WPC  N<yI*/ qse?ߐ]n/}=vt5@&uP54E#TM= 2X_ Ħ"yM2'mc1 */>XtW;)+?#q^Ž(,dZ |pENz#WT=^RxV+8b V)wf]hqNe68`"9]?ԭ3{! 5T>4)tmhe8a>k6Cv_'xhKk6gď/3+FSP ,t"j)s^hh^m|rUq:_{yW=!H>L;T5~#!&V@+:MR9agmwUF;b3AKhAx (Sӱ넧 /z[\'ou) z[)dz1F4NCe8-mYԭʯi{U&-W# U N % 04!bU 0]^ 8 w@D 4   m  UNz  0D~UN\NU:QQQQQQQQQQQ AQ 0D 0D 0D** D/nn B D3 BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(() Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  - -((2$ U!   XXX     `   0  {i% DDDEDӀu[%:i+003|xUConcurring Opinion    ' 2William C. Koch, Jr.20William C. Koch, Jr. .   '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $  XXX   @ @ `   1    _Ms.McManamayapparentlyusedtheproceedsofthesaleofoneofthepartiespontoon  boatstopurchasethispropertyfollowingthepartiesseparation.Shewasawardedthepontoonboataspersonalproperty.(#$  0    $  XdX   `   1    _Ms.McManamayapparentlyusedtheproceedsofthesaleofoneofthepartiespontoon  boatstopurchasethispropertyfollowingthepartiesseparation.Shewasawardedthepontoonboataspersonalproperty.(() Z6Times New Roman Regular McMANAMAYMcManamayMahaffeyHardinSharpsburgPutnumEddyville ""        Ad FILEDXHX   November9,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,@AZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP PdVVVV'dxd d U!   _X~7dd7  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  r )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rt )>.*jx1` `@E"` 8ttxPZ 1 t@ D )~INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@)DATNASHVILLE#~)b#  ` CATHYP.McMANAMAY,0  0%%) %%  `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellee,0 h 0h%h%)0%%MontgomeryChancery %%  `     h     )0 p No.97010151 p%p% VS.0 ` 0 ` %` %0 % %0h%%0h%h%0%%)0 %%  `     h     ) p AppealNo. @  CHARLEST.McMANAMAY,0  )0p%%01A019802CH00081P p%p%  `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellant.0  0%%) p %% *@tt&D )~CONCURRINGOPINION#~)#  8  ` Thepresidingjudgehasdeterminedthatthiscaseshouldberemanded tohearfurtherevidenceandtoadjudgeanequitabledivisionofthemaritalestate.Hisopiniondoesnotexplainwhythecourthasbeenunableto ascertainfromtheevidenceinthisrecordwhatanequitabledivisionofthemaritalestateshouldbeanddoesnotprovidedirectionstoeitherthetrialcourtorthepartiesregardingthestepsthatshouldbetakenonremand.Wehavepreparedthisseparateopiniontoprovidethisinformation. ` OneofthethreeissuesColonelMcManamayraisesonappealconcernsthetrialcourtsfailuretoconsiderasmaritalpropertytheincreaseinthevalueofthreeofMs.McManamaysinvestmentaccounts,twopiecesofrealpropertyinMs.McManamaysname,andMs.McManamayscivilserviceretirement.WhenthisoversightwasfirstbroughttothetrialcourtsattentiononDecember10,1997,thetrialcourtstatedthatitwouldnotbe equitabletoawardColonelMcManamayanyinterestintheseassetsbecause Mr.McManamaywasquotedinhisdepositionashavingsaid,hedidntcareaboutMs.McManamaysproperty,asIunderstoodit.Later,inresponsetoColonelMcManamaysTenn.R.Civ.P.59motionpointingoutthathehadneverrelinquishedhisclaimagainstmaritalpropertybeingheldbyMs.McManamay,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonFebruary27,1998,concludingthatitwouldnotconsidertheappreciationinthevalueoftheseassetsasmaritalpropertybecausethepartieshadmaintainedtheirfinancialaccountsseparatelyduringthemarriage. p;6> Ї~ ` Weordinarilydefertoatrialcourtsdecisionswithregardtotheclassification  ofpropertyandthedivisionofthemaritalestateunlesstheyareinconsistentwithTenn.CodeAnn.364121(b),(c)orarenotsupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.SeeBrownv.Brown,913S.W.2d163,168(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);   Mahaffeyv.Mahaffey,775S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.Ct.App.1989);Hardinv. 4  Hardin,689S.W.2d152,154(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Thetrialcourtsreasoningin  %  thiscasereflectsafundamentalmisunderstandingofthenatureofmaritalproperty. ` AsdefinedinTenn.CodeAnn.364121(b)(1)(A)(1996), maritalpropertyincludes8 ` 8 ` (#` (#personalproperty...acquiredbyeitherorbothspousesduringthecourseofthemarriageuptothedateofthefinaldivorcehearingandownedbyeitherorbothspousesasofthedateoffilingofacomplaintfordivorce...andvaluedasofadateasnearasreasonablypossibletothefinaldivorcehearingdate.   Basedonthisbroaddefinition,aspousesincomeearnedandreceivedduringthemarriageismaritalproperty,nomatterwhetherthespousereceivingitdepositsitinaseparateaccountorinajointaccount.Thus,aspousesseparatefinancialaccountisnot,bydefinition,separateproperty.Itfollowsthatincomedepositedintoaseparateaccountduringthemarriagemustbetreatedasmaritalpropertysubjecttodistributioninanequitablefashion.Withthisruleinmind,weturntothepropertyatissueonthisappeal. ` Ms.McManamayistherecordowneroftwotractsofrealproperty,oneinHudson,KentuckyandtheotherinSharpsburg,Georgia.Ms.McManamaytestifiedthathermotherhadconveyedtheHudson,Kentuckypropertytoherandthatshewasholdingthepropertyintrustforhermother.Shealsoconcededthatthevalueofthispropertyhadincreased$10,000duringthemarriage.Whilethetrialcourtdidnotspecificallyaddressthisproperty,Ms.McManamaystestimonyisuncontradicted.Accordingly,wefindthattheevidencewouldhavesupportedadecisiontoexcludethispropertyfromthemaritalestatebecauseMs.McManamaywasholdingitintrustforhermother.ThetrialcourtalsodeclinedtotreattheappreciationinvalueoftheSharpsburg,Georgiapropertyasmaritalpropertybecauseofthelackofevidenceconcerningtheappreciationinthevalueofthispropertyandbecausetheproperty 965?  hasnoequitablevaluebeyondthatwhichhasalreadybeenconsideredinthedistributionofthe...personalproperty. #  1      ׀Wehavenobasistosecondguessthis Q determination. ` Ms.McManamayalsohadthreeseparatefinancialaccounts,a401(k)account,asavingsaccount,andanaccountwithPutnumSecurities.Ms.McManamaydepositedportionsofherincomeintotheseaccountsduringthemarriage,andatthetimeofthedivorcehearing,the401(k)accounthadappreciatedby$20,332.63;thePutnumSecuritiesaccounthadincreasedby$9,451.45;and##Ԁthesavingsaccounthad ` increasedby$26,000.Ms.McManamaytestifiedwithoutcontradictionthat$20,000ofthedepositstohersavingsaccountbelongedtohermotherandthatshewasholdingthesefundsintrust.Theappreciationintheseaccounts,withtheexceptionofthefundsattributedtoMs.McManamaysmother,camefromdepositsofsalaryMs.McManamayearnedduringthemarriage,and,therefore,shouldhavebeenclassifiedasmaritalproperty.Likewise,theincreaseinthevalueofMs.McManamayspensionduringthemarriageshouldalsohavebeenclassifiedasmaritalproperty.SeeCohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2d823,830(Tenn.1996). % (  ` WhileTenn.R.App.P.13(d)and36(a)empowerustoclassifyanddistributemaritalpropertyonappeal,wehavedeterminedthatthepresentrecorddoesnotcontainsufficientevidencetoenableustodeviseanequitabledistributionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyinthiscase.Accordingly,wemustremandthecasewithdirectionstothetrialcourttopermitthepartiestopresentadditionalevidence_thatwill_enablethetrialcourttoclassifythepartiesseparateandmaritalproperty,toplaceavalueonthemaritalproperty,andtodividetheirmaritalpropertyequitably.Thedivisionneednotbepreciselyequal,seeCohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2dat832;Ellis D4/:  D4/: v.Ellis,748S.W.2d424,427(Tenn.1988),andeachpartyisnotnecessarilyentitled  toreceiveashareofeverypieceofmaritalproperty.SeeBrownv.Brown,913 T S.W.2dat163,168(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).## ` WeconcurwiththepresidingjudgesconclusionthatColonelMcManamay @  wasnotprejudicedbythepaceinwhichthetrialcourtconductedthehearingofthiscase.WealsoconcurthatMs.McManamaywasentitledtothedivorceandthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrintheclassificationanddistributionoftheappreciationinthevalueoftheStratfordWaypropertyandtheEddyville,Kentuckyproperty. `     h     ____________________________ `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE `     h     ____________________________ `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE