WPCA Ma5GOi5uiO9TD+NS*r{+/:"L:Vm,$+.*~&Вbazdj簊͜71tT2jѝ_hjZM.)Lȵ=q1zIH93p]bs̺ 3}͈ztT  I~]{zAb' 6 +0e7XGWqj$);`/'i=5=! Pۦ6~ hn;7Ax)Q ئh( m ޳hQ憿y(_7E#jPXyA6dJ0W8l:Ş7 :3r62g |03GB)7H\cAV'#7/v|>vϪg? WNÈ{." a=MdUNx % 04#! x!  ^ I wU 4Y m | m~ 0 b s  N 0D N  Q Q b = "Tv"|ifUNKK!U: 0P D5DD Byyy AQ 0P 0D("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\OPINION.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Opinion.wptO'L {Z='+003|xU(oG2*$ U!   XXX   `   0  XXhX- - (#$  0  D:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\KOCH\OPINION.WPTD:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Koch\Opinion.wpt- - 3  :$  XXX   `   1  XXhX  _Tenn.Ct.App.R.10(b)provides:  8 `  TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,may  affirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhen  aformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedby   memorandumopinion,itshallbedesignated"MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shall   notbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequent |  unrelatedcase.l ` (#` (# ̀   d    :$  XXX   `   2  XXhX  _Ms.Fowlerreceivedapproximately75%ofthemaritalestateincluding:(1)theequityin  themaritalresidenceafterdeducting$21,000inaccordancewiththepostnuptialagreement,(2)one  halfinterestintheBrambleTrailproperty,and(3)a1991ChevroletBlazer.       :$  XXX   `   3  XXhX  _Mr.Fowlerreceivedapproximately25%ofthemaritalestateincluding:(1)a1985GMC  van,(2)ahouseboat,(3)a1998Fish/Skiboat,(4)apooltable,(5)afishingboat,and(6)aFlorida  timesharecondominium.   :$  XXX   `   4  XXhX  _Ms.Fowlerbecameprimarilyliableforapproximately69%ofthepartiesmaritaldebt  includingthemortgageonthemaritalresidence,aloansecuredbytheBrambleTrailproperty,and  $3,600ofadebtconsolidationloanalsosecuredbythemaritalresidence.   :$  XXX   `   5  XXhX  _Mr.Fowlerbecameprimarilyliableforapproximately31%ofthepartiesmaritaldebt  includingacreditcarddebtof$11,500,the$10,000loanoutstandingontheFish/Skiboat,andthe  remaining$23,650ofthedebtconsolidationloan.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  b"   _!@!ٓ!@   Ad FILED!X)(X!ٓ  October15,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,OAZ"Arial Regular((3$ U!   ]]]])!dxdx dabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ U!   ($$   1  U!   _  XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8dd8  zL_x` [B2.jz`  `@E"` 8ttxPZ x@ D INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE ` @)DATNASHVILLE  p zLLORETTAFOWLER, h     )  h  `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellee,    ) p RutherfordChancery <   `     h     ) p No.98DR370 N  VS. `     h     ) `   `     h     ) p AppealNo. r  RONNIEDALEFOWLER,    ) p 01A019901CH00005    `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellant.    )  @DAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORRUTHERFORDCOUNTY@"DATMURFREESBORO,TENNESSEE@/ / DTHEHONORABLEROYCETAYLOR,JUDGEForPlaintiff/Appellee: h      p   ForDefendant/Appellant: # DarylM.South   h      p   PatrickJ.McHale %! Murfreesboro,Tennessee     p   Murfreesboro,Tennessee &"   !@**%D #  #zL.AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED#zL- #  !.  0+( # !  # `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  :51    `   FT@&Dx% MEMORANDUMOPINION   #%x= # ` Thisappealinvolvesthedivisionofthemaritalestatefollowingarelatively   shortmarriage.ThehusbandassertsthatthemannerinwhichtheChanceryCourtfor h  RutherfordCountyvaluedanddividedthemaritalpropertyandmaritaldebtswas  0 inequitableandunsupportedbytheevidence.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrial   courtsdispositionoftheeconomicissuesinthiscaseisamplysupportedbythe Tx  evidence,andtherefore,weaffirmthedivorcedecreeinaccordancewithTenn.Ct.   App.R.10(b). #  1         @.D I.    ` LorettaFowlerandRonnieDaleFowler,bothemployeesattheNissanplant ,P inSmyrna,weremarriedinAugust1994.Bothpartieshadbeenmarriedbefore,and  inMarch1995,theysignedapostnuptialagreementintendedtoenableeachofthem t toretaintheirseparateproperty.TheagreementalsogaveMs.Fowlerapreferential < optiontopurchasethemaritalresidenceintheeventofadivorcebecausetheparties   hadusedherseparatepropertyasthedownpaymentfortheresidence.Theparties `"! hadnochildrenduringtheirbriefmarriage. $(#  ` ThepartiesseparatedinMarch1998.Ms.Fowlerfiledfordivorceinthe L'p!' ChanceryCourtforRutherfordCounty,andthereafterMr.Fowlerfiledananswerand (#) acounterclaimfordivorce.DuringabenchtrialheldonNovember10,1998,the *$+ partiespresentedconflictingevidenceconcerningtheirpremaritalfinancialcondition 8,\&- andthevalueoftheirmaritalassets.OnNovember25,1998,thetrialcourtentered -(/ afinalorderdeclaringthepartiesdivorcedinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.36 /)1 4129(Supp.1998)anddividingthepartiesmaritalpropertyandallocatingtheir  maritaldebts.   ` ThedivisionofmaritalpropertyreflectedMs.Fowlersdecisiontokeepthe   maritalresidenceinaccordancewiththepartiespostnuptialagreement.After l  valuingtheentiremaritalestateat$146,400,thetrialcourtawardedMs.Fowler 4  propertyvaluedat$110,000 #  2      ׀andMr.Fowlerpropertyvaluedat$36,400.` #  3      ׀Thetrial   courtalsodeterminedthatthepartieshadaccumulated$145,150inmaritaldebt. X|  Afterdecidingthatthedebtsshouldbeapportionedconsistentlywiththeassetsthey   encumbered,thetrialcourtorderedMs.Fowlertoberesponsiblefor$100,000 #  4      ׀ofthe  totaldebtandMr.Fowlertoberesponsiblefortheremaining$45,150ofdebt.  #  5      ׀Thus, Dh theneteffectofthetrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyandallocationofmarital   debtwastoawardMs.Fowler$10,000andtomakeMr.Fowlerresponsiblefor  $8,750ofdebt. 0T @-D II.  x  ` Mr.Fowlerassertsthatthetrialcourtundervaluedthemaritalresidenceand !" overvaluedthepropertyhereceived.%%Thevalueofamaritalassetisaquestionoffact. d#$ Itisdeterminedbyconsideringallrelevantevidence,andeachpartybearstheburden %,& ofbringingforthcompetentevidenceonvaluationissues.SeeWallacev.Wallace, & ( 733S.W.2d102,107(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Iftheevidenceofvalueisconflicting, P(t"* thetrialjudgemayassignavaluethatiswithintherangeofvaluessupportedbythe )$, F d   evidence.SeeRayv.Ray,916S.W.2d469,470(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Wallacev. d Wallace,733S.W.2dat107.Onappeal,wepresumethetrialjudgesfactual  determinationsarecorrectunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.SeeJahn H v.Jahn,932S.W.2d939,941(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Wehavereviewedtheevidence P  regardingthevaluationofthevariousitemsofmaritalpropertyandthepurposeofthe   maritaldebtandfindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourts  4  valuationdecisionswithregardtothemaritalhomeorthepropertyawardedtoMr. <  Fowler. |  @-D III.  (  ` Mr.Fowleralsoassertsthatthedivisionofthemaritalpropertyandallocation p  ofthemaritaldebtwasinequitablebecausehisfinancialconditionafterthedivorce  isworsethanhisfinancialconditionpriortothemarriage.Whilewehaverecognized T thatrestoringpartieswhosemarriagewasrelativelyshorttotheirpremarriage \ financialconditionisappropriate,seeBatsonv.Batson,769S.W.2d849,859(Tenn.  Ct.App.1988),Mr.Fowlerhasnotdemonstratedthatthetrialcourtsdivisionofthe @  maritalpropertyanddebts#%%#%%didnotaccomplishthisgoal. H!" #%%\##%% ` Trialcourtshavewidelatitudeinfashioninganequitabledivisionofmarital $,& property,seeFisherv.Fisher,648S.W.2d244,246(Tenn.1983),andappellate 4& ( courtsaccordgreatweighttoatrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalproperty.SeeWilson 't"* v.Moore,929S.W.2d367,372(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Edwardsv.Edwards,501 |)$, S.W.2d283,288(Tenn.Ct.App.1973).Thus,appellatecourtsgenerallydefertoa  +%. trialcourtsdecisionunlessitisinconsistentwiththefactorsinTenn.CodeAnn. ,`'0 364121(c)(1996)orisnotsupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.See h.)2 Brownv.Brown,913S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);Mahaffeyv.Mahaffey,  0*4 775S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.Ct.App.1989);Hardinv.Hardin,689S.W.2d152,154 1L,6 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983).#%%##%%Adivisionofmaritalpropertyisnotrenderedinequitable T3-8 simplybecauseitisnotpreciselyequal,seeCohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2d823,832 4/: (Tenn.1996);Ellisv.Ellis,748S.W.2d424,427(Tenn.1988),orbecauseeachparty 681< didnotreceiveashareofeverypieceofmaritalproperty.SeeBrownv.Brown,913 @82> S.W.2dat168. 94@ T d    ` TherecordcontainsconflictingevidenceconcerningMr.Fowlerspredivorce  financialcondition.Mr.Fowlerpaintedafavorablepictureofhisfinancesbeforethe $ H marriage;however,Ms.FowlertestifiedconcerningseveralofMr.Fowlers   premaritaldebtsthatwererepaidduringthemarriageusingmaritalfunds.In l  addition,thepartiespostnuptialagreementweightedthedistributionoftheproperty 4  inMs.Fowlersfavorbecauseitpermittedhertoretainthemaritalresidencewhich   wasthesinglelargestmaritalasset.Mr.Fowlercannotnowcomplainaboutthe X|  effectsofthepostnuptialagreementbecausehevoluntarilyassentedtoit.Wedonot   findthatthetrialcourtsdivisionofthemaritalestateandallocationofthemarital  debtwasinequitableinlightofthefactsofthiscase. Dh @.D IV.    ` Weaffirmthefinaldivorcedecreeandremandthecasetothetrialcourtfor  whateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.Wealsotaxthecostsofthisappeal x toRonnieDaleFowlerandhissuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.  @  #%%'# `     h      p ______________________________ %,&  `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  &D ' CONCUR: h)#* ________________________________ ,&- BENH.CANTRELL, -'. PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S. .)/ ________________________________ @3d-3 WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE