WPC$ ^euC"/z62к:Dm>`r j8r*>{uw_w僉SH嶥c4tN} דh#%l .P.g[ . ` ߨHf%:uhw crI#t52 )d^.@B蓓vj4s 0@ 0 0j 0 0 0 0D 1u 72h 1 72! 1S 72 1  72 1 72L 1~ 727J? 0Db 0 B 0 D3b! D-! 0K!! AS "`" 0&# 0D# A$HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0q) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular}|)V:i C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xUh4CEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 "(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)hDCEIMQUY]aAutoList2""""""""i)1)a) "hTCEIMQUY]aAutoList3""""""""i)1)a)""hdCEIMQUY]aAutoList4""""""""i)1)a)$"htCEIMQUY]aAutoList5""""""""i)1)a)&"hCEIMQUY]aAutoList6""""""""i)1)a)("  @ R0$      3  -  _In1997,Mr.ArmsconveyedhisinterestinthepropertytoTammyLouArms,withthestatedpurposeof  dissolvinga tenancybytheentirety.Becausethesubjectpartieswerenotmarriedatthetimetheypurchasedthe t propertyinquestion,theydidnottakethepropertyastenantsbytheentiretiesbutratherastenantsincommon.See 8  _McKee_Ԁv._Bevins_, 138Tenn.249,25152,197_S.W._Ԁ563,56364(1917).Thus,Mr.Armsconveyedinthequitclaim L deedhisonehalfundividedinterestasatenantincommon.(#$  0   R0$      1  -  _Followingthepartiesexample,wehavelimitedthestyleofthiscasetothatofthethirdpartyaction.- - R0$      2  -  _TammyLouArmsdidnottestifybelow.Apparently,herwhereaboutsatthetimeoftrialwereunknown.(|G20$ !.8Kdd8         0  - d(|3s$ !.8Kdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3s$ !.8Kdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Kdd8     _  K8 XXdd8  @ KKINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#KK #Ԉ &   October12,2000Session L X XK #KXX #JAMES_VERTNER_ԀARMSv.RICHARDD.STANTON,individuallyand J d/b/aShilohFamily,Ltd.X XK   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMontgomeryCounty  ^ @@No.98120102CarolA._Catalano_,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000811_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember21,2000   AV) ` dE<` A      Inwhatstartedoutasanorderofprotectionproceedingbutlaterturnedintoa divorceaction,- ,#  1      ׀the  originalplaintiff,James_Vertner_ԀArms,whowasthecounterdefendantinthe divorcecase,filed x athirdpartyactionagainstRichardD.Stanton,individuallyanddoingbusinessasShilohFamily, d Ltd.( Stanton).Stantonhadpurchasedatractofrealpropertyfromthecounterplaintiff,Tammy P LouArms,subsequenttotheinstitutionofher divorceactionagainstMr.Arms.Thetrialcourt < determinedthatMr.ArmsandTammyLouArmswerenotvalidlymarried;itproceededtosetaside (x thetransferasafraudulentconveyanceandawardedStantonajudgmentagainstTammyLouArms d for$50,000.Stantonappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterredinsettingasidetheconveyance.We P reverse. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  Reversed;CaseRemanded     #KX #X X.KCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,J.,  andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined. t  GregoryD.Smith,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RichardD.Stanton,individuallyand L"! d/b/aShilohFamily,Ltd. 8#" TimothyK.Barnes,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,James_Vertner_ԀArms. %` $ +  OPINION #KXX Z #X XK &8"& #KXX #X XK    I. ($( H   OnMarch1,1986,Mr.Armsmarried_Gerreldean_Ԁ_McCord_ԀinSpringfield,Tennessee.They *%* neverdivorced.Fourmonthslater,onJuly25,1986,Mr.Arms marriedTammyLouArmsin +&+  _Greeneville,SouthCarolina.Aftertheir marriage,Mr.ArmsandTammyLouArmsmovedto  Tennesseeandpurchasedthepropertyatissueinthiscase,consistingofahouseandapproximately  27acresofland.Thepropertyissurroundedonthreesidesbyapproximately440acresownedby  thedefendantStanton.OnFebruary28,1997,Mr.Armsostensiblyconveyedbyquitclaimdeedall t ofhisinterestinthepropertytoTammyLouArms.Thedeedstatesthattheconveyance isanon ` taxabledissolutionof[a]tenancybytheentirety. L    InJanuary,1999,TammyLouArmsfiledacounterclaimfordivorceintheorderof $ t protectionproceedinginitiatedbyMr.Arms.Twomonthslater,shecontactedStantonandoffered  ` tosellhimthesubjectpropertyfor$50,000.Stantonagreedandsignedapurchasecontracton  L  March29,1999.Beforethedeedwasexecuted,however,onApril2,1999,Mr.Armsattorneyfiled  8  anoticeoflienlispendensintheofficeoftheMontgomeryCountyRegisterofDeeds.Thedeed $  conveyingthepropertytoStantonwasexecutedbyTammyLouArmsonApril5,1999,andwas   recordedfourdayslater.AfterMr.Armslearnedthatthepropertyhadbeensold,heinstitutedthis   thirdpartyactionagainstStanton,claimingamaritalinterestinthepropertyandseeking50%ofthe   fairmarketvalueofthepropertyor,inthealternative,permissiontopurchasethe50%interestinthe   propertythatMr.ArmsallegedStantonhadacquiredbythedeedfromTammyLouArms. p     AtthetrialonMr.Armsthirdpartycomplaint,Mr.Armstestifiedthat,onseveraloccasions, H Stantonhadtoldhimthathe,Mr.Arms,shouldsellthepropertytoStanton.Mr.Armsrecalledthat 4 thelastoftheseconversationsoccurredapproximatelytwoweekspriortothetransactionbetween  p StantonandTammyLouArms.Stantondeniedthatanyoftheseconversationstookplace.Mr.  \ ArmsfurthertestifiedthathehadinformedStantonthatTammyLouArmshadmovedoutofthe H partiesresidenceonthedaysheleft,whichwassometimeinearlyJanuary,1999. 4   Mr.Armsalsotestifiedastowhyhehadconveyedallofhisinterestinthepropertyto   TammyLouArms.Hestatedthatafterhehadsufferedaheartattack,TammyLouArmshad  expressedherconcernthatifMr.Armsdied,shewould losetheplaceandthatifitwentinto  probatecourtthatprobatecourtwouldendupgettingitall.Mr.ArmsalsotestifiedthatTammy  LouArmsthreatenedtoleavehimifhedidnotconveyhisinteresttoher.Oncrossexamination, l headmittedthatheknewthatbyexecutingthedeedhewasconveyingtheentirepropertytoTammy X  LouArms. D!   Mr.ArmstestifiedthathethoughthisfirstmarriagetoMs.McCordhadbeenannulledtwo #l! weeksaftertheirMarch1,1986,wedding;however,norecordswereproducedevidencingsuchan $X" annulment.Ontheotherhand,Ms.McCordtestifiedthat,toherknowledge,hermarriagetoMr. $D # Armshadneverbeenannullednorweretheyeverdivorced. %0!$   StantontestifiedthatTammyLouArmscontactedhiminMarch,1999,aboutbuyingthe '#& property.1 ,#  2      ׀Hetestifiedthatshetoldhimthatshewasintheprocessofgettingadivorceandthatshe (#' ownedtheproperty.Stantoncontactedherattorneyatthetime,whoadvisedhimthatshehadthe )$( fullrighttoconveytheproperty.AlthoughtheattorneyforMr.Arms!theonewhohadfiledthe  noticeoflienlispendens!testifiedthathenotifiedStantonofthefilingonApril2,1999,Stanton  deniedanysuchnotificationandtestifiedthathewasnotawareofthefilinguntilapproximatelya  weeklater,whenhediscovereditwhilecheckingthetaxrecordsonthepropertyatthecourthouse. t   Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelowheldthattheconveyancefromTammyLouArms L  toStantonwasafraudulentconveyance.Thecourtfoundthatovertheyears,Stantonhadseveral 8  conversationswithMr.ArmsbecauseStantondesiredtobuytheproperty.Itfurtherfoundthat $ t Stantonknew,priortoTammyLouArmscontactinghiminMarch,1999,thatMr.Armsdidnot  ` wishtoselltheproperty.ThetrialcourtfoundthatStantonknewthatMr.ArmsandTammyLou  L  Armswereintheprocessofobtainingadivorceatthetimehepurchasedtheproperty.Basedupon  8  thefactsknownbyStantonatthetimeofthesubjecttransaction,thecourtconcludedthatthefact $  thecontractwassignedbeforethenoticeofthelienlispendenswasfiledwasnotsufficientto   validateStantonspurchaseofthepropertyfromTammyLouArms.Thecourtnotedthatalthough   thisconveyancewasafraudperpetratedbyTammyLouArms,thefraudwasultimately   accomplishedbecauseStanton chosetoignorewhatheknewandwhathewasbeingtold.The   courtthereforeheldthattheconveyanceshouldbesetaside. p   Significantly,thetrialcourtfoundthatMr.Armshadaprior,subsistingmarriagetoMs. H McCordatthetimehemarriedTammyLouArms.Itconcluded,however,that itisstillwithinthe 4 discretionoftheCourtwhatshouldbedonewiththepropertythattwopeopleacquireduringwhat  p theythoughtwasamarriage.Exercisingthatdiscretion,thetrialcourtconcludedthatitwouldnot  \ beequitabletoholdthatTammyLouArmsreceivedtitletothepropertyasasingleperson. H Therefore,itheldthatMr.ArmsandTammyLouArmsowntheproperty ashusbandandwifeor 4 asanundividedonehalfinterestastenantsincommon.ItsetasidetheconveyancefromTammy   LouArmstoStantonasafraudulentconveyanceandawardedStantonajudgmentfor$50,000   againstTammyLouArms.Thisappealfollowed.      II.  j*  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow; X  however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect. D! Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemusthonorthatpresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidence 0"  preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindings. UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston, 854S.W.2d #l! 87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaffordedthesame $X" deference. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp., 919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996). $D #   III. &"% q-  Mr.Armsarguesthattheissueofhispriorsubsistingmarriageisnotrelevanttothiscase. (#' HecontendsthatthetrialcourtproperlyreliedupontheSupremeCourtsdecisionin Estesv.Estes,  )$( 194Tenn.96,250S.W.2d32(1952),infindingthatithadthediscretiontodetermine whatshould |*%) bedonewiththeproperty,eventhoughMr.ArmsandTammyLouArmswerepartiestoaninvalid h+&* marriage.Wedonotfind Estes tostandforsuchaproposition.In Estes, theSupremeCourtheld  that,wherethefactsestablishedthatthemarriagewasinviolationofapriorsubsistingmarriage,a  trialcourthasthediscretiontodeclarethesecondmarriagevoidabinitioortoenteradecreeof  divorce.194Tenn.at99100;250S.W.2dat33.The Estes Courtdidnotaddresstheissueofthe t divisionofpropertyacquiredduringaninvalidmarriage.  Itcertainlydidnotdiscusstheeffectofa ` quitclaimdeedbetweenthepartiesduringtheperiodoftimethattheywerelivingtogether. L      Mr.Armsarguesthat,despitetheconveyanceofhisinterest+ ,#  3      ׀byquitclaimdeedtoTammy $ t LouArms,heneverthelessretainedaninterestintheproperty.HecitesthisCourtsdecisionin  `  Handv.Hand, C/ANo.01A019607CH00325,1997WL187310(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filed  L  April18,1997),inwhichthisCourtrefusedtorecognizeaquitclaimdeedexecutedbyahusband  8  infavorofawife.ThisCourtheldin Hand that,despitethehusbandsconveyance,theproperty $  remainedmaritalproperty,notingthatforthepurposeofdividingmaritalpropertyinadivorce   action, thestatusofpropertydependsnotonthestateofitsrecordtitle,butontheconductofthe   parties. Id. at*3(quoting Cohenv.Cohen, 937S.W.2d823,833n.12(Tenn.1996))(internal   quotationmarksomitted).     Wefindthe Hand casetobedistinguishablefromtheinstantcase.In Hand, thepartieswere \ legallymarried;thus,theissueattrialwasthedivisionofthemaritalpropertyacquiredduringtheir H marriage.Intheinstantcase,however,Mr.ArmsandTammyLouArmswerenotlegallymarried; 4 withoutavalidmarriage,wecannotconsiderthepropertyinquestiontobemaritalproperty.We  p thereforeholdthatonthefactsofthiscase,Mr.Armscannotclaimany maritalinterestinthe  \ property.Cf .Pewittv.Pewitt, 192Tenn.227,239,240S.W.2d521,526(1951)(holdingthataparty H toaninvalidmarriageisnotobligatedtopayalimonytotheotherpartybecausetherighttoalimony 4 arisesonlyoutofamaritalrelationship).     Insum,weconcludethatuponMr.ArmsexecutionofthequitclaimdeedtoTammyLou  Arms,thepropertywasvestedsolelyinher.Theprinciplespertainingtofraudulentconveyances  aresimplynotimplicatedbythefactsofthiscase.Mr.Armsvoluntarilyconveyedhisinterestinthis  propertytohiscotenantincommon.Thisbeingthecase,shehadthefullrighttodisposeofthe l propertyasshesawfit,inhersoleandabsolutediscretion.Accordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourt X  erredinsettingasidetheconveyancetoStanton. D!   0"    IV.  =  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed.Thiscaseisremandedfortheentryofan  appropriateorder,consistentwiththisopinion,andforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,all t pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee. `    `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE  8     `     h      p