ÿWPCb2 ùÝu×T‚o†ÔÓ™[oäF¦8‡pTÍtÒëöuÝšTY/xe­qD!S%j¹Yçv”n\‘{úIŽ7)PܱIãz V˜Òo!|Œ6–e‡ mÖmýX¬R)<ƒ?~dJÅ|•ƒdÝkRl5)l ˜ÜuæÀY“N á˶¼+NÖQfðRÛKv[¾ØË{•ÞF¹A‘jO%hV@‘¢­Û>“ËÔÓ‡g‘N8W#ÅÒÉ9oFà|`+{uéU€ÿ$ U¹Ç2匡J/+î¸hÃøßg„hžò†7ÝzØ­äÇæÝuK'ÞºÙ|NŠØó¦Íî_C‹­ÉŽjdç!¢”‡ª5ªàÛæ!‰aáǃZ A} ÞT{&Ũ`R‹zaÚøòmÏØÊñqƉL½öüQƒNzƒÆ¿áª+õ^NÖE"b¹ ÷¯^ã±µ‹Ïaÿ#ÝN£9S,eiÞ=±RŽõ‚ n œ¡f¤Ì.¾R‚{4…¿Jº¥¶úeÕó!‹>ºŸ*t$YÂû¾„Ç¡Ñ•Þ…-˜Z¾Ú«8aé`×ýh%êîPÌb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UGN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0c0N“UN•U(@ãE## 0 D%%% 1ui 72Þ M]g!ÆÄ"Š#Š#p§$g&b~)mà+à+M-M-M-M-M-M-bU-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U- 0 ë]-]-]-]- BH.H. 0¤e. D5 / D->/ 0Kk/k/ AS¶/Æ 0 0¤Ï0 0Ds1 A«·1˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»û{o) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-vn)bk1ìQ¥ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ0Ž\CEKSY_ekqAutoList11.(a)1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) Ý ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWife€testified€that€she€offered€to€take€a€drug€test,€but€that€Husband€said€the€test€would€have€to€be€ð ðcourtÐ ° Ðorderedðð€and€that€she€would€have€to€be€ð ðtaken€by€the€sheriffðð€for€the€test€before€she€could€visit€her€children.€€Wife€wentÐ tÄ Ðto€her€preferred€clinic€and€voluntarily€submitted€to€a€drug€test.€€The€test€showed€no€illegal€drug€use. CÝ ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106€(Supp.€1999)€states:Ð ° Ðà  àIn€a€suit€for€annulment,€divorce,€separate€maintenance,€or€in€any€other€proceeding€requiring€the€court€to€makeÐ tÄ Ða€custody€determination€regarding€a€minor€child,€such€determination€shall€be€made€upon€the€basis€of€the€best€interest€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€child.€€The€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors€including€the€following€where€applicable:Ð üL Ðà  à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€the€parents€and€child;Ð À Ðà  à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,€medical€care,€education€and€otherÐ „Ô Ðnecessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€has€been€the€primary€caregiver;Ð H ˜ Ðà  à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€child's€life€and€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,Ð  \ Ðsatisfactory€environment;€€provided,€that€where€there€is€a€finding,€under€ðð€36-6-106(8),€of€child€abuse,€as€defined€in€ððððÐ Ð  Ð39-15-401€or€39-15-402,€or€child€sexual€abuse,€as€defined€in€ðð€37-1-602,€by€one€(1)€parent,€and€that€a€non-perpetratingÐ ” ä  Ðparent€has€relocated€in€order€to€flee€the€perpetrating€parent,€that€such€relocation€shall€not€weigh€against€an€award€ofÐ X ¨  Ðcustody;Ð  l  Ðà  à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ð à 0  Ðà  à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ð ¤ô  Ðà  à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;Ð h¸  Ðà  à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€€The€court€may€hear€theÐ ,|  Ðpreference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferences€of€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greater€weightÐ ð@  Ðthan€those€of€younger€children;Ð ´  Ðà  à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parent€or€to€any€other€person;€€provided,Ð xÈ  Ðthat€where€there€are€allegations€that€one€(1)€parent€has€committed€child€abuse,€[as€defined€in€ðððð€39-15-401€or€39-15-402],Ð <Œ Ðor€child€sexual€abuse,€[as€defined€in€ðð€37-1-602],€against€a€family€member,€the€court€shall€consider€all€evidence€relevantÐ P Ðto€the€physical€and€emotional€safety€of€the€child,€and€determine,€by€a€clear€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€whether€suchÐ Ä Ðabuse€has€occurred.€€The€court€shall€include€in€its€decision€a€written€finding€of€all€evidence,€and€all€findings€of€factsÐ ˆØ E Ðconnected€thereto.€€In€addition,€the€court€shall,€where€appropriate,€refer€any€issues€of€abuse€to€the€juvenile€court€forÐ ° Ðfurther€proceedings;Ð tÄ Ðà  à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€suchÐ 8ˆ Ðperson's€interactions€with€the€child.Ð üL Ðà  à(10)€Each€parent's€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parenting€responsibilities,€including€theÐ À Ðwillingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuing€parent-child€relationshipÐ „Ô Ðbetween€the€child€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child.Ð H ˜ ЀÌÌ€ SÝ ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€partiesðð€son€was€not€yet€eleven€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€and€thus,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð ° Ð106(7),€too€young€for€his€preference€to€be€a€factor€in€determining€custody. ¼Ý ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€different€judge€presided€over€the€temporary€custody€hearing. Ý ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€must€assume€that€much€of€the€harm€was€caused€by€the€apparent€discrepancy€between€Husbandððs€earlierÐ ° Ðtestimony€and€the€tapes. fÝ ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôê]òòôê]Ô€Statements€at€the€December€1998€hearing€on€the€post„judgment€motions€indicated€that€Husband€obtained€hisÐ ° Ðdischarge€in€bankruptcy€in€October€1998.Ô#†ôê]òòôê]~#Ô ]Ý ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTwo€telephone€bills€were€introduced€into€evidence,€an€AT&T€bill€for€direct€dialed€calls€and€€an€AT&T€callingÐ ° Ðcard€bill.€€Husbandððs€counsel€was€provided€with€a€copy€of€the€bill€for€direct€dialed€calls€at€a€deposition€shortly€beforeÐ tÄ Ðthe€trial.€€The€calling€card€bill€is€the€subject€of€the€dispute.€€Ô‡ôê]òòôê]ÔThe€disputed€bill€was€mailed€to€the€marital€home€during€theÐ 8ˆ Ðperiod€the€parties€were€reconciled,€but€while€Husband€was€training€in€Alabama.€€By€agreement€of€the€parties,€Wife€paidÐ üL Ðthe€household€bills€in€Husbandððs€absence.€€She€discovered€the€calls€to€Ms.€Fernandez€while€paying€the€bill.Ô#†ôê]òòôê]Ò#Ô XÝ ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€the€deposition€shows€that€Wifeððs€counsel€provided€the€bill€for€the€direct€dialed€calls€at€theÐ ° Ðdeposition€and€told€Husbandððs€counsel,€ð ðYou€have€already€been€provided€copies€of€the€American€Express€that€wasÐ tÄ Ðattached€to€the€motion€.€.€.€as€well€as€the€initial€phone€bill€ð!ð€the€AT&T€calling€card.ðð€€We€see€no€indication€that€WifeððsÐ 8ˆ Ðcounsel€purposely€withheld€the€calling€card€bill.€ cÝ ƒRƒj$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€After€oral€arguments€in€this€matter,€this€court€received€an€affidavit€from€Wife€which€this€court€has€notÐ ° Ðconsidered€in€rendering€this€opinion,€because€the€information€was€not€relevant€to€the€appeal€before€us. - ù-(|G2ƒj$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»Ô d(|3Gy$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gy$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Z»»»ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€ùXXdì»»d8Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îL¤î»¼ZÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Z»îîL¤ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€4,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XùX»¼ZÔÌò òÔ#†¼Z»XXùõ#ÔPATRICK€RYAN€MAHAN€v.€TONYA€SUE€HURST€MAHANÔ‡XùX»¼ZÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„03„0021€€€€€€Carol€Catalano,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01366„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€divorce€case,€the€husband€appeals€the€award€of€custody€of€the€children€to€the€wife,€theÐ xÈ  Ðadmission€of€certain€evidence€at€trial,€and€the€redistribution€of€marital€property€on€a€post„judgmentÐ d´ Ðmotion€following€his€bankruptcy.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼Z»XXùf#ÔÔ‡XùX»¼ZÔÐ P  ÐÓ±ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ (x ЀAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Z»àXù #ÔÔ€XùX.¼ZÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÐ ì< Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌTroy€L.€Brooks,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Patrick€Ryan€Mahan.Ð ° ÐÌElizabeth€E.€Burnett,€Gregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Tonya€Sue€HurstÐ ˆØ ÐMahan.Ð tÄ ÐÓÞÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ L œ ÐÓ  ÓÔ‡XùXXXùÔÌÓ€ (Ž\03ÓÓ  ÓI.€€Background€and€Procedural€HistoryÐ $"t! ÐÓ¿ Óò òÌó óà  àPatrick€Ryan€Mahan€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Tonya€Sue€Hurst€Mahan€(ð ðWifeðð)€married€in€1983.€Ð ü#L# ÐThey€have€two€children,€a€daughter,€born€in€1985,€and€a€son,€born€in€1987.€€Husband€was€in€theÐ è$8 $ ÐArmy€for€the€duration€of€the€marriage€and€as€a€result,€the€family€moved€periodically.€€WhileÐ Ô%$!% ÐHusband€was€stationed€at€Ft.€Campbell,€Wife€became€friendly€with€Cindy€Fernandez.€€ApparentlyÐ À&"& ÐMs.€Fernandez€was€experiencing€some€personal€problems€and,€at€Wifeððs€suggestion,€the€partiesÐ ¬'ü"' Ðinvited€Ms.€Fernandez€and€her€children€to€live€with€them€for€a€while.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  à€Wife€discovered€a€note€in€Ms.€Fernandezððs€room,€€in€Husbandððs€handwriting,€asking€for€aÐ p*À%* Ðð ðgood€luck€kiss€.€.€.€about€3:30€am.ðð€She€then€recalled€another€incident€in€which€she€discoveredÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âHusband€walking€away€from€Ms.€Fernandezððs€room€in€the€early€morning€hours,€claiming€he€ð ðthoughtÐ H,˜',ý Ðhe€heard€the€cat.ðð€€Wife€insisted€that€Ms.€Fernandez€move€out.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Wife€took€theÐ ° Ðchildren€and€went€to€stay€with€her€parents€in€Mississippi.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWife€returned€to€Tennessee€for€a€hearing€on€temporary€custody€of€the€children.€€She€testifiedÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€trial€court׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€gave€her€the€option€of€remaining€in€the€marital€home€with€the€children€orÐ `° Ðsurrendering€temporary€custody€to€Husband.€€She€chose€to€leave€the€children€with€Husband€andÐ L œ Ðreturn€to€Mississippi,€stating€that€she€could€not€stand€being€near€Husband€at€that€time.€€She€laterÐ 8 ˆ Ðreturned€to€Tennessee,€and€the€parties€attempted€a€reconciliation.€€Husband€was€baptized,€and€theÐ $ t Ðparties€joined€a€church.€€The€pastor€of€the€church,€Mr.€Mulberry,€€testified€over€Husbandððs€objection,Ð  ` Ðthat€Husband€had€asked€for€his€help€in€reconciling€with€Wife.€€The€reconciliation€was€ultimatelyÐ ü L  Ðunsuccessful€and€the€parties€separated€again.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWife€introduced€phone€records€showing€that€Husband€continued€to€contact€Ms.€FernandezÐ À  Ðwhile€he€was€attending€training€in€Alabama,€but€during€their€supposed€reconciliation.€€WitnessesÐ ¬ü  Ðtestified€that€Husband€had€other€extramarital€relations€and€that€he€interfered€with€Wifeððs€visits€withÐ ˜è  Ðthe€children.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€court€divorced€the€parties€on€grounds€of€Husbandððs€inappropriate€marital€conduct,Ð \¬ Ðawarded€custody€to€Wife,€and€gave€her€most€of€the€partiesðð€personal€property.€€Husband€was€orderedÐ H˜ Ðto€pay€child€support€and€to€maintain€a€life€insurance€policy€for€the€benefit€of€the€children.€€HusbandÐ 4„ Ðwas€awarded€the€marital€home,€which€had€some€equity,€and€was€assigned€most€of€the€debts€ð ðin€lieuÐ  p Ðof€alimony.ðð€€Wifeððs€attorney€drew€up€the€order,€stating€that€the€court€found€that€Husband€had€madeÐ  \ Ðð ðconfessions€of€adultery€to€his€wifeðð€and€that€Wife€was€to€be€the€ð ðsole€executorðð€of€Husbandððs€lifeÐ øH Ðinsurance€policy€as€long€as€he€had€a€child€support€obligation.€€That€order€was€signed€by€the€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðand€filed.€€Husbandððs€attorney€did€not€file€an€objection€to€any€portions€of€the€proposed€order,€butÐ Ð  Ðinstead€allowed€the€order€to€be€entered€and€sought€to€correct€the€order€through€a€post„judgmentÐ ¼  Ðmotion€to€alter€or€amend.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÔ#†XùXXXù #ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔà  àIn€that€motion,€Husband€asserted€that€ð ðconfessions€of€adulteryðð€Ô_ÔshouldÔ_Ô€be€stricken€and€thatÐ €Ð ÐWife€should€not€be€named€as€the€executor€of€the€insurance€policy€which€he€was€ordered€to€maintainÐ l¼ Ðfor€the€benefit€of€the€children.€€A€few€weeks€later€Husband€filed€a€Chapter€7€bankruptcy€petition.׃#T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РX ¨ ЀOne€effect€of€Husbandððs€bankruptcy€was€to€shift€most€of€his€assigned€debts€back€to€Wife€becauseÐ D!” Ðshe€was€also€liable€to€the€lenders€on€those€debts.€€Wife€then€filed€her€own€motion€to€alter€or€amend,Ð 0"€  Ðseeking€alimony€and€the€marital€home€to€defray€the€debts€for€which€she€had€suddenly€becomeÐ #l! Ðresponsible.ò òó óÐ $X" ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€both€motions,€the€trial€court€amended€its€original€order€to€list€Wife€as€ð ðsoleÐ à%0!$ Ðbeneficiary€in€trustðð€on€the€insurance€policy,€and€found€that€Wife€was€awarded€a€divorce€ð ðbased€onÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€inappropriate€marital€conduct€of€[Husband],€not€on€the€ground€of€adultery.ðð€€The€court€refusedÐ ° Ðto€award€alimony€to€Wife,€but€did€award€her€€the€marital€home€to€partially€offset€the€debt€whichÐ œì ÐHusbandððs€bankruptcy€had€shifted€to€her.€€Husband€now€appeals€the€awards€of€custody€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðchildren€and€the€marital€home€to€Wife,€as€well€as€the€admission€of€certain€evidence€at€trial.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ô#†XùXXXù(#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€Standard€of€ReviewÐ L œ ÐÓ×ÓÌà  àWe€review€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€byÐ $ t Ða€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ  ` Ðotherwise.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Because€the€trial€judge€is€in€a€better€position€to€weigh€andÐ ü L  Ðevaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€who€testify€orally,€we€give€great€weight€to€the€trial€judgeððsÐ è 8  Ðfindings€on€issues€involving€credibility€of€witnesses.€€òòSee€Gillock€v.€Board€of€Profððl€Responsibilityóó,Ð Ô$  Ð656€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1983).Ô#†XùXXXù #ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€€Ô#†XùXXXù##ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔConclusions€of€law€are€not€afforded€the€same€deference.€€òòSeeÐ À  ÐBrock€v.€Brockóó,€941€S.W.2d€896,€898€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Ô#†XùXXXù^##ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Custody€of€the€ChildrenÐ „Ô  ÐÔ#†XùXXXù3$#ÔÓh$ÓÔ‡XùXXXùÔÌÔ#†XùXXXùÙ$#Ôò òÔ‡XùXXXùÔó óà  àOur€courts€make€no€more€important€decisions€than€those€involving€the€custody€of€children.€Ð \¬ ÐWhen€called€upon€to€order€a€custody€arrangement,€a€court€must€consider€many€factors׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€makeÐ H˜ Ða€custody€determination€based€on€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106Ð ° Ð(Supp.€1999).Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€child€custody€cases,€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€children€are€the€paramountÐ tÄ Ðconcern,€and€the€determination€of€the€childrenððs€best€interest€must€turn€on€the€particular€facts€of€eachÐ `° Ðcase.€€òòSee€Akins€v.€Akinsóó,€805€S.W.2d€377,€378€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)€(citing€òòHolloway€v.€Bradleyóó,Ð L œ Ð190€Tenn.€565,€570„72,€230€S.W.2d€1003,€1006€(1950)).€€Inòò€Hollowayóó,€the€Court€stated:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àThe€determining€facts€in€these€adoption€and€custody€cases€are€so€infinite€in€theirÐ  ` Ðvariety€that€the€reported€decision€in€one€case€is€of€little€aid€or€assistance€in€settlingÐ ü L  Ðthe€next.€€The€supreme€rule€to€which€all€others€should€yield€is€the€welfare€and€bestÐ è 8  Ðinterest€of€the€child.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHollowayóó,€190€Tenn.€at€571,€230€S.W.2d€at€1006.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhere,€as€here,€both€parents€seek€custody,€this€court€has€held€that€the€childððs€best€interest€isÐ „Ô  Ðto€be€determined€by€using€an€analysis€of€the€comparative€fitness€of€each€parent.€òò€See€Bah€v.€Bahóó,€668Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€663,€665„66€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)òò.óóÐ \¬ ÐÌà8  àWe€adopt€what€we€believe€is€a€common€sense€approach€to€custody,€one€which€weÐ 4„ Ðwill€call€the€doctrine€of€ð ðcomparative€fitness.ðð€€The€paramount€concern€in€childÐ  p Ðcustody€cases€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€child.€€òòóóThere€are€literallyÐ  \ Ðthousands€of€things€that€must€be€taken€into€consideration€in€the€lives€of€youngÐ øH Ðchildren,€and€these€factors€must€be€reviewed€on€a€comparative€approach:Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ-€ü(€¸ ¼è“X°œX-Óà8 è àFitness€for€custodial€responsibilities€is€òòò òlargely€a€comparative€matteróóó ó.€Ð ¼  ÐNo€human€being€is€deemed€perfect,€hence€no€human€can€be€deemed€aÐ ¨ø Ðperfectly€fit€custodian.€€Necessarily,€therefore,€the€courts€must€determineÐ ”ä Ðwhich€of€two€or€more€available€custodians€is€more€or€less€fit€than€others.€Ð €Ð Ðòòóó(emphasis€supplied).Ðl¼èðèð ÐÌòòÓ<€ü(€ö ¼è“X€ü(€¸ ¼è“X<ÓId.óó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666€(citations€omitted).Ð D!” ÐÐ 0"€  Ðà & àBecause€the€determination€of€where€a€childððs€best€interest€lies€is€the€result€of€theÐ ° Ðconsideration€of€a€number€of€factors€in€the€context€of€a€specific€factual€situation,€òòsee€AdelspergerÐ œì Ðv.€Adelspergeróó,€970€S.W.2d€482,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€it€is€€particularly€fact„driven.€€òòSeeÐ ˆØ ÐRogero€v.€Pittóó,€759€S.W.2d€109,€112€(Tenn.€1988).€€€Such€decisions€often€hinge€on€the€trial€courtððsÐ tÄ Ðassessment€of€the€demeanor€and€credibility€of€the€parents€and€other€witnesses.€€òòSee€Adelspergeróó,€970Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€at€485.€òòóó€Consequently,€appellate€courts€are€reluctant€to€second„guess€a€trial€courtððsÐ L œ Ðdetermination€regarding€custody€and€visitation.€€òòSee€Rutherford€v.€Rutherfordóó,€971€S.W.2d€955,€956Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(quoting€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)).€Ð $ t ÐAccordingly,€this€court€will€decline€to€disturb€the€custody€decision€of€the€trial€court€herein€unlessÐ  ` Ðthat€decision€is€based€on€a€material€error€of€law€or€the€evidence€preponderates€against€it.€€òòSeeÐ ü L  ÐAdelspergeróó,€970€S.W.2d€at€485.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà & àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€childrenððs€best€interests€were€served€byÐ À  Ðawarding€custody€to€Wife.€€Ô#†XùXXXù%#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔò òó óWife€was€the€primary€caretaker€of€the€children€for€most€of€the€marriage,Ð ¬ü  Ðand€their€sole€caretaker€during€Husbandððs€extended€work„related€absences.€€Upon€learning€ofÐ ˜è  ÐHusbandððs€relationship€with€another€woman,€Wife€took€the€children€and€moved€to€Mississippi€toÐ „Ô  Ðlive€with€her€parents.€€She€returned€to€Tennessee€in€April€1997€for€a€hearing€regarding€temporaryÐ pÀ Ðcustody.€€She€testified€that€the€judge€at€the€1997€hearing€gave€her€a€choice€of€moving€back€into€theÐ \¬ Ðmarital€home€with€the€children,€or€leaving€them€in€Husbandððs€custody.€€Wife€testified€that€she€leftÐ H˜ Ðthe€children€in€Tennessee€because€she€felt€like€she€ð ðjust€couldnððt€stay€around€[Husband]€at€the€time.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐThe€parties€reconciled€briefly,€and€Wife€lived€in€the€marital€home€with€the€children€while€HusbandÐ  p Ðwas€assigned€to€Ft.€Rucker,€Alabama.€€Shortly€after€his€return,€the€parties€separated€again€andÐ  \ ÐHusband€regained€custody€of€the€children.€€Although€their€testimonies€differ€markedly,€the€evidenceÐ øH Ðfully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Husband€ð ðcontinually€hindered€[Wifeððs]€attempts€atÐ ä4 Ðvisitation.ðð€€Husband€blocked€calls€from€the€homes€where€Wife€stayed€after€the€separation.€€HeÐ Ð  Ðreneged€on€the€partiesðð€agreement€that€the€children€would€go€to€his€parentsðð€home€for€ThanksgivingÐ ¼  Ðand€to€her€parentsðð€home€for€Christmas,€instead€allowing€the€children€to€ð ðchooseðð€to€visit€theirÐ ¨ø Ðcousins€for€both€holidays.€€Husband€denied€Wifeððs€visitation€for€the€weeks€prior€to€the€trial,Ð ”ä Ðdemanding€that€she€take€a€drug€test,€although€there€was€no€indication€that€Wife€was€using€drugs€andÐ €Ð Ðno€such€condition€was€placed€on€visitation€by€the€court.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€Husband€needed€€ð ðto€give€[himself]Ð l¼ Ða€breakðð€from€the€children,€he€left€them€with€his€parents,€even€though€Wife€had€requested€visitationÐ X ¨ Ðthat€weekend.€€Husbandððs€ð ðfamily€care€planðð€for€the€children€in€case€of€his€deployment€gaveÐ D!” Ðguardianship€of€the€children€to€his€parents,€even€though€their€own€mother€lived€in€the€area.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà & àHusband€emphasizes€that€Wife€did€not€submit€a€plan€of€care€for€the€children€by€May€5,€1997,Ð $X" Ðas€ordered€by€the€court.€€He€fails€to€mention€that,€prior€to€that€date,€Husband€and€Wife€hadÐ ô$D # Ðreconciled.€€On€May€5,€1997,€Wife€did€not€need€to€submit€a€plan€of€care€because€she€and€HusbandÐ à%0!$ Ðwere€living€together€and€were€both€caring€for€the€children.ò òó ó€€By€the€time€of€the€trial€in€this€matter,Ð Ì&"% ÐWife€had€prepared€and€submitted€a€plan€of€care€to€the€court.Ð ¸'#& Їà & àIn€spite€of€the€fact€he€filed€bankruptcy€after€the€trial,€Husband€claims€that€he€is€financiallyÐ ° Ðmore€stable,€and€able€to€better€provide€for€the€children€than€Wife.€€We€note€that€Wife€had€maintainedÐ œì Ðemployment€since€her€return€from€Mississippi,€and€that€Husband€was€ordered€to€pay€$1,100€perÐ ˆØ Ðmonth€in€child€support.Ð tÄ ÐÌà & àHusband€claims€that€the€partiesðð€daughter,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€almost€thirteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€theÐ L œ Ðhearing,€preferred€to€live€with€her€father.€€He€cites€the€testimony€of€a€counselor€who€tried€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðnegotiate€visitation€between€the€parties.€€Husband€ignores€the€fact€that€the€trial€court,€immediatelyÐ $ t Ðafter€questioning€the€daughter€òòin€camera,óó€announced€that€the€girl€expressed€no€preferenceÔ#†XùXXXù‚6#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ.Ð  ` ÐÌà & àWife€demonstrated€that€she€was€a€conscientious€mother€and€that€the€children€were€well„Ð è 8  Ðbehaved€in€her€care.€€She€returned€to€Tennessee€to€be€near€them.€€She€changed€jobs€so€her€workÐ Ô$  Ðhours€would€be€more€regular,€in€hopes€of€visiting€her€children.€She€repeatedly€attempted€to€visit€herÐ À  Ðchildren,€despite€Husbandððs€refusals.€€She€offered€to€take€a€drug€test€to€prove€to€€Husband€that€sheÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€drug„free,€although€she€was€under€no€obligation€to€do€so.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà & àWe€note€that€testimony€€indicated€that€Father€was€also€capable€and€concerned€for€the€welfareÐ pÀ Ðof€the€children.€€The€trial€court€had€to€judge€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€balance€the€manyÐ \¬ Ðfactors€when€making€the€custody€decision.€Upon€reviewing€the€evidence,€we€conclude€that€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€custody€with€Wife€is€in€theÐ 4„ Ðchildrenððs€best€interest.€Ð  p ÐÌò òòòÓ6°„Xìp’X€ü(€ö ¼è“X6ÓÔ#†XùXXXùYF#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔó óóóÓ  ÓIV.€€The€Admissibility€of€Evidence€at€Trialò òÐ øH ÐÌÓZKÓà  àó óWe€now€turn€to€Husbandððs€argument€that€certain€pieces€of€evidence,€and€certain€testimonyÐ Ð  Ðshould€have€been€excluded€at€trial.€€ð ð[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€which€rests€withinÐ ¼  Ðthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€òòóó€This€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€courtððs€exercise€ofÐ ¨ø Ðits€discretion€absent€clear€abuse.ðð€òòYoung€v.€Youngóó,€971€S.W.2d€386,€392€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)Ð ”ä Ð(citations€omitted).Ô#†XùXXXù5K#Ôò òÔ‡XùXXXùÔÐ €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óó óA.€€The€Evidence€Not€Produced€Prior€to€the€Trial€ò òÐ X ¨ ÐÌó óÓGNÓà  àHusband€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€certain€evidence€which,€he€claims,€wasÐ 0"€  Ðrequested€but€not€produced€prior€to€the€trial.€€Husband€claims€that€ð ðwhere€a€party€fails€to€provide€forÐ #l! Ðrequested€discovery,€and€provides€no€reasonable€explanation€for€such€failure,€[then]€the€evidenceÐ $X" Ðshould€be€excluded€at€trial.ðð€€Wife€responds€that€a€party€has€no€obligation€to€disclose€ð ðrebuttalÐ ô$D # Ðevidence.ððÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02(1)€is€€broad€in€scope,€and€allows€parties€ð ðto€obtain€discovery€regardingÐ ¸'#& Ðany€matter,€not€privileged,€which€is€relevant€to€the€subject€matter€involved€.€.€.€including€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðexistence,€description,€nature,€custody,€condition€and€location€of€any€books,€documents,€or€otherÐ ° Ðtangible€things€and€the€identity€and€location€of€persons€having€knowledge€of€any€discoverableÐ œì Ðmatter.ðð€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02(1).€€The€purpose€of€the€rule€is€to€allow€the€discovery€of€facts€whichÐ ˆØ Ðð ðwill€enable€litigants€to€prepare€for€trial€free€from€the€element€of€surprise€.€.€.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.Ð tÄ ÐStricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€496,€501€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€The€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€itsÐ `° Ðactions€upon€learning€of€a€discovery€violation.€€òòSee€id.óó€€The€trial€courtððs€admission€or€exclusion€ofÐ L œ Ðevidence€is€reviewed€for€an€abuse€of€its€discretion.€€òòSee€id.óóÔ#†XùXXXùN#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€€Refusal€to€allow€the€disputed€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€one€of€the€courtððs€options,€although€not€its€only€one.€€òòSee€id.óó€€The€court€should€consider€theÐ $ t Ðexplanation€for€the€failure€to€disclose€the€evidence,€the€importance€of€the€evidence,€the€need€for€timeÐ  ` Ðto€prepare€to€meet€the€evidence,€and€the€possibility€of€a€continuance.€€òòSee€id.óó€€The€court€may€excludeÐ ü L  Ðthe€evidence,€allow€the€evidence,€or€grant€a€continuance€to€the€other€party.€€òòSee€id.óóÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€Wifeððs€contention€that€ð ðrebuttal€evidenceðð€is€not€subject€to€discovery,€thisÐ À  Ðcourt€examined€that€contention€in€òòPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882€S.W.2d€783€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),€andÐ ¬ü  Ðdetermined€that€evidence€intended€to€be€used€for€rebuttal€was€nonetheless€subject€to€discovery.€€òòSeeÐ ˜è  ÐPettusóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€786.€€In€that€personal€injury€case,€the€defendant€did€not€disclose€the€name€ofÐ „Ô  Ða€private€investigator€hired€to€observe€and€photograph€the€plaintiff,€€relying€upon€local€court€rulesÐ pÀ Ðwhich€did€not€require€a€party€to€disclose€the€names€of€impeachment€and€rebuttal€witnesses.€€ThisÐ \¬ Ðcourt€noted€that€trial€courts€ð ðmay€adopt€local€practice€rules€as€long€as€they€do€not€conflict€with€otherÐ H˜ Ðapplicable€statutes€or€rules€promulgated€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€We€thenÐ 4„ Ðacknowledged€that€adversaries€are€not€entitled€to€discover€an€opponentððs€witness€list€in€the€absenceÐ  p Ðof€a€local€rule€or€a€court€order,€but€held€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02(1)€allowed€the€discovery€of€theÐ  \ Ðname€of€the€private€investigator€as€a€person€who€ð ðhad€personal€knowledge€of€facts€relevant€to€theÐ øH Ðclaims€or€defenses€involved€in€the€case,ðð€notwithstanding€the€defendantððs€intention€to€call€him€as€aÐ ä4 Ðrebuttal€witness.€€òòIdóó.€at€787.€€Thus,€evidence€properly€requested€is€subject€to€discovery,€even€if€it€isÐ Ð  Ðto€be€used€to€rebut€an€opponentððs€testimony.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€disputed€evidence€in€the€case€before€us.€€Husband€asserts€that€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourt€erred€in€allowing€the€admission€of€€1)€Husbandððs€long€distance€calling€card€bill,€2)€photographsÐ €Ð Ðof€Husbandððs€€truck€parked€next€to€Ms.€Fernandezððs€car€at€a€theater€and€at€a€private€homeÔ#†XùXXXùU#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ,€and€3)Ð l¼ Ðtaped€telephone€conversations€between€the€partiesÔ#†XùXXXù[_#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ.€€He€claims€that€the€items€were€not€produced€whenÐ X ¨ Ðrequested€in€discovery€and€that€his€case€was€harmed€by€the€introduction.€€We€shall€discuss€the€piecesÐ D!” Ðof€evidence€separately.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àHusband€objects€to€the€introduction€of€one€of€his€telephone€bills,׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€contained€his€AT&TÐ $X" Ðcalling€card€charges.€€That€bill,€and€another,€showed€that€Husband€had€remained€in€contact€with€Ms.Ð ô$D # ÐFernandez,€even€after€she€had€moved€from€the€partiesðð€home.€€Specifically,€the€disputed€bill€showedÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€Husband€had€called€Ms.€Fernandezððs€pager€seven€times€in€a€five€day€period.€Ô#†XùXXXùë_#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€Husbandððs€counselÐ Ì&"% Ðargued€at€trial€that€he€had€not€been€provided€with€the€calling€card€bill,€even€though€that€evidence€wasÐ ° Ðrequested€during€discovery.€€Specifically,€he€claimed€that€Wife€and€her€counselÔ#†XùXXXù0c#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€had€told€him€in€aÐ œì Ðdeposition€six€days€earlier€that€they€had€produced€all€the€tangible€evidence€they€had€of€HusbandððsÐ ˆØ Ðextramarital€relations.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWifeððs€counsel€responded,€and€the€record€shows,׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€she€had€told€Husbandððs€counsel€at€theÐ L œ Ðdeposition€that€she€had€already€provided€him€with€the€calling€card€bill.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperly€exercised€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€disputed€telephone€bill.€€òòSee€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ðat€501.Ð  ` ÐÓ  ÓÌÓAgÓà  àHusband€also€objects€to€the€admission€of€certain€photographs€which€showed€his€truck€parkedÐ è 8  Ðnext€to€Ms.€Fernandezððs€car€in€a€theater€parking€lot€and€later€at€a€private€home.€€Husbandððs€counselÐ Ô$  Ðobjected€to€the€introduction€of€the€photographs,€stating€that€they€had€not€been€produced€in€discovery.€Ð À  ÐThe€trial€court€allowed€the€photographs€to€be€admitted€as€exhibits,€pointing€out€that€Husband€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðalready€admitted€that€he€and€the€children€had€been€with€Ms.€Fernandez€and€her€children€the€nightÐ ˜è  Ðthe€photographs€were€taken.Ô#†XùXXXùgd#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€The€court€also€noted€Ô#†XùXXXùýi#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€that€the€fact€that€cars€are€parked€together€ð ðdoesÐ „Ô  Ðnot€establish€an€affair.ðð€€Husbandððs€counsel€responded,€ð ðI€understand€they€are€not€evidence€ofÐ pÀ Ðanything,ðð€but€persisted€in€his€complaint€that€the€photographs€had€not€been€provided€prior€to€trial.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XùXXXùUj#ÔThe€photographs€did€not€exist€at€the€time€of€the€discovery€request;€testimony€indicated€that€Ð 4„ Ðthey€were€taken€after€the€deposition.€€Because€the€record€before€us€does€not€include€the€discoveryÐ  p Ðrequests,€we€cannot€determine€that€a€continuing€obligation€to€produce€existed.€Ô‡XùXXXùÔ€We€have€no€basis€toÐ  \ Ðfind€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€them.€€òòSee€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€at€501.Ô#†XùXXXùm#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùԀРøH ÐIn€any€event,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€because€Husband€had€already€admitted€the€essenceÐ ä4 Ðof€what€the€photographs€portrayed,€he€was€not€harmed€by€their€admission.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àHusband€also€objects€to€the€introduction€of€€tape€recorded€conversations€between€himself€andÐ ¨ø ÐWife.€€After€Husband€demanded€that€Wife€submit€to€a€drug€test,€€she€recorded€three€telephoneÐ ”ä Ðconversations€on€successive€days.€€The€tapes€were€played€in€open€court,€but€they€were€not€madeÐ €Ð ÐexhibitsÔ#†XùXXXùõm#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ,€nor€were€their€contents€transcribedÔ#†XùXXXùŠp#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ,€but€the€trial€transcript€includes€a€brief€description€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€contents€by€Wifeððs€counsel,€made€without€objection€or€correction€to€the€statements.€€The€firstÐ X ¨ Ðconversation€contained€Husbandððs€statements€that€Wife€would€have€to€take€a€drug€test,€and€that€aÐ D!” Ðrefusal€would€mean€that€Wife€would€be€ð ðfound€guilty.ðð€€The€second€conversation€contained€WifeððsÐ 0"€  Ðrequest€for€supervised€visitation€until€the€drug€test€could€be€given,€Ô_ÔandÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHusbandððsÔ_Ô€refusal€to€allowÐ #l! Ðeven€the€suggested€supervised€visits.€€The€third€conversation€contained€Husbandððs€statement€thatÐ $X" ÐWife€would€be€allowed€no€visits€with€the€children,€not€even€dinner,€and€that€Wife€could€only€contactÐ ô$D # Ðher€children€by€telephone.€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àThe€tapes€were€offered€to€rebut€Husbandððs€earlier€testimony,€in€which€Husband€had€claimedÐ ° Ðthat€his€desire€for€Wife€to€submit€to€a€drug€test€was€a€ð ðsafety€issueðð€for€the€children€and€in€which€heÐ œì Ðdenied€making€certain€threats€regarding€Wifeððs€ability€to€see€the€children.€€On€appeal,€HusbandÐ ˆØ Ðclaims€that€his€counsel€had€requested€production€of€any€evidence€Wife€would€use€at€trial,€and€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€tapes€were€not€produced.€€He€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€tapes€to€be€playedÐ `° Ðand€that€the€evidence€ð ðsubstantially€harmedðð€his€case.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РL œ ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€Husbandððs€interrogatories€and€Wifeððs€answers€are€not€part€of€the€record€beforeÐ $ t Ðus.€€We,€therefore,€cannot€determine€what€was€requested€prior€to€Wifeððs€deposition.€€That€depositionÐ  ` Ðwas€made€an€exhibit€at€trial,€however,€and€we€have€examined€it€for€requests€for€evidence.€Ð ü L  ÐHusbandððs€counsel€made€only€one€request,€that€being€for€ð ð[n]otes,€letters,€cards,€any€other€type€ofÐ è 8  Ðwritten€documentation€or€something€that€you€found,€you€know,€anything€else€dealing€with€the€affairÐ Ô$  Ðwith€Ms.€Fernandez.ðð€€While€counselððs€request€for€ð ðanything€else€dealing€with€the€affairðð€is€veryÐ À  Ðbroad,€it€simply€is€not€broad€enough€to€include€the€tapes€of€conversations€regarding€Husbandððs€denialÐ ¬ü  Ðof€Wifeððs€visitation.€€On€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€say€that€the€tapes€were€included€in€anyÐ ˜è  Ðdiscovery€request;€thus,€we€cannot€find€that€they€were€improperly€withheld,€or€that€the€trial€courtÐ „Ô  Ðimproperly€allowed€their€admission.€€òòSee€Reed€v.€Allenóó,€522€S.W.2d€339,€342€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974)Ð pÀ Ð(trial€record€was€insufficient€to€support€the€appellantððs€argument€that€evidence€was€erroneouslyÐ \¬ Ðadmitted).€€We€€find€no€error€in€the€admission€of€the€tapes€into€evidence.ò òó óÐ H˜ ÐÔ#†XùXXXùñp#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔÌÓ  ÓB.€€The€Testimony€of€the€Pastorò òó óÐ  p ÐÓÇ}ÓÌà  àHusband€objects€to€the€admission€of€the€testimony€of€his€pastor,€claiming€that€hisÐ øH Ðconversations€with€the€pastor€were€privileged€and€could€not€be€divulged€without€his€consent.Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àòòóóPrivileges€are€policy„based€exceptions€to€the€general€rule€that€a€witness€must€testifyÐ ¼  Ðwhenever€he€or€she€can€provide€relevant€information.€€Most€privileges€exist€to€protectÐ ¨ø Ðconfidential€communications€between€individuals€whose€relationship€is€found€toÐ ”ä Ðhave€such€social€significance€that€its€protection€is€more€important€than€theÐ €Ð Ðinformation€the€privilege€keeps€from€the€trier€of€fact.€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌNeil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð501.3€at€261€(3d€ed.€1995)Ô#†XùXXXù§}#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ.ò òó ó€€Through€itsÐ D!” Ðenactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„206,€our€legislature€has€stated€very€clearly€thatÐ 0"€  Ðcommunications€between€individuals€and€their€clergy€merit€protection€from€disclosure.€€òòSee€JacksonÐ #l! Ðv.€Futrellóó,€No.€M1999„01046„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€279900€at€*3„4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€16,Ð $X" Ð2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).Ô#†XùXXXù#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔòò€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌóóà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô#†XùXXXùpƒ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔðð€24„1„206€states,€in€pertinent€part:€€€Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà8  àà ` à(a)(1)€No€minister€of€the€gospel€.€.€.€shall€be€allowed€or€required€in€givingÐ ° Ðâ âtestimony€as€a€witness€in€any€litigation,€to€disclose€any€information€communicatedÐ œì Ðto€him€in€a€confidential€manner,€properly€entrusted€to€him€in€his€professionalÐ ˆØ Ðcapacity,€and€necessary€to€enable€him€to€discharge€the€functions€of€his€officeÐ tÄ Ðaccording€to€the€usual€course€of€his€practice€or€discipline,€wherein€such€person€soÐ `° Ðcommunicating€such€information€about€himself€or€another€is€seeking€spiritualÐ L œ Ðcounsel€and€advice€relative€to€and€growing€out€of€the€information€so€imparted€.€.€.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(b)€The€prohibition€of€this€section€shall€not€apply€to€cases€where€theÐ $ t Ðcommunicating€party,€or€parties,€waives€the€right€so€conferred€.€.€.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†XùXXXùìƒ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔòòÌóóÔ#†XùXXXùOˆ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔà  àÔ#†XùXXXù˜ˆ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔIn€the€case€before€us,€the€pastor€of€the€partiesðð€church€testified€over€Husbandððs€objection.Ô#†XùXXXùæˆ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùԀРè 8  ÐWifeððs€counsel€explained€to€the€witness,€apparently€with€the€trial€courtððs€approval,€that€he€could€notÐ Ô$  Ðdivulge€ð ðanything€that€was€said€in€confidence€in€your€office€with€Mr.€Mahan€and€Mrs.€Mahan.ðð€€TheÐ À  Ðpastor€then€testified€to€several€conversations€with€Husband,€including€thoseÔ#†XùXXXùŠ‰#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€€conversations€ð ðbeforeÐ ¬ü  Ðthey€were€members€of€our€church,ðð€ð ðbefore€the€counseling,ðð€and€over€the€telephone.€Ô#†XùXXXù+‹#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àÔ#†XùXXXùø‹#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔThe€portion€of€the€pastorððs€testimony€to€which€Husband€objects€concerns€Husbandððs€desireÐ pÀ Ðto€reconcile€with€Wife,€which€he€argues€should€have€been€excluded€as€a€privileged€communication.€Ð \¬ ÐHe€contends€that€the€statements€he€made€to€the€minister€about€wanting€to€reconcile€with€Wife,Ð H˜ Ðalthough€outside€a€formal€counseling€session,€were€private€and€should€not€have€been€admitted.Ð 4„ Ðà  àÌÔ#†XùXXXù\Œ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔà  àWhile€we€find€persuasive€Husbandððs€argument€that€his€communications€to€the€pastor€wereÐ  \ Ðð ðinformation€communicated€to€[the€pastor]€in€a€confidential€manner,€properly€entrusted€to€him€inÐ øH Ðhis€professional€capacityðð€while€Husband€was€ð ðseeking€spiritual€counsel€and€advice€relative€to€andÐ ä4 Ðgrowing€out€of€the€information€so€imparted,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„206(a)(1),€we€need€notÐ Ð  Ðdetermine€whether€those€statements€were€improperly€admitted.€€We€find€no€reversible€error€inÐ ¼  Ðallowing€the€pastorððs€testimony€regarding€Husbandððs€desire€for€a€reconciliation.òò€óóConcerning€theÐ ¨ø Ðsubstantive€issues€on€appeal,€custody€of€the€children€and€the€redistribution€of€property,€the€fact€thatÐ ”ä Ðone€party€or€the€other€desired€a€reconciliation€is€irrelevant.€€We€are€simply€unable€to€see€howÐ €Ð ÐHusbandððs€desire€to€reconcile€damages€him€on€any€issue.€€Thus,€we€find€the€admission€of€theÐ l¼ Ðpastorððs€testimony€regarding€Husbandððs€desire€to€reconcileÔ#†XùXXXùxŽ#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€with€Wife€Ô#†XùXXXù2“#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔto€be€harmless€error,€if€errorÐ X ¨ Ðat€all.€€òòSee€State€v.€Ô_ÔBolingÔ_Ôóó,€806€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð D!” ÐÔ#†XùXXXù“#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔòòóóÌÓ  ÓV.€€The€Redistribution€of€the€PropertyÐ #l! ÐÓŸ”ÓÌòòà  àóóThe€trial€court€entered€its€order€divorcing€the€parties€on€February€24,€1998.€€Husband€filedÐ ô$D # Ða€timely€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04,€on€March€24,€1998,€seekingÐ à%0!$ Ðto€change€some€language€in€the€order.€€One€effect€of€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€was€that€itÐ Ì&"% Ðprevented€the€order€divorcing€the€parties€and€distributing€the€property€from€becoming€final.Ô#†XùXXXùy”#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€€òòSeeÐ ¸'#& ÐóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(a)€(ð ðany€order€that€adjudicates€fewer€than€all€the€claims€.€.€.€is€subject€to€revisionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðat€any€time€before€entry€of€a€final€judgmentðð);€òòGrissim€v.€Grissimóó,€637€S.W.2d€873,€875€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð )à$( ÐApp.€1982)€(ð ðif€part€of€a€judgment€is€challenged€by€a€post€trial€motionòòò ò€óóó ó.€.€.€then€the€trial€court€has€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðfinally€adjudicated€all€of€the€claims€.€.€.€and€the€judgment€is€subject€to€revision€.€.€.€before€entry€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðfinal€judgmentðð).ò òòò€€óóó óHusband€filed€his€Chapter€7€bankruptcy€petition€on€May€19,€1998,€one€effect€ofÐ ° Ðwhich€was€to€shift€much€of€the€marital€debt€assigned€to€him€by€the€court€back€to€Wife€because€sheÐ œì Ðwas€also€liable€on€those€joint€debts.€€Wife€then€filed€her€own€motion€to€alter€or€amend€on€June€3,Ð ˆØ Ð1998,€alleging€that€Husbandððs€bankruptcy€increased€her€own€debt€by€more€than€$27,000,€andÐ tÄ Ðrequesting€that€the€final€decree€be€amended€to€award€herÔ#†XùXXXùá–#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔ€alimony€and€the€marital€home.€€BothÐ `° Ðrequests€were€based€on€the€need€to€defray€the€sudden€burden€of€Husbandððs€previously€assigned€debts.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€heard€arguments€on€both€motions,€as€well€as€other€petitions€not€relevant€here,Ð $ t Ðon€December€22,€1998,€and€granted€Husbandððs€motion€to€change€some€language€in€the€originalÐ  ` Ðorder.€€The€court€refused€to€award€Wife€alimony,€and€she€does€not€appeal€that€decision.€€RegardingÐ ü L  Ðthe€marital€home,€the€court€reminded€the€parties€that€it€had€been€awarded€to€€Husband€because€heÐ è 8  Ðhad€been€assigned€the€marital€debt.€€The€court€then€found€that€ð ðit€would€not€be€equitable€forÐ Ô$  Ð[Husband]€to€be€free€from€debts€and€receive€all€equity€from€the€marital€home,ðð€and€awarded€theÐ À  Ðhome,€which€had€approximately€$7,000€equity,€to€Wife.ò òó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€ð ðpunishingðð€him€for€exercisingÐ „Ô  Ðhis€right€to€discharge€his€debts€in€bankruptcy€by€divesting€him€of€the€marital€home.òò€€ò òó óóóWife€asserts€thatÐ pÀ Ðbecause€the€bankruptcy€affected€the€previous€division€of€property,€the€court€was€within€its€discretionÐ \¬ Ðto€modify€the€award.òò€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àóóWhen€making€a€division€of€marital€property,€a€court€is€to€consider€several€factors€in€orderÐ  p Ðto€achieve€an€ð ðequitableðð€division.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121.€€One€purpose€of€the€trialÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔcourtððsÔ_Ô€decisions€regarding€marital€property€is€to€divide€the€property€accumulated€by€the€efforts€ofÐ øH Ðboth€parties€in€a€fair€manner.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔHausmannÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHausmannÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01A01„9702„CH„00092,€1997€WLÐ ä4 Ð672649€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€29,€1997)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€AnotherÐ Ð  Ðpurpose€is€to€provide€each€party€with€sufficient€property€to€meet€that€partyððs€future€needs.€€òòSee€id.€Ð ¼  ÐóóThe€trial€court€had€attempted€to€be€fair€to€both€parties€in€its€original€division€of€property€andÐ ¨ø Ðdistribution€of€debts.€€Husbandððs€bankruptcy€disrupted€the€division€the€court€had€made€by€shiftingÐ ”ä Ðthe€debts€onto€Wife.Ð €Ð ÐÔ#†XùXXXùk›#ÔÌÔ‡XùXXXùÔòòà  àóóWhen€the€trial€court€revisited€the€order,€it€properly€reexamined€the€property€division€in€lightÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€changed€circumstances,€and€attempted€to,€again,€make€an€equitable€distribution€of€theÐ D!” Ðproperty.€ò òòòó ó€See€Grissimóó,€637€S.W.2d€at€875.€€Ô#†XùXXXù”¥#ÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔòòóóThe€$7,000€equity€in€the€home€only€partially€offset€theÐ 0"€  Ðmore€than€$27,000€in€debts€for€which€Wife€suddenly€became€liable.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ #l! Ðaward€of€the€marital€home€to€Wife.òòÐ  $X" ÐÔ#†XùXXXù§#ÔóóÓ  ÓVI.€€Conclusion€òòÐ ° ÐÌÓL¨Óóóà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€affirm€the€awards€of€custody€and€marital€property€to€Wife,Ð ˆØ Ðand€find€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€disputed€evidence.€€This€case€isÐ tÄ Ðremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€PatrickÐ `° ÐRyan€Mahan,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0ìh(#h(#àà0pì(#ì(#à______________________________€Ðü L p(#p(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà ì àà p àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ è 8  ÐÌ