WPC  gH` ` UC1v17jy hSbamPzI3?@)BڸȜBM*!ˁ/ A.J~5.hG߯gU'tx Ty- h*̇阳юsл]kr*㳲b8ɡaZ3b,+ۼpa)/~R;;FvW;7+8H^ |Ȅëߑgf i{5l?W7IVe-iq;TeSJi’!hw<[ўt;+HǜsSܖ4r 6GT%]4u<#\C@2e6 _l~XjymХ1AdFkNÆ֋R$ľTz"=`+N4K,~dR]Dŗ4ߓ|VIG_gn,pBrF>I}_*R]]cOՀ7:o q^ح-b %\^ b 0nUFNwD4H\ zk m  U N   \ " < N$ 0D&#jE+ 1- 72 1u 72[ 0c b 0 B 0# D5 D- 0K)) ASt 0 0D1 AuL-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU TidwellKidwellMaharPerkinson JahnMassengaleGilleyRONALRonal(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 2 R$      2    _AsidefromhisinsistencethattheAgreementshouldbeenforced,Husbanddoesnotchallengetheequitable  natureofthecourtsdivisionofmaritalproperty.(#$  0  HP LaserJet 40500(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$      1    _Wifewasalsoawardedsomeadjacentrealproperty,butthisadditionalpropertyisnotatissueonthisappeal.    - -(|G2$ !.8=dd8         0   d(|3a$ !.8=dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3a$ !.8=dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8=dd8     _  =8UXXdd8  OY @ =INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#=#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust19,2002 L XUX= #=XXU#TERESALYNNKIDWELLATKINSv.RONALLEEATKINSXUX=  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforUnionCounty  J @@No.3620JohnD.McAfee,Judge  6 FILEDDECEMBER19,_2002_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102043_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #=XXU#XUX=Thisisadivorcecaseinvolvingthe_enforceability_Ԁofareconciliationagreement( theAgreement), x  providingthatTeresaLynnKidwellAtkins( Wife)willnotmakeaclaim inanysubsequent d [_d]ivorce_Ԁ[_s]uit_Ԁor[_l]egal_Ԁ[_p]roceeding_toamobilehomeandacreagetitledinthenameofRonal P LeeAtkins( Husband).#=XXU #XUX=ThetrialcourtheldthattheAgreement!whichwassomenineyearsold < whenWifefiledtheinstantdivorceaction!wasnolongerenforceable.Thecourtthenfoundthe (x subjectpropertytobemaritalpropertyandproceededtoawardittoWifeasapartofherequitable d divisionofmaritalproperty.Husbandappeals,insistingthatheisentitledtothemobilehomeand P acreagepursuanttothetermsoftheAgreement.Weaffirm. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  Affirmed;CaseRemanded     #=XU#XUX.=CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,  _P.J._,joined.D.Michael_Swiney_,J.,filedaseparateopinionconcurringinresultsonly. t DannyC.Garland,II,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RonalLeeAtkins. L  SherryL.Mahar,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TeresaLynnKidwellAtkins. $"t! Z  OPINION #=XXU #XUX= #L# I. %$!% #=XXU #XUX=#=XXU} #XUX=    HusbandandWifeweremarriedonAugust23,1985.Some14yearslater,onJuly22,1999, '"' WifefiledfordivorceandHusbandcounterclaimedforthesamerelief.Followingabenchtrial,the (#( courtbelowgranted#=XXU #XUX=Wifeadivorceonthegroundofcruelandinhumantreatment.Dividingthe )$) maritalpropertyasitdeemedequitable,thecourtawardedWife,amongotherthings,soleownership p*%*  ofthecouplesresidentialproperty.Thispropertyconsistsofamobilehomeandthelandupon \+&+ whichitsits,beingapproximately3.26acresinsizeandbeingthesamepropertymentionedinthe  Agreement. #  1         #=XXU#XUX=#=XXU#XUX=  Atanearliertime,in1990,Wifehadfiledfordivorce.Whilethe1990divorcecasewas t pending,thepartiesagreedtoreconcile.Asapartoftheirreconciliation,HusbandinsistedthatWife ` signadocumentpreparedbyhisattorneyentitled, ReconciliationAgreement.TheAgreement L  provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8    ***#=XXU#XUX=  ` ` ` WHEREAS,thetwopartiesdesiretoreconcileandsettletheir  L  differencesandvoluntarilydropanddismisstheComplaintfiledby  8  eachpartyagainsteachother,and $  WHEREAS,thetwopartieshaveagreedthatasaspecificcondition   ofreconciliationandthedismissalbyRonald[sic]LeeAtkinsandof   hisCounterComplaintagainsthiswife,TeresaLynnAtkins,that   TeresaLynnAtkinsagreesthatshewillnothereafterclaimanyright, p titleandinterestintheRealPropertyandMobileHome,locatedin \ UnionCounty,Tennessee,thatispresentlyownedbyRonald[sic] H LeeAtkins,saidrealpropertyandMobileHomebeingtheseparate 4 propertyofRonald[sic]LeeAtkinswhichwasacquiredand  p purchasedbytheSaidRonald[sic]LeeAtkinspriortohismarriage  \ toTeresaLynnAtkins. H NOW,THEREFORE,inconsiderationofthepremises[sic]andthe   mutualcovenantsandundertakingsetforthherein,thetwoparties   haveagreedasfollows:  1.TeresaLynnAtkinsagreesthatshewilldrop,withdrawandmove  todismisstheOriginalComplaintforDivorcewhichsheheretofore l filedagainstRonald[sic]LeeAtkinsintheChanceryCourtforUnion X  County,Tennessee.TeresaLynnAtkinsagreestopayallcourtcosts D! owedtotheClerkoftheCourtinsaidcase. 0"  ` 7` E  8 ` 2.TeresaLynnAtkinsagreesthatshewillnothereafterinany $X" subsequentDivorceSuitorLegalProceedingclaimorattemptto $D # claimanyright,titleandinterestintherealpropertyandMobile %0!$ HomelocatedinUnionCounty,Tennesseewhichispresentlyowned &"% byRonald[sic]LeeAtkins,andrecognizesandconcedesthatsaid '#& RealPropertyandMobileHomewereacquiredbyRonald[sic]Lee (#' Atkinspriortohismarriagetoher,andthatsaidpropertyisnot  maritalPropertywithinthemeaningofthelawsoftheStateof  Tennessee,therebyentitlinghertoanequitableshareofsame.` x` x   8 ` 3.Inconsiderationoftheaboveoutlinedmatters,Ronald[sic]Lee ` Atkinsagreesthathewilldrop,withdrawandmovetodismissthe L  CounterComplaintwhichheheretoforefiledagainstTeresaLynn 8  AtkinsintheChanceryCourtForUnionCounty,Tennessee, $ t reconcilehisdifferenceswithandresumethemaritalrelationship  ` withTeresaLynnAtkinsasHusbandandWife. L ` x` x   *** $  s (Emphasisadded).     TheAgreementpurportstoeffectivelystripWifeofanyclaimtothereferencedproperty.   TheAgreementhasnostatedtermforperformanceotherthan hereafter.Itisnotdated,and p apparentlywasnotfiledwiththecourtbeforewhichWifesdivorcesuitwaspending;however,an \ orderofdismissalwasfiledinthatcourtproceedingonAugust24,1990. H   Wifedoesnotdisputesigninganagreementatthetimeofthepartiesreconciliation.She  p testifiedthatsheisnotsureiftheabovequotedlanguagewasinthedocumentshesigned.Inany  \ event,shepresentedevidencetendingtoshowthatHusbandwasguiltyofbadfaith,undueinfluence H andduress,andshearguesthatthisconductvoidstheAgreement.Thetrialcourtdidnotrelyonthis 4 evidenceinitsfinalorder,nordowe.Simplystated,sincewefindanotherbasisfordenying   _enforceability_ԀtotheAgreement,wedonotfinditnecessarytodeterminewhethertheAgreement   wasvoidabinitio.  #=XXU#XUX=  #=XXU%#XUX=OnJuly22,1999,somenineyearsafterreconciling,Wifeagainfiledfordivorce.Husband  againrespondedwithacounterclaim.Thisisthecasepresentlybeforeusonappeal.Followinga l benchtrial,thecourtbelowmadewhatitconsideredtobeanequitabledivisionoftheparties X  maritalproperty.Inmakingthisdivision,thecourtrefusedtoenforcethetermsoftheAgreement. D! Aspreviouslystated,thecourtawardedWifethepropertyalludedtointhatdocument#=XXU;&#XUX=.Indenying 0"  Husbandsmotionforanewtrial,thecourtstatedthattheAgreementwastoooldtobeenforced, #l! citingasitsauthoritythecaseof  XUXXXUMinorv.Minor ,863S.W.2d51(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).#XUXX XU)##=XXU(#XUX= $X" #=XXU0*#XUX=  II. %0!$ *  Thisappealinvolvesanissueofcontractinterpretation;thisissuepresentsaquestionoflaw, '#& whichwereviewdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectnessattachingtothetrialcourtsjudgment. (#'  _Eyring_Ԁv.EastTennesseeBaptistHosp. ,950S.W.2d354,358(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  #=XXU*#XUX= )$(   h+&*   III.  ,#=XXU,#XUX=   XUXXXUReconciliationagreementsdonotviolatethepublicpolicyofthisstate.Hence,such  contracts,underappropriatecircumstances,canbeenforced. Hoytv.Hoyt ,213Tenn.117,119,125 t 26,372S.W.2d300,301,30304(1963).Ingeneralterms,reconciliationagreementsareinterpreted ` inamannersimilartotheapproachutilizedinconstruingantenuptialagreements.Suchlatter L  agreementsareevaluatedundergeneralcontractprinciples.   #XUXX XUg-#Ԁ Minor ,863S.W.2dat54 XUXXXU# =X XU;-# XUX =  . 8  # =X XU@0# XUX =  In1980,theGeneralAssemblyenactedwhatisnowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.363501  ` (2001).Thatstatute#XUXX XU/# XUXXXUexplicitlymakesantenuptialagreementslegallyenforceable.Itprovidesas  L  follows:  8  ` ` Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflawtothecontrary,exceptas   providedin36-3-502,anyantenuptialorprenuptialagreement   enteredintobyspousesconcerningpropertyownedbyeitherspouse   beforethemarriagewhichisthesubjectofsuchagreementshallbe   bindinguponanycourthavingjurisdictionoversuchspousesand/or p suchagreementifsuchagreementisdetermined,inthediscretionof \ suchcourt,tohavebeenenteredintobysuchspousesfreely, H knowledgeablyandingoodfaithandwithoutexertionofduressor 4 undueinfluenceuponeitherspouse.Thetermsofsuchagreement  p shallbeenforceablebyallremediesavailableforenforcementof  \ contractterms. H ` 2` '2#XUXX XU{1# XUXXXUThestatutedoesnotspecifythatthepassageoftimeisafactortobeconsideredindeterminingthe   _enforceability_Ԁofanantenuptialagreement.However,reconciliationagreementsarefundamentally   differentfromantenuptialagreements.Anantenuptialagreementisexecutedincontemplationof  marriage.Itis    8 ` favoredbypublicpolicyasconducivetothewelfareofthepartiesand l thebestpurposeofthemarriagerelationship,andtopreventstrife, X  securepeace,adjustrights,andsettlethequestionofmaritalrightsin D! property,thustendingtoremoveoneofthefrequentcausesoffamily 0"  disputes!contentionsaboutpropertyandespeciallyallowancestothe #l! wife.$X"` x` x  Sandersv.Sanders ,40Tenn.App.20,30,288S.W.2d473,477(1955)(quoting26Am._Jur_. %0!$ Husband&Wife#XUXX XU6#275,at883(1940)).Areconciliationagreement,ontheotherhand,isexecuted &"% followingaseparationduringamarriage.Itspurpose, everythingelsebeingequal,istobringthe '#& partiestogether. Hoyt ,213Tenn.at127,372S.W.2dat304.Tennesseecourtshavenotedthis (#' difference.In Minor ,  863S.W.2dat55,whereareconciliationagreementcontainednoexpress )$( periodoftimeforperformance,apanelofthiscourtheldthatsuchanagreementiseffectiveonly |*%) forareasonableperiodoftimeunderthecircumstances.Cf. Boonev.Boone ,No.02A019507CH h+&* 00144,1997Tenn.App.LEXIS215,at*16*18(Tenn.Ct.App.WS,filedMar.27,1997)  (construinganantenuptialagreementandfindingitvaliddespitethepassageoftimeandthe Minor   decision),citing Perkinsonv.Perkinson ,802S.W.2d600,603(Tenn.1990)#=XXU0#XUX=(construingan  antenuptialagreementandstatingthatthelengthofthemarriageisnotrelevanttothefairnessofan t antenuptialagreementandwillnotbeabasisforsettingitaside). ` #=XXU?#XUX= XUXXXU#XUXX XUi@##=XXUJ@#XUX=  IV. 8  @  Aspreviouslystated,WifearguesthatweshouldnothonortheAgreementbecauseitistoo  ` oldandbecauseitwasenteredintounderquestionablecircumstances.Whilethetrialcourtmade  L  afindingof badfaithonthepartofHusbandwithregardtotheAgreement,itchosetorelyonthe  8  Agreementsageasthesolebasisforrefusingtoenforceit#=XXU@#XUX=. $    Whendeterminingareasonabletimeforperformanceofacontractthatissilentontheissue,   acourtmustlooktothenatureandpurposeofthecontractandthesituationsoftheparties. Minor ,   863S.W.2dat54.TheAgreementcontainsnotermforperformance.Thisbringsintoplaythe   followingprincipleassetforthin Minor : p ` ` Wherenoprovisionismadeinthecontractforperformance,a H reasonabletimeisimplied.Completionofacontractwithina 4 reasonabletimeissufficientifnotimeisstipulated.Wherethe  p partieshavenotclearlyexpressedthedurationofthecontract,or  \ wherethedurationofthecontractisindefinite,thecourtswillimply H thattheyintendedperformancetocontinueforareasonabletime. 4 ` E` D#=XXUB#XUX= Id .Under Minor ,wemustdeterminewhetherareasonabletimeforperformancehadpassedwhen  Wifeinitiatedtheinstantdivorceaction.Weholdthatithad.Thepartiesreconciliationendured  forsomenineyears,achievingthegeneralpurposeoftheAgreement,i.e., tobringtheparties  together. Hoyt ,372S.W.2dat304.Duringtheperiodofreconciliation,thevalueofthedisputed | propertyincreasedsubstantially,from$3,000to$18,000.Consideringthenatureandpurposeofthe h Agreement,weholdthatthetimeforperformancehadexpiredwhenWifefiledfordivorcein1999. T  Accordingly,weholdthattheAgreementwasnolongerenforceablebyeitherparty.Therefore,the @! trialcourtwascorrectindividingthepartiesmaritalpropertywithoutregardtoitsterms. #  2       ,"|    V. $T" K  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtothedefendant,Ronal %,!$ LeeAtkins.Thiscaseisremandedforenforcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentandforcollection &"% ofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw. '#& #=XXUdG#XUX= (#' Ї   `     h     _______________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE#=XXUaM#XUX=