WPCE # VU:a % 0bY 4a u 0 0D  w@ D3 h$? 0Jc f  0T 0^  0hg 0r 0|A 0 0C 1uU,H 0dtU,U *B).DCW B AM 0@fB)D3a;v~Ov AO 0D D/ B(HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,  AZ"Arial RegularX( 7$` ` TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT- -U!3|xB ((3T6$  7!` TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   `   0  (#$  0   . D/ D0 1 2 3 4 5 6 D7 Ӏ****'dxd@2 0Indent123  HR2" 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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd d-)C << G  !  #d#'    ` \RA'\  '   YYY FILED'X August22,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk ("$    % Line 8 d////'ddTABLE_APtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &&&Xd&#&&Xd#'    ` \RA'\  p 7XXdd7    %  L+,);+'h|` . `LINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE 󄄄  KENNETHATCHLEYWATSON,  ) BLOUNTGENERALSESSIONS      )  Plaintiff/Appellee   )      ) No.03A019601GS00039v.      )      )SANDRAGAYLEMALLARDWATSON )       ) Defendant/Appellant  ) AFFIRMED  M.JeffreyWhitt,Knoxville,FortheAppellantPerryP.Paine,Jr.,Maryville,FortheAppellee   OPINION  INMAN,SeniorJudge   Inthisdomesticrelationscasetheappellant,hereafter wife,complainsofthedistributionofmaritalassetsandallocationofliabilities.Specifically,sheargues:(1)thataresidencewasovervalued,(2)thatpropertydescribedastheChapmanHighwaypropertywasundervalued,and(3)thatthedebtsallocatedtoherwereunderstated. Appellee,hereafter husband,filedacomplaintfordivorceonMay27,1993.AsalientfactoristhatonNovember24,1993wifefiledamotionseekingthecontinuedexclusiveuseofthemaritalresidencependingfinaljudgment.Themotionwasgranted,andshecontinuedherexclusiveoccupancyoftheresidenceuntilanindefinitedatein1995.Intheinterim,onJuly22,1994,thecasewasheardonitsmeritsandtakenunderadvisementuntilJanuary1995whenthetrialjudgefiledanopinionallocatingmaritalassetsinthismanner:'&    *.0/1 d, dd,dd,dd,dd+    &    Item      Court'sValue      Husband      Wife     TarklinValleypropertyandimprovements    $120,000.00       $120,000.00    11.5acresChapmanHwy.property >4@40000@>40000     $40,000.00       WarwickIndustries >4@20000@>20000     >4@20000@>20000     Tractor =3@@1000@@=1000     =3@@1000@@=1000     Husband'sretirement >4p@12000p@>12000  >4p@12000p@>12000        Husband'sstock =3@5600@=5600  =3@5600@=5600        Boat =3p@6000p@=6000  =3p@6000p@=6000        Tools =3p@3000p@=3000  =3p@3000p@=3000        Jointbankaccount =3@@2000@@=2000     =3@@2000@@=2000     Furniture <2@800@<800     <2@800@<800      TotalAssetsAwarded     $210,400.00     $66,600.00     $143,800.00     Debts 'towife'sminorchildren;WarwickIndustries,andforelectricalworkontheresidenceatTarklinValley'&    ӄ$25,000.00    ?5j-25000j?Є25000     WifetopaytoHusbandtoequalizedivisionofproperty    >4}@26100}@>26100  ?5}-26100}?Є26100     ӀSubtotal       $26,100.00    Ӝ$51,100.00     TOTALDISTRIBUTION        $92,700.00     $92,700.00  '  ̜  'XTheResidence   Avalueof$120,000.00wasassignedtotheresidence.AtthetrialinJuly1994wifeapparentlyconcedesthatthisvaluationwasreasonable;butshearguesthatthetrialjudgeneglectedtodecidethecasefor6months,duringwhichtheresidencedeterioratedonaccountofaleakingroof,decayofwoodsiding,burstingwaterpipes,saggingsheetrock,andsoon.Theresidencewasoccupiedbywifeduringthetimeofitsdetermination,andshetooknocorrectiveaction.Ifitwasreasonablyworthonly$108,000.00whenjudgmentwasentered,thedecreasemayreasonablybeattributedtothefaultofthewife,andshethereforehasnorealrighttocomplain.  ӜTheChapmanHighwayProperty   Thispropertywasassignedavalueof$40,000.00.Wifesaysitisreasonablyworth$57,000.00.Aswehavestated,thecasewastriedinJuly1994andassetvaluationswerederivedfromevidenceofferedatthetrial.Judgmentwasdelayedand,inJuly1995,wifemadeanofferofproofthatthepropertywasreasonablyworth$57,000.00.WifesaysthetrialjudgedidnotconsiderthisϜproof,whichwasmoreaccuratethanthe hesitanttestimonyofferedatthetrials.TheofferofproofcamepursuanttoamotionfiledonMay10,1995toalteroramend.Thehusbandarguesthatthetrialjudgecouldnotconsidertheprofferedtestimony oneyearlateratthemotionforanewtrial.Astothis,weobservethatwifesmotionwastoalteroramend;moreover,wedonotagreethatthetrialjudge couldnotconsidertheprofferedtestimony. EachpartyfiledaStatementofAssetsandLiabilities.WifeestimatedthevalueoftheChapmanHighwaypropertytobe$40,000.00,whilehusbandthoughtitwasworth$34,500.00.Neithertestifiedasfirmlyaboutvaluationasdidtheexpertcalledbywifeuponthehearingofthemotion.Buttheprerogativetogaugethetestimonyanddeterminevaluesofassetsisreposedinthetrialjudge,andweseenoabuseofdiscretion.  TheDebts   Wifearguesthatthetrialjudge totaledthemaritaldebtstoafigureof$25,000.00andholdstheappellantresponsible,instead,for$39,750.00. HusbandagreesthattheCourt erredinplacingthevalueofthedebtstobe$25,000.00inasmuchassuchanamountisinexcessoftheproofpresentedattrial.Hedoesnotelaboratethepointinameaningfulway. Wifearguesthatthepartieswereindebtedformaterialspurchasedfortheresidenceandotherrealpropertytotheextentof$17,095.82;butthesedebtswereapparentlyowedif,indeed,theywerenotpaidtoWarwickIndustries,asmallentrepreneurialcompanywhollyownedbywifeandasonbyaformermarriage,andaswereadtherecordwereconsideredbythetrialjudgeinhisallocationofassets. Thetrialjudgenotedtheunusualdifficultiespresentedbythiscase,anobservationwithwhichwereadilyconcur.Thepartiespresentedtheirproofasthoughexpectingthetrialjudgetotakeandstateanaccountingofeveryexpenditureeitherofthemmadeduringtheirmarriage,animpossibletask. Wehavereviewedtherecorddenovowithapresumptionofthecorrectionofthejudgmentandcannotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment.Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d). Judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedwithcostsassessedtotheappellant.      򀀀      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge̜Concur:򀀀DonT.McMurray,Judge򀀀̜HerschelP.Franks,Judge̜