ÿWPC  :# <UNG %• 0(›w@Ã4&.U:6 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0@H D3ˆ B» 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ AQA Æ’ 0DX 0Dœ D/à B U>, U*j B)” DC½ AM M v~OvÓ͘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ! ¿" # $ D% D& D' D( Ée) Ó€5 äzz!x3|x5 Â"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd* 5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òJuly€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑœÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€3Ô›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSON̜ـ*ÙßR€675A1-j|¾¯` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌBEVERLY€FAY€MELTON,à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€Weakley€Chancery€No.€14238Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9701„CH„00022Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDANNY€JOE€MELTON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WEAKLEY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€DRESDEN,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€W.€MICHAEL€MALOAN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òWILLIAM€R.€NEESEÌó óDresden,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌò òJAMES€H.€BRADBERRYÌJAMES€H.€BRADBERRY€&€ASSOCIATESÌó óDresden,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÓÓó óà àIn€this€divorce€action,€Danny€Joe€Melton€(hereinafter,€ð ðHusbandðð€or€ð ðMr.€Meltonðð)ÏÑ7€€‡XXdðXXdð7Ñappeals€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€the€division€of€the€marital€estate,Ïcustody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child,€and€the€award€of€certain€farm€equipment€to€hisÏformer€father„in„law.€€ÌÌà àDanny€Joe€Melton€and€Beverly€Fay€Melton€(hereinafter,€ð ðWifeðð€or€ð ðMrs.€Meltonðð)Ïwere€married€in€June,€1972.€€During€the€marriage,€the€couple€lived€in€Gleason,ÏTennessee.€€The€union€produced€two€children.€€The€older€child€has€reached€the€age€ofÏmajority,€and€the€younger,€born€in€1981,€is€a€minor.€€Mrs.€Melton€is€a€teacher€in€theÏWeakley€County€school€system,€and€Mr.€Melton€derived€most€of€his€income€during€theÏmarriage€from€farming€and€from€auto€racing„related€businesses.€Throughout€theÏmarriage,€Vernon€Dunn,€Mrs.€Meltonððs€father,€contributed€financially€to€the€Meltons.€€InÏfact,€Dunn€set€up€Mr.€Melton€in€a€farming€operation€by€giving€him€111€acres€of€farmÏland€and€a€tractor,€and€Mr.€Melton€helped€Dunn€farm€his€own€land€and€alsoÏparticipated€with€him€in€a€number€of€ventures.€€It€is€undisputed€that€financial€woesÍplagued€the€Meltons€during€their€marriage,€and€even€resulted€in€the€coupleððs€seekingÏbankruptcy€protection€in€1987.€ÌÌà àMr.€Melton€became€involved€in€the€auto€racing€business€and€eventually€boughtÏan€$18,000€racing€car€and€a€$15,000€motor.€€€In€1995,€rumors€surfaced€around€theÏcommunity€that€Mr.€Melton€was€involved€in€an€extramarital€affair.€€Ultimately,€theÏMeltons€separated€in€August,€1995.€€Mrs.€Melton€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce€in€theÏWeakley€County€Chancery€Court€in€September€1995,€charging€Mr.€Melton€withÏadultery€and€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€Subsequently,€Mr.€Melton€filed€an€answerÏand€counter€complaint.€€On€April€3,€1996,€Vernon€Dunn€filed€an€intervening€petitionÏagainst€the€Meltons€in€which€he€sought€an€order€requiring€the€Meltons€to€vacate€allÏproperties€owned€by€Dunn,€to€return€all€equipment€owned€by€Dunn€as€well€as€seekingÏa€judgment€for€all€monies€and€benefits€that€Dunn€had€provided€to€the€couple€sinceÏ1985.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€trial€held€on€April€26,€1996,€and€June€28,€1996,€the€trial€courtÏentered€orders€on€July€12,€1996,€August€2,€1996,€and€August€26,€1996.€€In€its€ruling,Ïthe€trial€court€granted€a€divorce€to€Mrs.€Melton€on€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€maritalÏconduct€but€found€that€there€had€been€no€proof€of€an€extramarital€affair.€€€The€trial€courtÏawarded€the€parties€joint€custody€of€the€minor€child,€with€the€mother€having€custodyÏduring€the€school€year,€and€the€father€having€custody€during€the€summer€months.€€TheÏtrial€court€granted€each€parent€liberal€visitation€during€the€non„custodial€period.€€ÏAdditionally,€both€parents€were€ordered€to€pay€child€support€to€the€other€during€theÍnon„custodial€period.€€The€trial€court€awarded€all€real€property€to€Mrs.€Melton€andÏdivided€the€personal€property€between€the€parties.€€€Mr.€Melton€was€ordered€to€vacateÏthe€shop€building€adjacent€to€the€house€that€he€used€for€his€racing€business,€and€theÏcourt€ordered€Mrs.€Melton€to€pay€Mr.€Melton€$20,000€as€costs€of€relocating€his€racingÏbusiness.€€The€trial€court€awarded€Vernon€Dunn€possession€of€a€John€Deere€4440Ïtractor,€combine,€planter€and€bush€hog,€but€dismissed€Dunnððs€other€claims.€€The€trialÏcourt€directed€that€Mr.€Melton€and€Mrs.€Melton€were€each€responsible€for€the€debtsÏfollowing€the€property€received€by€each.€€Mr.€Melton€timely€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€onÏSeptember€10,€1996,€and€the€cause€is€properly€before€this€Court€for€consideration.€ÌÌà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€caseÏòòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€theÏtrial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,Ïabsent€error€of€law.€€Rule€13€(d)€T.R.A.P.€€Ì€€Ìà@ àò òISSUESó óÌÌà àMr.€Melton€has€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€Did€the€trial€court€make€an€equitable€division€of€the€partiesðð€maritalÏproperty€in€awarding€the€wife€approximately€seventy€percent€of€its€value?ÌÌà8 àII.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€effectively€naming€the€wife€as€primary€custodialÏparent?ÌÌÓÓà8 àIII.€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€awarding€Vernon€Dunn€the€tractor€andÏplanter?€ÌÌÌà@ àò òPROPERTY€DIVISIONó óÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Melton€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€making€a€propertyÏdivision.€€We€find€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€dividing€the€marital€estate€upon€divorce.€ÏòòKincaid€v.€Kincaidóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€142€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€In€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€769ÏS.W.2d€849€(Tenn.€App.€1988),€this€Court€addressed€the€equitable€division€of€maritalÏproperty:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„121(a)€provides€that€maritalÏproperty€should€be€divided€equitably€without€regard€to€fault.€ÏIt€gives€a€trial€court€wide€discretion€in€adjusting€andÏadjudicating€the€partiesðð€rights€and€interests€in€all€jointlyÏowned€property.€€òòFisher€v.€Fisheróó,€648€S.W.2d€244€(Tenn.Ï1983).€€€ÓÓ€€€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€customarily€gives€great€weight€to€decisions€of€the€trial€court€inÏdividing€marital€estates,€and€we€are€disinclined€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÏunless€the€distribution€lacks€proper€evidentiary€support€or€results€from€some€error€ofÏlaw€or€misapplication€of€statutory€requirements€and€procedures.€€òòWade€v.€Wadeóó,€797ÏS.W.2d€559,€604€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€The€trial€courtððs€distribution€need€not€be€equal€toÏbe€equitable.€€It€is€not€achieved€by€a€mechanical€application€of€the€statutory€factors,€butÏrather€by€considering€and€weighing€the€most€relevant€factors€in€light€of€the€unique€factsÍof€each€case.€€òòBatson€v.€Batsonóó,€769€S.W.2d€849,€859€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€facts€of€this€case,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€division€ofÏmarital€property€was€equitable.€€Each€party€has€presented€their€own€figures€regardingÏthe€valuation€of€the€marital€estate€to€support€their€respective€positions,€and€it€is€notÏsurprising€that€there€is€a€great€disparity€between€them.€€The€Chancellor€decreed€thatÏthe€debts€followed€the€property€to€which€they€were€attached.€€For€purposes€of€thisÏanalysis,€we€will€accept€the€Husbandððs€valuation€and€distribution€schedule.€€SeeÏòòCarrier€v.€Carrieróó,€No.€02A01„9608„CH„00180€(Tenn.€App.€May€2,€1997).€€With€this€inÏmind,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€divided€the€marital€property€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà àòòò òWifeà àó óà àà àà àà àà àò òHusbandóóó óÌÌò òAssetó óà àà àà àò òValueà àó óà àò òAssetà àó óà àà à€€€€ò òValue€ó óÌ50€acre€farm€&€home€€€€$149,000.00à àFarm€Equip.€less€award€Ì67€acre€farmà àà à€€€€€€€€71,000.00€€€€à àto€Mr.€Dunnà àà àà à$€3,850.00Ì14€acre€farmà àà à€€€€€òò€€€13,852.00óóà àBus.€parts€&€equip.à àà à€44,255.00€€à àÌò òTotal€Real€Estateó ó€à à€€€€€€233,852.00à à1969€truck,€1984€truck€&à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPolaris€4„wheelerà àà à€€€€9,000.00à àÌHome€furnishingsà à€€€€$€€€8,585.00€€à à1994€Chevrolet€truckà à€€18,000.00€€€€€€€€€€€ÌLawn€Mowersà à€€€€€€€€€1,000.00à àFirearms€&€misc.à àà à€€€€1,000.00€à àÌ1990€Chevrolet€Lumina€€€€5,450.00à àòòCash€awarded€in€decreeà à€€20,000.00óóà àÌWifeððs€pension€à à€€€€€€€27,345.78ÌCash€on€handà à€€€€€òò€€€€2,500.00óó€Ìò òTotal€Personal€à àó ó€€€€$€44,880.78à àà àà àà àà à€$96,105.00à àÌò òPropertyó óÌReal€Estate€Debtà à€€€€($76,333.00)à àÌAuto€Debtà àà à€€€€($12,800.00)à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€($14,000.00)à àÌÌò òTOTAL€ASSETSó ó€€€€€€€€$278,732.78€à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€$96,105.00Ìò òTOTAL€DEBTó óà à€€€€€€(89,133.00)à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€(14,000.00)Ìòòò òCASH€TO€HUSBANDó ó€€€(20,000.00)à àà àà àà àóó€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€Ìò òÓÓNET€DISTRIBUTIONó ó€€€€169,599.78€à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€82,105.00€à àÌÔ€2Ôà àÔ€3ÔÌà àMr.€Melton€asserts€that€the€property€division€was€inherently€inequitable€becauseÏthe€court€awarded€Mrs.€Melton€assets€valued€at€nearly€two€times€that€awarded€to€him.€ÏHowever,€Mr.€Melton€fails€to€recognize€that€Mrs.€Melton€has€been€saddled€with€debtÏobligations€equal€to€nearly€six€and€one„half€times€the€debt€that€was€assessed€to€him,Ïand€he€had€not€credited€her€with€the€$20,000.00€cash€payment€that€the€trial€courtÏordered€her€to€make€to€him.€€Furthermore,€Mr.€Melton€has€overlooked€the€fact€that€heÏhas€received€a€windfall€by€being€relieved€of€further€liability€for€approximately€87%€ofÏthe€marital€debts.€€In€fact,€he€was€responsible€for€creating€approximately€$14,000.00€inÏdebt€secured€by€the€14€acre€farm€in€order€to€enter€the€racing€business€by€purchasing€aÏcar.€Mr.€Melton€subsequently€sold€the€racing€car€for€a€loss,€purchased€another€andÏsold€the€second,€also€for€a€loss.€€Other€than€his€testimony,€no€evidence€was€presentedÏregarding€the€disposition€of€the€proceeds€of€these€sales,€though€it€is€clear€that€theÏproceeds€were€not€applied€to€the€reduction€of€the€original€debt.€€In€effect,€Mrs.€MeltonÏmust€pay€for€her€husbandððs€entry€into€the€racing€business.€€This€is€not€a€new€scenario.€ÏThroughout€the€marriage,€Mrs.€Melton€held€a€full€time€teaching€position€and€evenÏtaught€on€nights€and€weekends.€€It€is€evident€that€Mrs.€Melton€contributed€substantiallyÏmore€to€the€financial€aspect€of€the€marriage€than€did€Mr.€Melton,€whose€losingÏbusiness€ventures€resulted€in€dissipation€of€the€marital€estate€and€ultimatelyÏbankruptcy€in€spite€of€contributions€by€Vernon€Dunn,€gifts€of€free€land,€and€soil€bankÏpayments.€€The€wife€is€land€rich,€but€cash€poor€with€only€minuscule€liquid€assets€withÏwhich€to€pay€the€$89,000.00€in€debt€on€her€annual€teacherððs€salary€of€someÏ$29,000.00.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€property€division€did€not€result€in€anÏinequitable€distribution€to€Mr.€Melton.€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record€and€giving€the€Husband€the€benefit€of€hisÏproffered€evidence,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€as€to€the€division€of€the€property.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððsÏdeterminations€regarding€property€division€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€€€€€€ÌÌà àMr.€Melton€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€custody€ofÏthe€partiesðð€minor€child.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€parties€joint€custody€of€their€14Ïyear„old€son.€€Specifically,€the€court€granted€custody€of€the€child€to€Mrs.€Melton€duringÏthe€school€year€and€to€Mr.€Melton€during€the€summer€months.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏawarded€liberal€visitation€to€the€non„custodial€parent.€€On€appeal,€husband€assertsÏthat€the€trial€court€awarded€the€wife€custody€for€42€weeks€per€year€and€to€him€for€aÏmere€10€weeks€per€year.€€Further,€husband€asserts€that€the€trial€court€disregarded€theÏexpressed€desire€of€the€minor€son€regarding€his€living€arrangements.€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€Ìà àIn€order€to€make€a€determination€concerning€the€custody€of€children,€the€trialÏcourt€must€look€to€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€€òòScarbrough€v.€Scarbroughóó,€752ÏS.W.2d€94,€96€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Factors€to€consider€include,€but€are€not€limited€toÏthe€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAge,€habits,€mental€and€emotional€makeup€of€the€child€andÏthose€parties€competing€for€custody;€Education€andÏexperience€of€those€seeking€to€raise€the€child;€TheirÏcharacter€and€propensities€as€evidenced€by€their€pastÏconduct;€The€financial€and€physical€circumstancesÏavailable€in€the€home€of€each€party€seeking€custody€andÏthe€special€requirements€of€the€child;€€The€availability€andÍextent€of€third€party€support;€€The€associations€andÏinfluences€to€which€the€child€is€most€likely€to€be€exposedÏand€the€alternatives€afforded,€both€positive€and€negative;Ïand€where€is€the€likelihood€of€an€environment€for€the€childÏof€love,€warmth,€stability,€support,€consistency,€care€andÏconcern€and€physical€and€spiritual€nurture.ÌÌòòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1983).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àDuring€the€course€of€these€proceedings,€the€trial€court€had€an€opportunity€toÏobserve€personalities,€responsibilities,€demeanor,€credibility€and€suitability€of€eachÏparent€to€serve€as€the€custodial€parent.€€While€the€child€expressed€a€desire€to€live€withÏhis€father,€he€also€stated€to€the€trial€court€during€an€òòin€cameraóó€examination:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ:€Okay.€Well,€since€your€mom€and€dad€separated,€I€believeÏback€in€August€or€September€of€last€year,€tell€me€where€youÏhave€been€living€during€that€period€of€time?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA:€My€momððs.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ:€Okay,€How€has€that€been€working€out?ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA:€Pretty€good.€€Ìà àÌÔ€2Ôà àÔ€3ÔThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€should€be€givenÏgreat€weight€as€they€relate€to€issues€surrounding€child€custody.€€ð ðAbsent€someÏcompelling€reason€otherwise,€considerable€weight€must€be€given€to€the€judgment€of€aÏTrial€Court€in€a€divorce€proceeding€in€respect€to€credibility€and€suitabilityðð€of€the€partiesÏas€custodians.€€òòBush€v.€Bushóó,€684€S.W.2d€89,€95€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€The€trial€courtsÏare€vested€with€a€wide€discretion€in€matters€of€child€custody,€and€the€reviewing€courtsÏwill€not€interfere€except€upon€a€showing€of€erroneous€exercise€of€that€discretion.€€òòGrantÍv.€Grantóó,€286€S.W.2d€349,€350€(Tenn.€1954).€€The€trial€court€enjoys€a€substantialÏadvantage€in€having€the€opportunity€to€see,€hear€and€evaluate€the€parentsðð€suitabilityÏas€custodians.€€òòMimms€v.€Mimmsóó,€780€S.W.2d€739,€745€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€As€thisÏCourt€noted€in€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€Court€will,€however,€give€great€weight€to€the€decision€ofÏthe€trial€court€because€the€judge€saw€the€witnesses€face„to„face€and€heard€them€testify;€this€rule€being€based€upon€theÏassumption€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€act€arbitrarily€orÏwillfully€but€with€the€regard€to€what€is€right€and€equitable,Ïconsidering€first€the€childððs€best€interest€as€directed€by€hisÏreason€and€conscience€towards€the€childððs€welfare.€€òòÌÌÓÓId.óó€at€665,€citing,€òòRiddick€v.€Riddickóó,€497€S.W.2d€740€(Tenn.€App.€1973).€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€true€test€for€the€award€of€custody€is€to€arrive€at€the€point€of€deciding€withÏwhom€to€place€the€child€in€preparation€for€a€caring€and€productive€adult€life.€€òòBahóó€atÏ665„66.€€It€is€noted€by€this€Court€in€òòKoch€v.€Kochóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€App.Ï1993),€that€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€child€is€of€paramount€concern€in€custodyÏcases.€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòMollish€v.€Mollishóó,€494€S.W.2d€145,€151€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€FitnessÏfor€custodial€responsibilities€is€a€comparative€matter€that€the€trial€court€is€required€toÏmake.€€See,€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666.€€Nowhere€is€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€more€applicable€than€in€matters€of€childÏcustody€where€the€surrounding€testimony€is€complex€and€involved€and€frequently€filledÏwith€disputes€and€acrimony.€€See,€òòNicks€v.€Nicksóó,€369€S.W.2d€909,€912€(Tenn.€App.Ï1962).€€As€noted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòCecil€v.€State€ex.€rel.€Cecilóó,€237ÏS.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1951):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€cases€involving€child€custody,€the€decision€of€the€TrialÍJudge€who€saw€and€heard€the€witnesses,€is€to€be€givenÏgreat€weight,€if€not€controlling€effect,€and€we€will€interfereÏonly€where€we€find€a€palpable€abuse€of€discretion,€or€aÏjudgment€against€the€great€weight€of€the€evidence.€€òòÌÌÓÓId.óó€at€559.ÌÌà àUpon€examination€of€the€transcript€and€record€in€this€cause€it€is€apparent€thatÏthe€Chancellor€gave€great€consideration€to€the€comparative€fitness€of€Mr.€Melton€andÏMrs.€Melton€to€serve€as€custodial€parents.€€The€Chancellor€concluded€that€both€parentsÏwere€suitable€to€serve€as€custodial€parents,€and€each€parent€was€granted€liberalÏvisitation€during€the€non„custodial€period.€€Mrs.€Melton€is€a€teacher€in€the€WeakleyÏCounty€school€system,€and€is€in€the€best€position€to€oversee€the€child€and€his€studies.€ÏSimilarly,€the€childððs€interest€in€racing€is€best€served€by€Mr.€Melton€during€the€time€thatÏhe€has€custody€in€the€summer.Ô€2Ô€€Ô€3ÔThe€Chancellorððs€decision€in€regard€child€custody€isÏpresumed€to€be€correct€and€should€be€upheld€on€appeal€because€the€evidenceÏpresented€to€this€Court€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€ÌÌà@ àò òÌÌà@ àTRACTOR€AND€PLANTERó óÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof€in€this€cause,€the€trial€court€awarded€Vernon€DunnÏthe€John€Deere€4440€tractor€and€a€planter€that€had€been€used€by€Mr.€Melton.€€OnÏappeal,€Mr.€Melton€asserts€that€Dunn€failed€to€present€adequate€proof€to€support€hisÍclaims€of€ownership€of€the€equipment€and€that€Dunn€failed€to€provide€Mr.€Melton€withÏadequate€notice€concerning€the€termination€of€the€land€lease€arrangement.€€We€findÏthis€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€March€1996,€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€Dunn€was€the€owner€of€theÏtractor,€but€the€trial€court€permitted€further€evidence€on€this€issue€to€be€presented€atÏtrial.€€At€trial,€Vernon€Dunn€presented€a€1979€check€in€the€amount€of€$22,000,€whichÏstated€in€the€memo€section,€ð ðFor€4440€John€Deere€with€warranty€expiring€March,Ï1979.ðð€€€Mr.€Melton€maintains€that€the€tractor€is€his€as€evidenced€by€a€$10,500.00Ïcheck€written€to€Dunn€from€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€Meltonððs€Case€tractor€that€wereÏto€be€applied€toward€the€purchase€of€the€John€Deere€tractor€in€dispute.€€Conversely,ÏDunn€maintains€that€the€Meltonððs€check€was€to€cover€losses€sustained€by€the€men€inÏthe€commodities€market.€€Dunn€produced€numerous€other€checks€that€he€had€writtenÏfor€repairs€and€tractor€parts.€€Also,€Dunn€produced€copies€of€his€IRS€tax€returnÏdepreciation€schedules€for€1979„1986,€which€all€noted€a€John€Deere€4440€tractor.€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€tractor,€Dunn€asserts€ownership€over€a€planter€in€MeltonððsÏpossession.€€Melton€asserts€that€Dunn€produced€no€evidence€of€his€ownership€of€theÏplanter€in€question.€€Dunn€admits€that€he€had€no€documents€evidencing€his€title€to€thatÏimplement.€€However,€Dunn€did€submit€IRS€tax€return€depreciation€schedules€forÏ1980„1986€which€indicated€that€a€planter€was€being€depreciated.€€Mr.€Melton€failed€toÏproduce€any€evidence€or€documents€which€indicated€that€he€had€any€interest€in€saidÏplanter.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€find€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€awarding€possessionÍof€the€tractor€and€planter€to€Mr.€Dunn.€€€ÌÌà àFinally,€Mr.€Melton€asserts€that€Dunn€failed€to€give€him€adequate€notice€of€theÏtermination€of€the€farm€lease.€€The€common€law€requires€six€monthsðð€notice€prior€to€theÏtermination€of€a€lease€for€a€tenant€holding€over€from€year€to€year.€€òòBuchanan€v.ÏJohnsonóó,€595€S.W.2d€827,€831€(Tenn.€App.€1979);€see€also,€òòSmith€v.€Holtóó,€193€S.W.2dÏ100,€102€(Tenn.€App.€1945).€€In€the€instant€case,€Mr.€Melton€presented€no€proofÏregarding€the€terms€of€the€agreement€with€Vernon€Dunn,€so€it€is€not€known€whether€Mr.ÏMelton€was€a€contract€tenant€or€a€hold„over€tenant.€€Dunn€wrote€Mr.€Melton€a€letterÏdirecting€him€to€cease€all€operations€upon€and€benefit€from€Dunnððs€land€as€ofÏDecember€31,€1995,€and€Mr.€Melton€testified€that€he€received€said€letter€in€SeptemberÏ1995.€Such€notice€would€be€quite€sufficient€for€a€lease€beginning€in€the€spring.€€UponÏconsideration€of€the€evidence€proffered,€we€find€that€Dunn€gave€Melton€adequateÏnotice€so€as€to€warrant€termination€of€the€lease.€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€CostsÏare€adjudged€against€Husband.€€€€€€€€€ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì