WPC E$vėz>Gj•|jI-FycĬ5vE<#~6DT}n:rf'=?GL=ēB9mLE,d],c1Tq,v| 1I* 1⑭"aΔo4g,qC_&]5 "h+ Rs0>HYլx:cfOV8#ۃp=C3&0#nQ@=JѰx*JzX%GN*IǺ8KN=Kwӂ%ǗKi AcađlqIq'UuvN# F UFQ % 0@ 4  U: : w@B f 0 0Dl    UHt U:f iiiiiiiiiii Booooooooooo D3 0D AORR 0D D/\ BHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd<Q 9Z .Courier New RegularX($    6S/% 3|xQ,cAZ"Arial Regular 9D:;E<=D>?D@AӀM \\RA' Legal\(4(3DX$ !         0  (#$  0   X,XXX/lXX,   Ad FILEDX,X/l   November2,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.`XX,AppellateCourtClerk   DX$        1    Thepretrialorderwasapprovedforentrybytheattorneysforbothparties.<09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular X,XXX/lXX,   Ad FILEDX,X/l   October30,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.`XX,AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\H d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !     ݛ †TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TAA          7XXdXXd7ќMMMAAr *<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx$ rMAAMM@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS  Mt*>.*jx4` `@EL ` ttx$ (  tߛMATKNOXVILLE'8X` XX'JOSEPHR.CARUTHERS, h   )  CUMBERLANDPROBATEANDFAMILY  + X8X` X+Ӏ)  COURT  Ѐ)  C.A.NO.03A019712PB00539 j  ЀPlaintiffAppellee,)   @\  Ѐ)vs.)̀)  HON.JAMESA.BEAN   Ѐ)  JUDGE   Ѐ)   n  DIANEL.CARUTHERS,)̀)   6 ЀDefendantAppellant)  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED   ̀M.JANEPOWERS,ThePowersLawFirm,Crossville,forAppellant.SHARONSERRA,Crossville,forAppellee.  OPINION %   ?(#McMurray,J.  ThisappealisfromajudgmentinadivorceactionheardintheProbateandFamilyCourtofCumberlandCounty.Theappellantchallengesthetrialcourtsdivisionofthemaritalestate,theadequacyofherhearingbeforethecourt,andthetrialcourtsawardof$5,000.00totheappelleeforimprovementstotheappellantsseparateproperty.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. \8x+4 †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    Beforethetrialwhichresultedinthejudgmentgivingriseto   thisappeal,thecourtenteredapretrialorderpursuanttoRule16.05,TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.  #  1      ׀Thepretrialorder <X providesasfollows:8   ` Uponannouncementofcounselforthepartiesthatallinterestedpersonshaveparticipatedinamediationsessionandthatcertainissueswereresolved,withonlyoneissueremainingunresolved.Therefore,itishereby    8   ` ORDERED,ADJUDGEDandDECREED,thatthepartieshaveresolvedtostipulategroundsfordivorce,pursuanttoT.C.A.364129;thattherewerenochildrenborntothismarriage;andthatthepartieshavedividedanddistributedallseparateandmaritalproperty.Havingmediatedandresolvedtheseissues,thismatterissetforfinalhearingonMay30,1997,atwhichtimethesoleissuetobelitigatedistheplaintiff'sclaimagainstthedefendantfor$5,000.00forthecostsofimprovementsmadetodefendant'sseparateproperty.    8   ` ENTERthis6thdayofMay,1997.      Inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthepretrialorder,ahearinglimitedtothesoleissuereservedfortrialinthepretrialorderwasheld.Thecourtresolvedtheissueinfavoroftheplaintiffandenteredjudgmentaccordingly.Defendantnowappeals,presentingthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:8  0`     A. ` Thedivisionofmaritalpropertybythetrialcourt 0#* wasnotequitableandiscontrarytotheweightoftheevidenceintroducedattrial. ` `  8  0`     B. ` Thepartieswerenotaffordedafullandcomplete X3t&. trialduetothetimeconstraintsimposedbythetrialcourtasappellantwasprecludedfrompresentingfullandadequateproofatthetrial.5(1` `  Ї8  0`     C. ` Thetrialcourtreacheditsconclusioninthis   causeconcerningthedivisionofthemaritalpropertybaseduponinadequateproof. ` `  8  0`     D. ` Thetrialcourt'sawardof$5,000.00totheappel 4P leeforimprovementshepurportedlymadetotheappellant'sseparatepropertyiswithoutbasisinlawortheevidencepresentedattrialandisprecludedbythestatuteoffrauds. ` `    22The22framingofthe22issuessuggests22thattheappellantdoesnot22graspthesignificanceand2222effectorpurpose22ofapretrialorder.Rule16.05providesasfollows:8   ` 16.05.PretrialOrders." Afteranyconferenceheld t pursuanttothisrule,anordershallbeenteredrecitingtheactiontaken.Thisorder shallcontrolthesubse (D quentcourseofaction unlessmodifiedbyasubsequent  $ order.Theorderfollowingapretrialconferenceshallbemodifiedonlyforgoodcauseshown.(Emphasisadded.)      Apretrialorderforallpracticalpurposessupplantsthepleadingsregardingtheissuestobetried."Thepartiesareboundbytheissues8reserved8inthepretrialorderandmaynotlaterinject99anewissueexceptinexceptionalcases.......Ifdefendant'scounselhaddesiredtopresentissuesatthetrialwhichwerenotcontainedinthepretrialorder,heshouldhaveaskedforanamendmenttothepretrialorder."X XXXKathrynNeuspickle .") andLarryD.Neuspicklev.TheCityofKnoxville,Tennessee,#XFXXX 3#ԀX XXXF48 0#+ 2222F.R.D.2222441(1969).#XFXXX M4# L2h%-   Threethingsareworthyofnote.First,Rule16oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil22Procedure,asappliedhere,basically22 ,7H*3 followstheFederalRules.Second:ly:,thisisnotsuchanexceptionalcaseastorequirethetrialcourttoallowissuesnotcontainedinthepretrialordertobeaddressed.Third;ly;,theattorneyfortheappellantinthiscasemadenoefforttohavethepretrialorderamended.Thepretrialorderisbinding.  FurtherRule36(a),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedureprovidesinpertinentpartthat?:?񛀜"<[n<=N=>]>othinginthisruleshallbeconstruedasrequiringreliefbegrantedtoapartyresponsibleforanerrororwhofailedtotakewhateveractionwasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror."Webelievethatthisprincipleisalsoapplicabletothiscase.Assumingforpurposesofdiscussiononly,andfornootherreason,thatthetrialcourtcommittederror,theappellantparticipatedintheactswhichledthecourtintolimitingtheissuesandthentooknoactionwhatevertohavethepretrialorderamended.  Astothelastissue@,@theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsandjudgmentofthetrialcourt.Further,wefindnobasisfortheapplicationofthestatuteoffrauds.  Astotheclaimthatappellantwas%  notaffordedafullandcompletetrialduetothetimeconstraintsimposedbythetrialcourt,wefindthisissuetobewithoutmerit.Noobjectionwasraisedinthetrialcourtnorwasanofferofproofmadeorpermissionrequestedtodoso. 7+4   Furthermore,theappellant'schallengetothesufficiencyofherhearingbeforethetrialcourtiswaivedforfailuretoraisethisissueattrialandforfailuretociteanyauthorityforherargumentormakereferencetotherecordforfactsreliedupon.SeeCourtofAppealsRule6andTennesseeRulesofAppellate  Procedure,Rule27(a)(7).  TheappelleehasaskedthatwefindthisappealtobefrivolouspursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.271122.Uponconsideration,weareoftheopinionthatwhileitisquestionableastowhetherappellant'sappealissufficientlymeritorioustoavertsanctionsforafrivolousappeal,we,inourdiscretion,declinetoimposesanctions.  Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinallrespects.Costsareassessedtotheappellantandthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchotherandfurtheractionasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthejudgmentofthecourt.,(#_______________________________   `     h   DonT.McMurray,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge___________________________________HerschelP.Franks,Judge †        7<*3  †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  @ †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  @  7FXXdXXd7@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS  ATKNOXVILLED'8X` XX'JOSEPHR.CARUTHERS, h   )  CUMBERLANDPROBATEANDFAMILY  + X8X` XD+Ӏ)  COURT  Ѐ)  C.A.NO.03A019712PB00539 Xt  ЀPlaintiffAppellee,)   ,H  Ѐ)vs.)̀)  HON.JAMESA.BEAN   Ѐ)  JUDGE |  Ѐ)   Pl  DIANEL.CARUTHERS,)̀)    ЀDefendantAppellant)  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  @  & JUDGMENT  t   ThisappealcameontobeheardupontherecordfromtheProbateandFamilyCourtforCumberlandCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel.Uponconsiderationthereof,thisCourtisofopinionthattherewasnoreversibleerrorinthetrialcourt.-,XX5%'XX-  Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinallrespects.Costsareassessedtotheappellantandthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchotherandfurtheractionasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthejudgmentofthecourt.   `     h     PERCURIAM