WPC> 32j >u1dGw-> ՋjݤHFS) 9y^\tYl%~nRs翦UIb,*AfGy4>ZVm& AiW|k% wx~0Rk";RiqNXOZSu{ɆvDc&&8ZLь{V6~c64rFҐ|bio0'72 4trWõ&ڶ &Vm-On!!9b߄~z?[0 G f/BX\>,4}7f5,Bˊ;Z?~Q!5f#vJ̹c*ڪ#DK48yKb3Q R 0gRaf$Iėz`eGdK'֟}P?2=pô L炆BW|cb#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m  _ % 0DN:E111111111111111111111111b333333333333333333333333333333333333 0;;;; B&& 0C D3 D- 0KGG AS 0 0DO A\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0(}1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1:i+00 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|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   Meaney OddyBolick- -(|G2$ !.8Udd8         0  XZX d(|3k$ !.8Udd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3k$ !.8Udd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Udd8     _U8ZXXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @ SubmittedonBriefs,October28,2004 $ XZXU #UXXZ#  RHONDAELAINEBOLICKv.RONALDDALEBOLICKXZXU  " @   DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  " @No.03D1402Hon.W.FrankBrown,III,heardbyinterchangeforW.NeilThomas,III.@@(@ @    @(Judge   @*AV) ` dE<m` A߈ n  @U U No.E200400369_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDNOVEMBER29,_2004_Ԉ i  AV) ` dE<@` A A   Husbandappealspropertysettlementawardtowifeindivorceaction.Onappeal,weaffirm. (x #UXXZ1#XZXU Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  < HerschelPickensFranks,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,  Jr.,J.,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined.  #UXXZ#XZXUJohnT.Rice,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forAppellant. ` JamesA.Meaney,III,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forAppellee. 8 @66' OPINION #UXXZN#XZXUԈ "8" #UXXZM#XZXU   ` Inthisdivorceaction,thesoleissueonappealbythehusbandisthattheTrialCourt % % erredinallocatingthewifeanyportionofthehusbands401(k)retirement,onthegroundsthatshe &!& didnotmakeasubstantialcontributiontotheretirementfund. '"'    ` ThepartiesweremarriedonMarch20,2001andthecasewastriedonNovember11, \)$) 2003onstipulatedgroundsandthepartiesweredivorced. H*%*    ` Sincenotranscriptoftheevidencehasbeenfiled,weconclusivelypresumethatthe  ,p', TrialCourtsfindingsoffactarecorrect.Statev.Oddy,823S.W.2d554(Tenn.CriminalApp.  -\(- _1991).TheSoleissueraisedonappealasstatedbytheappellant,is:  0  0` (#(#TheChancellor/TrialJudgeerredinapplicationofTenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1)  inallocatingtothewifeanyportionofhusbands401(k)retirement,withoutfinding t shemadeasubstantialcontribution.`` (#` (#    ` AftertheTrialCourtsinitialJudgment,appellantfiledaMotiontoAlterorAmend 8  theJudgmentand/orRelieffromJudgment,andsubmittedhisaffidavit,copiesofcertainstatements $ t onhis401(k)accountandaMemorandum.RespondingtotheMotiontheTrialCourtsaid:  ` 0  0` (#(# NeitherpartywashelpfultothecourtindevelopingthefactsaboutMr.  8  Bolicks401(k)planwithRoomstoGoatthetrial.Basedupononewrittenexhibit $  andtheoraltestimony,thecourtcalculatedthatMr.Bolickscontributed$24,000.00   ofthesalaryheearnedduringthemarriagetothe401(k)account.Thecourt   concludedthat$10,000.00fromthe401(k)toMs.Bolickwouldbeequitable. ` (#` (# Uponanalysisoftheadditionaldocumentation,theCourtsaidthatanawardof$8,000.00wasmore p appropriatethantheinitial$10,000.00awarded,andexplainedthebasisofhisruling: \ 0  0` (#(# Thecourtdifferentiatesbetweenpaymentsfromsalaryduringamarriage 4 madetoaretirementplanandtheincreaseinvalueoftheplanduringmarriage  p causedbymarketconditions.T.C.A.364121(b)(1)(A)sdefinitionof Marital  \ Propertydoesnotcontainarequirementthattheotherspousesubstantially H contributetosuchasset,asistruewithanincreaseinvalueofseparateproperty.See 4 Wilsonv.Moore,929S.W.2d367,37374(Tenn.Ct.App.)perm.app.denied   (1996)whereahusbandscontributionsfrommartialsalarytoapremaritalretirement   accountwasheldtobemaritalproperty.` (#` (#    ` TheCourt,initsoriginalDecreehadallowedappellanttoavoidtransferofa  $10,000.00portionofhis401(k)planbytransferring$9,000.00cashtothewife.Theamended l Orderprovided: X  0  0` (#(#...todelete$10,000.00andsubstitute$8,000.00inlieuthereofastheamountofhis 0"  401(k)planthatMr.BolickmusttransfertoMs.Bolickandthecashbuyoutof #l! $9,000.00isreducedto$7,200.00.$X"` (#` (#    ` AppellantinsiststhatsincetheTrialCourtdidnotfindthatthewifehadcontributed %0!$ totheincreaseinthevalueoftheretirementaccount,thatshewasnotentitledtotheawardmadeby &"% theTrialCourt.AppellantmisapprehendstheTrialCourtsruling.TheTrialCourtruledthatthe '#& contributionsmadetotheretirementplanfromappellantssalaryweremaritalpropertypursuantto (#' Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(A)(3)(1)(a).Clearly,theTrialCourtdidnotrulethatthewifewas )$( entitledtoashareofanyincreaseinthe401(k)fundduringthemarriage,butratherbasedhis |*%) decisiononthemaritalpropertypaidintothe401(k)planbytheappellant. h+&* Ї   ` WeaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,withthecostoftheappeal  assessedtoRonaldDaleBolick.  Ѐ0  0` (#(#  ` (#` (#    `     h     ______________________________ 8     `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,P.J. $ t