ÿWPCŸ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ U, 0dG U,« U>× B)DC> AMU*Î Bø!v~6vÓ´ D3‡ 0@º AOúÆI 0D D/S B‚˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-‚UƒD„D…D†D‡Ó€‘Gav 3|x‘2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌJune€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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€–XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›MALCOLM€œYATES›€œWORLEY›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœPlaintiff€and€Counter„Defendant/à à)Ìà àAppellant,›à àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHickman›€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€9511296ÌœVS›.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„9601„CH„00037ÌRITA€K.€œWORLEY›,à àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendant€and€Counter„Plaintiff/à à)Ìà àAppellee.›à àà àà àœà à)›ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€œHICKMAN›€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€œCENTERVILLE›,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌœÌÌDOUGLAS›€THOMPSON€BATES,€IIIÌP.O.€Box€1ÌœCenterville›,€Tennessee€37033ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌDANA€DYEÌP.O.€Box€11Ì105€West€End€AvenueÌœCenterville›,€Tennessee€37033ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÇMALCOLM€œYATES›€œWORLEY›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœPlaintiff€and€Counter„Defendant/à à)Ìà àAppellant,›à àœà à›à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHickman›€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€9511296ÌœVS›.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„9601„CH„00037ÌRITA€K.€œWORLEY›,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendant€and€Counter„Plaintiff/à à)Ìà àAppellee.›à àœà à›à àà à)ÌÌà@ àœòòO€›€œP€›€œI€›€œN€›€œI€›€œO€›€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€a€suit€and€countersuit€for€divorce€in€which€the€wife€was€granted€an€absoluteÏdivorce€on€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct€of€the€husband.€€On€appeal,€the€husbandÏpresents€issues€which€relate€only€to€identification€and€division€of€the€marital€estate:Ìà àThe€parties€were€married€in€1958€and€separated€in€1995.€€Both€parties€worked€duringÏthe€marriage.€€Their€earnings€were€approximately€equal.€€There€are€no€minor€children.ÌÌà àThe€husbandððs€first€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€It€was€error€for€the€Trial€œCourt›€to€hold€that€the€assets€of€theÏparties€were€acquired€by€equal€contribution€of€the€parties.̛̜ÌÓÓà àHusband€does€not€question€the€approximate€equality€of€earnings,€but€asserts€that,Ïduring€the€marriage,€he€acquired€$152,625.34€worth€of€œassets€by›€œinheritance›€from€his€family.€ÏThe€Trial€Judge€recognized€$47,000€in€certificates€of€deposit€as€being€derived€from€inheritanceÏand€therefore€separate€property€of€the€husband.€€The€husband€insists€that€the€remainder€of€theÏ$152,625.34€inheritance,€or€$102,625.34€be€also€assigned€to€him€out€of€the€marital€estate€ofÏ$126,204.10.€€In€respect€to€the€inheritance,€the€Trial€Judge€stated€orally€from€the€bench:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€I€also€find€under€these€definitions€that€the€three€CDððs€of€tenÏthousand€dollars,€seventeen€thousand€dollars€and€twentyÏthousand€dollars€were€and€remain€the€separate€property€of€Mr.ÏœWorley›,€because€those€monies€came€primarily€from€inheritance.€ÏThey€have€come€fairly€recently,€since€1993,€they€can€be€tracedÏseparately,€and€I€donððt€find€thereððs€been€enough€proof€of€anÏintent€or€purpose€to€really€treat€them€as€marital€funds€to€countÏthem€in€any€different€way.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€funds€that€were€received€at€the€same€time,€because€thoseÏwere€not€the€total€of€the€funds€received€on€those€three€occasions,Ïbut€spent€for€other€things,€did€become€marital€property€andÏtheyððve€been€spent€up€or€given€to€the€children€or€otherwiseÏdisposed€of,€and€Iððm€not€going€to€attempt€to€deal€with€thoseÏtoday.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€And€to€the€extent€I€need€to€make€a€finding,€I€find€that€in€thisÏmarriage€of€thirty„seven,€or€thirty„six€and€a€half€years,€whereÏboth€parties€have€worked€outside€the€home€for€some€substantialÏperiod,€Mr.€œWorley›€has€contributed€significant€inherited€funds€toÏthe€preservation€of€the€family,€but€Mrs.€œWorley›€has€also€workedÏinside€the€home€as€homemaker€and€has€decorated€the€house,€hasÏraised€the€children,€has€done€all€the€business€and€financialÏmanagement€for€the€family,€that€there€has€been€a€substantialÏcontribution,€or€an€equal€contribution,€of€both€parties€to€theÏultimate€course€of€the€marriage€and€that€both€should€be€creditedÏwith€that.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€œCourt›€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà àà8 àBoth€parties€have€made€substantial€and€equal€contributions€to€theÏaccumulation€of€marital€assets€and€the€distribution€of€those€assetsÏidentified€as€marital€assets€should€be€approximately€equal.̛̜ÌÓÓà àHusband€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€included€the€$102,625.34€in€the€marital€estateÏbecause€the€wife€did€housework€at€home€in€addition€to€her€work€outside€the€home.€€This€CourtÏdisagrees.€€The€housework€was€mentioned€to€justify€an€equal€division€of€the€increase€in€valueÏor€income€from€inherited€property.€€The€justification€for€failing€to€designate€as€separateÏproperty€the€$102,625.34€was€the€failure€to€trace€it€into€any€severable€asset€as€was€done€withÍthe€œthree›€certificates€of€deposit.€€As€stated€by€the€Trial€Judge,€so€far€as€this€record€shows,€theÏ$102,625.34€has€been€ð ðspent€for€other€œthings›€or€spent€upðð€or€given€to€the€children€or€otherwiseÏdisposed€œof.›€€The€record€does€not€reflect€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€against€this€œfinding.›€œÏConsideration›€of€the€interesting€question€about€recognition€of€housework€ably€presented€byÏcounsel€must€await€a€more€suitable€factual€and€decisional€situation.ÌÌà àThe€husbandððs€second€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à2.€€It€was€error€for€the€Trial€Court€to€ignore€the€uncontradictedÏproof€of€$9,500€contributed€by€husband€toward€the€purchaseÏprice€of€the€house€when€such€funds€came€from€the€sale€of€anÏasset€husband€held€before€the€marriage.̛̜ÌÓÓà àœThe›€Trial€Judge€stated€orally:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€As€to€the€house,€I€find€that€the€entire€sixty„five€thousandÏdollar€equity€value,€which€is€apparently€unencumbered€by€anyÏlien,€is€to€be€considered€marital€property€and€may€be€disposed€ofÏin€that€way.€€I€recognize€that€Mr.€œWorley›€initially€made€aÏcontribution€of€about€nine€thousand€five€hundred€dollars€from€aÏhouse€he€owned€previous€to€this€marriage,€but€that€being€moreÏthan€thirty„five€years€ago,€and€this€house€having€appreciatedÏsubstantially€since€then€and€having€been€the€marital€residence€ofÏthese€parties,€insofar€as€theyððve€testified,€forever,€I€find€œthat€that›Ïhas€been€treated€as€and€has€become€marital€property.€€And€soÏIððm€not€making€any€deduction€to€his€credit€for€that€long€agoÏcontribution,€either.̛̜ÌÓÓà àAt€the€œmarriage,›€the€husband€owned€a€house€of€unstated€value.€€About€eight€years€laterÏhe€sold€the€house€for€$9,500.€€Appellee€argues€that€any€increase€in€the€value€of€the€houseÏduring€the€marriage€could€be€deemed€a€part€of€the€marital€estate.€€However,€a€more€importantÏconsideration€is€that€the€husband€merged€the€$9,500€into€the€joint€ownership€of€the€new€home.€ÏSuch€is€subject€to€consideration€as€a€presumed€gift€or€the€subject€of€transmutation€which€canÏoccur€by€the€conversion€of€separate€ownership€of€œnonmarital›€property€into€a€form€of€commonÍownership€or€commingling€non€marital€property€with€marital€property.€€òòœMcClellan›€v.ÏœMcClellan›,€óóTenn.€App.€1993;€873€œS.W.2d›€350;€òòœBarnhill›€v.€œBarnhill›,€óóTenn.€App.€1991,€826ÏœS.W.2d›€443;€òòœBatson›€v.€œBatson›,€óóTenn.€App.€1988,€769€œS.W.2d›€849;€œ27B›€œC.J.S.›€òòDivorceóó€ððÏ522,€pp.€525,526.ÌÌà àHusbandððs€third€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€was€error€to€hold€that€timber€cut€on€inherited€land€would€beÏseparate€property.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€states€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€Thus,€the€marital€assets€of€these€parties€consist€of€theÏmarital€home€valued€at€$65,000.00,€the€$15,000.00€certificate€ofÏdeposit€which€is€found€to€be€income€derived€from€the€husbandððsÏseparate€property,€.€.€.€.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€Trial€Judge€stated€orally:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€The€fifteen€thousand€dollar€CD,€number€46748,€which€IÏthink€everybody€agrees€was€purchased€after€the€sale€of€timberÏcut€from€Mr.€œWorley›ððs€inherited€property,€I€find€to€be€maritalÏproperty€under€(b)€(1)€(B),€in€that€it€really€constitutes€incomeÏfrom€separate€property€and,€therefore,€should€be€defined€to€beÏmarital€property.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€Court€cannot€agree€with€the€Trial€Court€that€the€proceeds€of€timber€removed€fromÏseparately€owned€real€estate€is€marital€income.€€Timber€is€part€of€the€land€upon€which€it€grows.€ÏòòNew€River€Lumber€Co.€œv.›€Blue€Ridge€Lumber€Co.,€óó146€Tenn.€181€(1922).€€The€increase€inÏvalue€of€the€land€by€the€timber€growth€which€occurred€while€the€land€was€owned€by€theÏhusband€during€the€marriage€would€be€a€part€of€the€marital€estate,€but€the€amount€of€suchÏincreased€value,€or€the€proportion€of€the€timber€proceeds€attributable€to€growth€during€suchÏperiod€does€not€appear€in€this€record.€€Accordingly,€there€is€no€evidentiary€basis€for€classifyingÏany€part€of€the€timber€proceeds€as€marital€property.ÌÌà àHusbandððs€fourth€and€last€issue€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€was€error€to€give€wife€$13,442.00€more€of€marital€assets€uponÏa€theory€of€ð ðPartial€Attorneyððs€Feesðð€especially€when€the€issueÏnever€came€up€at€the€trial€until€the€œcourt›€announced€its€ruling€andÏthere€was€no€proof€of€what€fee€was€owing.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€tabulation€of€assets€awarded€the€parties€shows€that€$56,381.10€was€received€by€theÏhusband€and€œ$69,823›€was€received€by€the€wife€„€a€difference€of€$12,942.90.€€As€to€thisÏdifference,€the€Trial€Judge€stated€orally:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€I€also€recognize€that€when€the€numbers€are€added€up,€the€totalÏnumbers€may€work€in€favor€of€Mrs.€œWorley›€slightly.€€To€theÏextent€that€they€do,€then€I€also€intend€that€they€constitute€anÏaward,€a€partial€award€of€attorneyððs€fees,€and€Iððm€not€going€toÏaward€her€those€or€in€any€other€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€separatelyÏbecause€she€has€now€been€given€assets€and/or€judgment€that€willÏgive€her€some€liquidity.̛̜ÌÓÓà àThis€Court€cannot€agree€that€a€$12,942.90€difference€in€distribution€of€property€can€beÏjustified€by€ð ðattorneyððs€feesðð€which€are€awarded€as€a€part€of€alimony.€€òòœGilliam›€v.€œGilliam›,ÏóóTenn.€App.€1988,€776€œS.W.2d›€œ81;›€€òòœRaskind›€v.€œRaskind›,€óó45€Tenn.€App.€583,€325€œS.W.2d›Ï617€(1959).ÌÌà àThe€counter„complaint€of€the€wife€did€pray€for€attorneyððs€fee.€€Although€no€evidence€isÏfound€in€the€record€as€to€the€amount€of€legal€services€rendered€or€the€reasonable€chargesÏtherefor,€it€is€possible€for€a€court€to€make€a€determination€of€the€reasonable€services€whichÏappear€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòKahn€v.€Kahn,óó€Tenn.€1988,€756€œS.W.2d›€685.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€of€the€Trial€œCourt›€and€the€briefs€and€argument€before€this€Court€justify€atÏleast€œ$5,000›€in€legal€fees€which€will€be€awarded€to€the€wife.ÌÌà àThe€elimination€of€the€$15,000€timber€proceeds€will€reduce€the€share€of€the€wife€byÏ$7,500,€which,€together€with€the€elimination€of€the€$12,942.90€will€reduce€the€amount€of€theÏwifeððs€share€in€the€marital€estate€to€the€extent€of€$20,442.90.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€$25,000€œin›€favor€of€the€wife€and€against€the€husband€isÏreduced€to€$4,557.10,€and€an€award€of€$5,000€attorneyððs€fee€to€the€wife€is€added€to€theÏjudgment.€€As€modified,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€equally.€ÏThat€is,€each€party€shall€pay€one„half.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€necessary€furtherÏproceedings.Ìœ›œ›œà àModified,›€œAffirmed›€and€œRemanded.›ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌœ›ÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE