four€twenty„three„o„eight€a€week?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Trial€Court€reduced€the€estimate€of€the€expert€by€25%.ÌÌà àOn€appeal€to€this€Court,€plaintiff's€brief€argues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€It€is€the€original€plaintiff/appellee's€position€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€reducing€the€value€from€Thirty„Eight€Thousand,€FiveÏHundred€Dollars€($38,500.00)€to€Twenty„Eight€Thousand,ÏEight€Hundred€and€Seventy„Five€Dollars€($28,875.00)€as€theÏtrial€court€did.€€(Original€supplemented€TR,€17).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€This€Court€has€previously€recognized€the€present€value€methodÏof€valuing€pensions€and€retirement€plans.€€òòKendrick€v.ÏKendrick,€óó902€S.W.2d€918€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€The€presentÏvalue€plan€does€not€require€the€court€to€discount€the€presentÏvalue€by€federal€income€taxes€(noting€there€was€no€proof€as€toÏthe€original€defendant/appellant's€tax€bracket)€and€the€trial€courtÏhas€therefore€erred€by€discounting€same.ÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendant's€brief€does€not€argue€or€cite€evidence€to€support€the€amount€of€theÏreduction.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€reply€brief€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€The€original€plaintiff/appellee€would€reiterate€that€there€was€noÏproof€adduced€at€the€hearing€on€remand€to€establish€the€taxÏbracket€of€the€appellee.€€The€after€tax€figure€of€$23,825.00Ïwhich€reduced€the€present€value€of€the€retirement€account,Ï$38,500.00,€by€25%€was€purely€speculative.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€She€reasserts€her€position€as€set€forth€in€her€original€brief.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThere€is€no€evidence€as€to€the€annual€payments€of€retirement€due€defendant.€€His€pastÏincome€was€shown€to€be€$41,000€per€year,€and€his€present€income€was€shown€to€be€$423.08Ïper€week,€or€$22,000€per€year.€€The€Trial€Court€evidently€estimated€the€annual€payments€underÍthe€retirement,€and€took€judicial€notice€of€applicable€federal€revenue€statutes€as€required€byÏT.R.E.€Rule€202(a).ÌÌà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€the€valueÏof€the€subject€retirement.€€Such€finding€is€therefore€presumed€correct€and€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€third€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à3.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€by€reallocating€the€asset€and€debtÏdivision€from€that€which€was€originally€found€in€the€initial€trial.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€argues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€The€trial€court,€rather€than€adhere€to€the€mandate€issued€by€thisÏHonorable€Court€by€determining€a€value€of€the€retirementÏaccount€and€allowing€the€case€to€return€to€this€Honorable€CourtÏfor€a€final€determination€of€the€issues,€reallocated€marital€assetsÏand€debt€in€a€manner€that€benefited€the€original€defendant/Ïappellant€and€is€in€direct€conflict€with€the€court's€previousÏopinion.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€this€Court,€quoted€above,€does€not€pre„empt€the€authority€of€the€TrialÏCourt€to€redistribute€the€marital€property€as€necessary€after€performing€the€mandate€to€evaluateÏthe€pension.€€The€"remand€for€further€proceedings"€included€the€authority€to€make€theÏdistribution€"equitable"€in€the€light€of€the€actual€value€of€the€retirement.€€Nothing€is€found€in€theÏformer€opinion€of€this€Court€to€preclude€adjustment€of€the€property€distribution€to€conform€toÏthe€finding€of€value€mandated€by€this€Court.ÌÌà àThis€Court€is€a€court€of€appellate€and€not€original€jurisdiction.€€Its€function€is€to€reviewÏthe€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€courts€of€original€jurisdiction€rather€than€to€usurp€theÏoriginal€jurisdiction€of€the€Trial€Courts.ÌÌà àNo€error€is€found€in€the€action€of€the€Trial€Court€in€adjusting€the€distribution€toÏconform€to€his€further€finding€of€fact.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€does€not€challenge€the€equitable€fairness€of€the€ultimate€distribution€of€assets.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€second€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à2.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€in€establishing€the€proper€amount€ofÏchild€support€arrearage.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€contains€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€This€case€was€heard€on€the€15th€day€of€July,€1994,€on€remandÏfrom€the€Court€of€Appeals€including€the€motion€of€Wilber€DonÏStephenson€to€modify€child€support,€answer€and€counter„petition€on€behalf€of€Syble€B.€Stephenson,€testimony€of€theÏparties€in€open€court,€exhibits€thereto,€and€the€entire€record€inÏthe€case.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€asserts€that€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€supports€a€judgment€of€$4,801.25.€ÏThe€judgment€reviewed€by€this€Court€in€the€former€appeal€set€child€support€at€$90.00€per€weekÏor€$360.00€per€month.€€The€opinion€of€this€Court€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€We€therefore€modify€Husband's€child€support€obligation€toÏ$379.€per€month.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€arrearage€may€be€computed€as€$4,801.25€by€using€$90.00€per€week€as€allowed€byÏthe€former€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.€€However,€the€opinion€of€this€Court€superseded€theÏ$90.00€per€week€and€substituted€$379.00€per€month€which€produces€an€arrearage€ofÏ$4,271.00.€€€€The€arrearage€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€will€be€reduced€to€this€amount.ÌÌà àOtherwise,€no€error€is€found€in€the€arrearage€judgment.ÌÌÌà àPlaintiff's€fourth€and€final€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à4.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€by€finding€that€alimony€previouslyÏawarded€should€be€changed€to€no€alimony.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€original€decree€of€divorce,€entered€on€August€4,€1992,€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€by€the€Court€that€the€defendant€pay€theÏsum€of€Sixty€Dollars€($60.00)€per€week€to€the€plaintiff€asÏrehabilitative€alimony€for€a€period€of€thirty„six€(36)€months€orÏuntil€the€plaintiff€remarries,€whichever€occurs€first.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€opinion€of€this€Court€upon€the€former€appeal€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Husband€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awardingÏrehabilitative€alimony€to€wife.€€Because€the€court's€division€ofÏmarital€property€may€affect€an€award€of€alimony,€we€concludeÏthat€it€is€inappropriate€to€address€this€issue€because€we€areÏunable€to€resolve€the€division€of€marital€property€at€this€time.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€on€remand€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€It€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€plaintiff€took€a€voluntary€lay„offÏfollowing€the€trial€of€this€cause€and€that€she€has€made€no€effortÏtoward€rehabilitation,€and€accordingly€an€award€of€alimony€inÏthis€case€is€improper.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThere€is€no€other€reference€to€alimony€in€the€quoted€judgment.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€contains€no€order€implementing€the€quoted€finding.€€A€finding€without€aÏresulting€order€is€ineffective.€€For€this€reason,€the€original€provision€for€36€monthly€alimonyÏpayments€remains€in€force€and€effect,€and€there€is€no€modification€of€alimony€as€complained€byÏplaintiff.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€modified€to€reduce€the€judgment€for€child€supportÏarrearage€from€$4,801.25€to€$4,271.00,€to€bear€lawful€interest€from€November€14,€1994.€€AsÏmodified,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€theÏplaintiff.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€as€necessary€and€proper.ÌÌà àModified,€Affirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE