WPCF! # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D  0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>U 6 D3 B8B)U 0@~DC AMU*N#xz#8Pv~Pv AO 0D D/ B)!HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EE !D"ӀU!, 3|x-((3$ !      0  (#$  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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New++++'dxd d% Line 7 d("$    ,,,,7Border 1dd-.C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#(  00   YYY FILED0X August19,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.0AppellateCourtClerk  p !#d#(   $       ))Astheappelleecorrectlypointsout,theappellantsbriefdoesnotcontain [a]statementoftheissuespresentedforreview.SeeRule27(a)(4),T.R.A.P.Rather,hisissuesareinterspersedthroughouttheargumentsectionofhisbrief.Hisbriefisdeficientinotherrespects,includingitsfailuretocomplywithRule15,RulesofCt.ofApp.,pertainingtoatabulationofthepartiesproperty.WhilethecourtconsidersthesemanydeficienciestobeseriousviolationsoftheRulesofAppellateProcedureandourownRule15,wehavechosen,inourdiscretion,toconsiderthemattersraisedbytheappellantinhisbrief.  !#d#(   $       ))ThehearingonFebruary28,1995,washeldafterthemaindivorcetrial.  !#d#(   $       ))Allthreeofthereportersdidtestifyatthemotionhearing. !#d#(   $       ))Eachreportersperdiemwas$220.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$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#(  ݛ P )7%wXXdd7\RA'\  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEDANIELLEROYWORD,   )C/ANO.03A019602GS00072      )BLOUNTCO.GENERALSESSIONSCOURT  PlaintiffAppellant,)      )      )      )      )̜L/1.;+'h|`  `Lߛv.      )HONORABLEWILLIAMR.BREWER,JR.,      )JUDGE      )      )      )      )ALICEANNWORD,   )VACATEDINPART      )AFFIRMEDINPART  DefendantAppellee. )REMANDEDHUBERTD.PATTY,Maryville,forAppellantMARTHAMEARES,Maryville,andJOHNE.McDONALDofJOYCE,MEREDITH,ϜFLITCROFT&NORMAND,OakRidge,forAppellee@ OPINION           Susano,J.  Thisisadivorcecase.DanielLeroyWord,theoriginalplaintiff,appeals.Heclaimsthatthetrialcourtsdivisionofthepartiespropertyisinequitable;thatthecourtimproperlyconsideredfaultindividingtheproperty;thatthecourtsawardoflumpsumalimonyisnotappropriateunderthefactorssetforthatT.C.A.365101(d)(1)(A)(L);thatthecourtshouldnothaveorderedhimtopayaportionofhiswifesattorneyfee;andthatthecourterredinrequiringhimtopaythedebtonherautomobile.Healsoraisesasanissue 2   כthefailureofthetrialcourttoorderthecourtreporterswhoattendedthetrialandotherhearingstoprepareatranscriptoftheevidencereceivedatthoseproceedings.Healsochallengesthetrialcourtsorderthathepay$660tothreecourtreportersforappearingaswitnessesatahearingontheappellantsmotionseekingatranscriptofthedivorceproceedings.  ThecriticalissueinthiscasepertainstotherefusalofthetrialcourttoorderAlphaOmegaReporting(AlphaOmega)tofileatranscriptoftherelevantproceedings.WithoutsuchaϜtranscriptorstatementoftheevidence,wecannotreachtheappellantsissuespertainingtothedecreesarisingoutofthedivorcetrial.Intheabsenceofatranscript,wemustassumethat therecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontainedsufficientevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsfactualfindings. Sherrodv.Wix ,849S.W.2d780,783(Tenn.App.1992).ϜTherefore,thecriticalissueinthiscaseiswhetherthetrialcourterredwhenitrefusedtoorderAlphaOmegatofileatranscriptoftherelevantproceedings.  Atanearliertime,theappellantmovedthiscourttoorderAlphaOmegatosubmitatranscripttothetrialcourtforitsapproval.Weremandedthismattertothetrialcourttoconsidertheappellantsmotion.  OurorderofremandapparentlypromptedAlphaOmegatofileamotioninthetrialcourtaskingthatcourt toallow90daystopreparethetranscriptinthismatterandtorequirea$1,500depositfromthepartyresponsibleforthecost[]ofpreparingsaidtranscriptandforattorneysfeesandreimbursementforlostincomeorwagesforhavingtoappear𛀜inconnectionwithϜtheappellantsmotion.  Thetrialcourt,afterahearing,refusedtoorderthefilingofthetranscript,notingthattheappellanthadfailedtotimelyorderthetranscriptfromAlphaOmegaandhadalsoneglectedtomakeatimelyrequesttothetrialcourtforanextensionoftimetofilethetranscript.Thecourt assesseda$660chargeagainsttheappellantas perdiemforthethreecourtreportersattendanceaswitnessesat[themotion]hearing.  Apartyraisingissuesonappealisresponsibleforfurnishingtheappellatecourtwitharecordthatwillenablethatcourttoreachtheissuesraised.Inmany,butnotall,cases,acompleterecordmustincludeatranscriptorstatementoftheevidenceorproceedings. Thetranscript...shallbefiledwiththeclerkofthetrialcourtwithin90daysafterfilingthenoticeofappeal.Rule24(b),T.R.A.P. Ifnostenographicreport,substantiallyverbatimrecitalortranscriptoftheevidenceorproceedingsisavailable,theappellantshallprepareastatementoftheevidenceorproceedingsfromthebestavailablemeans,includingtheappellantsrecollection.Rule24(c),T.R.A.P.  Intheinstantcase,theappellantwasthepartywhowasresponsibleforfilingarecordthatwouldenableustoreachhisdivorceissuesallofwhichpresentfactualquestions.Aswehavepreviouslynoted,hehasfailedtodoso;however,theappellantarguesthatthedivisionofmaritalpropertyissoinequitablethatwecanreachthisissuewithoutatranscript.Wedisagree.WhilethedivisionofpropertydoesnotappeartobeϜequal,thisobservationbegsthequestion.Thetestiswhetherthedivisionisequitable,notwhetheritisequal.SeeT.C.A.364121(c).Seealso Barnhillv.Barnhill ,826S.W.2d443,449(Tenn.App.1991).Thereisnowaythatwecandetermineiftheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfactuallydrivendivorcepronouncementswithoutatranscriptorstatementoftheevidenceheardbythetrialcourt.  Onremandfromthiscourt,thetrialcourtheldahearingtoconsidertheappellantsmotionregardingthetranscript.Thecourtfoundthattheappellanthadnotorderedatranscriptoftheevidencereceivedattherelevanthearingswithin90daysofthefilingofthenoticeofappeal.SeeRule24(b),T.R.A.P.Thepartiesdidagreethattheappellantsattorneyhadorderedatranscriptofsomethingontheeightyeighthdayfollowingthefilingofthenoticeofappeal,buttherewasadisagreementastowhetherthisrequestwasforthecompletetranscriptorforthetranscriptofthehearingonFebruary28,1995,atwhichthecourtconsideredonlytheappelleesrequestforanattorneyfee. 3   ׀Thecourtresolvedthiscredibilityissueintheappelleesfavor.Wecannotdisturbthatdeterminationinthiscase.See TennesseeValleyKaolinCorp.v.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).  Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsthattheappellanthadnotorderedthenecessarytranscriptwithin90daysofthefilingofthenoticeofappealandthattheappellanthadnottimelysoughtanextensionoftimewithinwhichtofilethetranscript.SeeRule13(d),T.R.A.P.Accordingly,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsrefusaltoorderthecourtreportertofilethetranscriptofallrelevantproceedings.  Aspreviouslynoted,AlphaOmegafiledamotioninthetrialcourtaskingthattheappellantberequiredtocompensatethereporterswhotranscribedthevarioushearingsbypayingthemawitnessfeeequaltotheirperdiemcharge.ItwasAlphaOmegaspositionthateachreporterwouldberequiredtotestifyinoppositiontothemotion 4   ׀andwould,therefore,loseadayswork.  Attheconclusionofthehearingontheappellantsmotion,thetrialcourtawardedthereportersafeeof$660. 5   ׀Thiswaserror.Thecourtreporterswhotestifieddidsoasfactualwitnesses.Theywereonlyentitledtotheregularwitnessfee.SeeT.C.A.244101,etseq.Thosestatutessetforththemechanismforcollectionoftheappropriatefee.  Somuchofthetrialcourtsjudgmentasawardsthecourtreporters$660isvacated.Inallotherrespectsthetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantandhissurety.Thiscaseisremandedforenforcementofthejudgmentandthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.      _________________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.______________________________DonT.McMurray,J.