ÿWPC*  ,Q×½è°"^ì"õ>¾+”ÍFËuú `“P}L¯õUî*;’-ð-œÁŠL Eú'cø‚ÍHÅ¡ia̧'ë½giÈ<zü5àˆ@îkÎÝ€f[ Ј/öÉ}7´›nÒüKOÆ:GB"6 ˹G7Úæ° ][î%>ÍØ/W}&8Yêޫǻɒ|îËaPØíšeŒO§ûå9’Óóg/®"Oõ¢Jráà‹_Yu#(ö«˜ dN.Ï›?¿Ë¿§gŸíÀ»¹0♜2¦Qȳ.!±­0×a ëkü3ñF­Ö¼ÿSÙ'CÙ½øÉΘ-Mµ‰Ûê+0SP´äœ…ç{¼€ø lae Ð(FT8;ý‰ïËôA .þÚ~µ«Ÿë²ÍŽ A…²D ®…/ßE kʯPHQjäQPoô^.ä ,Y©k A’•È‘º±+DÑ-È‹¼`ì“ükŒæ?Qœ~IA~&ˆ­Ž"ŽAúG.XʼnmBåU#4œMùîb8³,qÖinª–öiAÙ›$ŠÉŒ†%¼;F©nÿèï!DS9ødúž_yÒ8#VÝ ¿ ¯/€ >^ Sä¾;¥ëŒœ Ñ Ü6*# LU>W %• 0(›4Ã׿èU Nðn­> 0lë 0DW›L£:ïb) w@1 U:q q q q q q q q q q q q q B« AQÈ Æ 0Dß 0D# 0Dg g D/« « BÚ D3÷ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡Ö…#% x°°3|xÙ øÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÅXXXÔÔ€šVXXÅÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÅXšVÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT 0Ñ#€ m Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ- ù- ÇDÈIÉUÊË ÌDÍUÎÏÓ€Ù,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ*°,X‚Xìp’X°œX*ÓÑ7€ÛûXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ XÍhXXXÔÑ€.–ÑñÙññÏñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñÏññÙññÙññÙñMATHIVATHANI€MOHAN,à ¼ à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)ÌÓ9°,X‚XìDÈ‘X°,X‚Xìp’X9Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à ¼ à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð ˆØ Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)à  à01„A„01„9708„CV„00415Ð tÄ Ðv.à Ø àà ¼ à)Ð `° ÐñÙññÙñà Ø àà ¼ à)à  àDavidson€CircuitÐ L œ ÐñÙñßt€ )>.*jxÛ` `€€@Eû ` 8ttxP3K ð È tßñÙñRATHNASABAPATHY€MOHAN,à ¼ à)à  àNo.€96D„373Ð 8 ˆ Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à ¼ à)Ð  ` Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€ »'»X XÍhÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ „Ô  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€H.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X°,X‚XìDÈ‘X9ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€ XÍhX» »'ÔJERRY€L.€VANCEÐ T ¤ Ð6202€Charlotte€AvenueÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37209„3030Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌANDREW€M.€CATEÌWaynick€&€CateÌ211€Donelson€Pike,€Suite€2ÌP.€O.€Box€148058ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37214Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓVACATED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌñÏñÑ.–ÑÑ7€ Íh XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ.–ÑÑ7€ Íh XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ.–ÑÑ#€ m Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñÏñÔ€ »'»X XÍhÔÓ  Óà @ àà @ àWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ ;`69 ÐÑ.–ÑÑ7€ Íh XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑñÏñÑ.–ÑÑ7€ ] XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑñÏñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ‡ °jf°» »'ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#† »'»° °jf: #ÔÔ€ ¼§¼» »'ÔÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9Ó›Ó€Óà  àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€final€divorce€decree€of€RathnasabapathyÐ T¤ ÐMohan€("the€Husband")€and€Mathivathani€Mohan€("the€Wife")€which€was€enteredÏby€the€lower€court€in€December€of€1996.ò ò€€ó óThe€contested€divorce€action€initiatedÐ „ Ô Ðby€the€Wife€involved€issues€of€custody,€visitation,€child€support,€alimony,Ïclassification€and€division€of€marital€property,€and€apportionment€of€marital€debt.€ÏThis€appeal€by€the€Husband€emanates€from€the€fact€the€Husband€was€not€presentÏwhen€the€final€hearing€took€place.€€ÌÌà  àOn€December€12,€1996,€when€the€lower€court€heard€this€matter,€theÏHusband€was€in€India.€€Two€weeks€before€trial,€he€had€moved€for€a€continuanceÏciting€as€his€reason€a€family€emergency€which€required€overseas€travel.€€The€courtÏdenied€said€motion€stating€that€it€was€not€well€taken,€and€when€the€HusbandÏrenewed€the€continuance€motion€on€the€date€of€the€final€hearing,€it€was€againÏdenied.€€In€the€statement€of€evidence,€the€court€indicated€that€said€motion€wasÏdenied€because€the€Husband€had€been€present€at€the€pre„trial€conference€whichÏtook€place€on€November€19,€1996€and€because€the€Wife€already€possessed€her€airÏline€ticket€for€the€December€12€hearing.€€In€addition,€the€court€stated€that€thereÏwere€no€documents€to€verify€the€illness€of€the€Husband's€mother.€€ÌÌà  àAt€the€trial,€the€only€testimony€was€from€the€Wife.€€In€the€court'sÏstatement€of€evidence,€the€Wife's€testimony€was€summarized€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  à[She]€testified€that€the€[H]usband€was€living€and€working€inÏthe€United€States€at€the€time€of€the€separation€of€the€parties.ÏShe€had€to€flee€to€Colorado€to€be€with€her€relatives,€due€to€hisÏphysical€and€emotional€abuse€and€his€failure€to€help€supportÏthem.€€She€had€left€about€February€28,€1996.€€She€stated€thatÏthere€had€been€little€contact€with€the€minor€child.€€He€had€notÏcome€to€Colorado€to€visit€them€pursuant€to€the€order€of€theÏcourt.€€She€testified€that€the€child€was€afraid€of€his€father€andÏdid€not€want€to€go€to€India,€as€he€enjoyed€his€friends€in€theÏUnited€States.€€She€testified€that€his€mother€had€chronic€healthÏproblems,€including€diabetes€mellitus€with€ischemic€heartÏdisease,€resulting€in€periodic€hospitalizations.€€She€furtherÏtestified€that€the€[H]usband€€had€allowed€the€house€to€beÏforeclosed.€€They€had€much€expensive€furniture€in€the€house,Ïbut€he€had€allowed€all€the€furnishing€also€to€be€lost.€€TheÏ[W]ife€testified€that€the€[H]usband€had€told€her€that€theÐ Â95; Ðparties'€automobile€had€been€totally€destroyed€in€a€wreck,€soÏshe€was€unsure€where€the€car€was.€€She€did€not€have€the€car,Ïnor€the€furnishings.€€She€had€simply€left€in€February,€1996,Ïwhen€the€abuse€got€so€bad,€without€anything€but€her€and€theÏchild's€clothing.€€She€testified€finally€that€the€[H]usband€hadÏpaid€her€no€child€support€or€alimony.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓE"° ,X°4Œ ìp X°,X°4ì“XEÓà8  àà \ àAs€to€his€income,€the€[W]ife€testified€that€she€couldÏidentify€a€1994€joint€income€tax€return€showing€a€total€incomeÏof€$37,261€from€her€husband's€dental€income.€€He€wasÏcapable€of€being€a€practicing€dentist€and€earning€at€least€thisÏmuch€income.€€This€return€was€the€last€and€only€tax€returnÏreceived€from€[the€Husband].€.€.€.€[The€Wife€]€testified€that€sheÏwas€just€beginning€to€get€some€income,€but€that€it€wasÏdifficult€to€do€so€in€the€area€where€her€sister€lived.€ÏObviously,€she€had€some€difficulty€with€the€language€and€theÏculture.€€She€testified€that€she€needed€alimony€and€childÏsupport€to€survive.€€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà \ àFinally€[the€Wife€]€testified€that€she€would€allowÏcontact€with€her€son,€so€long€as€it€could€be€supervised€inÏColorado.€€At€this€point,€the€court€told€[the€Husband'sÏattorney]€that€[the€Husband]€would€not€be€allowed€to€take€theÏchild€out€of€the€United€States,€until€he€had€established€someÏtrust€relationship€with€the€court€such€as€following€the€courtÏorders€and€visiting€with€the€child€in€Colorado€for€a€period€ofÏtime.€€Since€[the€Husband]€apparently€claimed€that€he€was€notÏworking€as€a€dentist,€this€should€have€presented€no€problem.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÒÓIn€addition,€the€statement€of€the€evidence€reveals€certain€comments€by€theÏHusband's€attorney€who€was€present€at€the€hearing.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€knowÏexactly€how€serious€the€emergency€was€with€the€Husband's€mother€but€"that€[theÏHusband]€apparently€did€not€want€to€return€to€Tennessee€for€the€court€date."€€HeÏalso€stated€that€he€was€not€sure€whether€the€Husband€planned€to€stay€in€India€orÏreturn€to€the€United€States.€€In€the€statement€of€evidence,€the€court€stated€that€inÏrebuttal€to€the€Wife's€testimony€regarding€the€Husband's€income,€his€attorneyÏ"presented€earnings€for€the€first€four€months€of€1996,€but€upon€realizing€that€thisÏwould€represent€a€higher€income,€he€withdrew€the€materials."€ÌÌà  àPursuant€to€the€Final€Divorce€Decree,€the€Wife€was€awarded€all€maritalÏproperty,€custody€of€the€parties'€minor€child,€child€support€in€the€amount€of€œ$493›Ïper€month,€rehabilitative€alimony€in€the€initial€amount€of€$1007€per€month€andÏalimony€in€solido€in€the€amount€of€$2000€as€part€of€her€attorney€fees.€€Costs€of€theÏcause€were€assessed€against€the€Husband.€€Finally,€the€Husband€was€granted€aÏlimited€visitation€with€the€child€„„€one€week€per€year€in€Colorado€or€in€NashvilleÐ H9˜49 Ðif€the€Husband€lives€in€Nashville.€ÌÌà  àThe€Husband€filed€a€pro€se€Motion€for€New€Trial€in€which€he€allegedÏthat€he€left€the€country€because€his€mother€suffered€an€acute€heart€attack€and€wasÏhospitalized€in€India.€€The€court€denied€the€Husband's€request.€€The€Husband€thenÏfiled€a€Motion€to€Supplement€the€Record€which€the€court€granted.€€The€record€wasÏsupplemented€with€Husband's€affidavit€in€which€he€stated€that,€at€the€time€ofÏdivorce€hearing,€he€was€in€India€attending€to€his€seventy„one€year€old€mother€whoÏwas€hospitalized€for€a€two„month€period€due€to€a€serious€heart€condition.€€InÏaddition,€the€Husband€supplemented€the€record€with€a€hospital€record€whichÏshowed€that€a€Mrs.€Parvathi€stayed€at€the€Aysha€Hospital€in€Madras€from€OctoberÏ25,€1996€until€November€2,€1996€for€symptoms€involving€heart€trouble€andÏdiabetes.€€Another€supplemented€hospital€record€indicated€a€second€hospital€stayÏfrom€November€18,€1996€to€December€24,€1996.€€In€the€Husband's€supplementedÏaffidavit,€he€stated€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€not€being€present€at€the€hearing€asÏthe€court's€property€division€was€inequitable€and€the€court's€scheduled€visitationÏwith€the€parties'€child€was€inadequate.ÌÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Husband€has€raised€one€issue:€€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€his€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€We€review€the€court's€denial€for€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòò òEsstman€v.€Boydó óóó,€605€S.W.2d€237,€240€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $à( Ð1979).€€The€Husband€argues€first€that€since€the€only€testimony€at€trial€was€theÏWife's,€the€final€decree€should€be€treated€as€a€default€judgment.€€He€thus€assertsÏthat€according€to€Rule€55.02€of€the€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€€Procedure,€for€goodÏcause€shown,€the€court€may€set€aside€a€judgment€by€default€in€accordance€withÏRule€60.02€which€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€mayÏrelieve€a€party€or€the€party's€legal€representative€from€a€finalÏjudgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:€€(1)Ïmistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect;€.€.€.€orÏ(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€from€the€operation€of€theÏjudgment.€€€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€y%ÓThe€Husband€notes€that€the€supreme€court€has€cited€with€approval€the€distinctionÏmade€by€the€federal€courts€in€applying€Rule€60€to€default€judgments€indicatingÏthat€great€liberality€should€be€applied€in€granting€Rule€60€Motions€in€cases€ofÐ Ã84? Ðdefault€judgments€since€the€interests€of€justice€are€best€served€by€a€trial€on€theÏmerits€only€after€a€careful€study€of€all€relevant€evidence.€€òòò òTennessee€Dep't€ofÐ H˜ ÐHuman€Servs.€€v.€Barbeeó óóó,€689€S.W.2d€863,€866€(Tenn.€1985);€€òòò òsee€Nelson€v.Ð ã3 ÐSimpsonó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€483,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€("The€courts€shouldÐ ~ Î Ðconstrue€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02's€requirements€liberally€when€a€party€is€seekingÏrelief€from€a€default€judgment.")€€ÌÌà  àInitially,€we€reject€the€Husband's€characterization€of€the€decision€belowÏas€a€default€judgment.€€Rule€55.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏprovides€that€a€default€judgment€may€be€entered€"[w]hen€a€party€against€whom€aÏjudgment€for€affirmative€relief€is€sought€has€failed€to€plead€or€otherwise€defendÏas€provided€by€these€rules€and€that€fact€is€made€to€appear€by€affidavit€orÏotherwise."€€The€Husband€did€not€fail€to€plead€or€defend€in€this€case.€€TheÏHusband,€through€his€attorney,€filed€an€answer€and€counter€complaint€to€theÏWife's€complaint€for€divorce.€€He€filed€other€motions€including€a€motion€toÏcontinue€the€case€in€light€of€an€alleged€"family€emergency."€€The€Husband'sÏattorney€was€present€at€the€trial.€€The€statement€of€evidence€included€in€the€recordÏindicates€that€the€Husband's€attorney€presented€at€least€some€evidence€in€rebuttalÏand€argued€before€the€court€at€the€final€hearing.€€ÌÌà  àThus,€the€real€issue€here€is€whether€the€lower€court€erred€in€denying€theÏHusband€a€new€trial€in€light€of€the€fact€that€he€was€not€present€at€the€final€hearingÏfor€the€reasons€given.€€The€crux€of€the€Husband's€argument€that€the€lower€courtÏerred€in€denying€him€a€new€trial€is€that€the€court€should€have€granted€him€theÏcontinuance€that€his€attorney€twice€requested.€€He€contends€that,€without€œhis›Ïœtestimony,›€the€court€did€not€have€all€the€relevant€considerations€before€it€at€trial.€ÏMoreover,€œtaking€care€of€a€sick€parent€overseas›€œconstitutes›€a€justifiable€absenceÏand€warrants€œa›€continuance.€€€ÌÌà  àFrom€the€statement€of€evidence,€we€can€glean€the€court's€rationale€forÏdenying€the€Motion€for€Continuance.€€As€stated,€the€court€first€noted€that€theÏmotion€had€been€denied€because€the€Husband€had€been€present€at€the€pre„trialÏconference€and€because€the€Wife€already€had€her€airline€ticket€for€the€DecemberÏ12€hearing.€€In€addition,€the€court€stated€that€no€documents€verified€the€Husband'sÐ Q9¡4B Ðmother's€illness,€that€there€was€very€little€at€issue,€and€that€the€Husband€had€notÏfollowed€prior€orders€of€visitation.€€Finally,€the€court€stated€that€there€was€veryÏlittle€property€at€issue€due€to€a€foreclosure€on€the€house€and€€that€the€informationÏregarding€the€Husband's€income€had€been€presented€to€the€court€at€the€pretrialÏconference€where€the€Husband€was€present.€€ÌÌà  àAs€does€the€grant€of€a€new€trial,€"[t]he€granting€or€denial€of€a€motion€forÏa€continuance€lies€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€court."€òòò ò€Blake€v.€Plus€Mark,€Inc.ó óóó,Ð Ø(  Ð952€S.W.2d€413,€415€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòò òMoorehead€v.€Stateó óóó,€409€S.W.2d€357,Ð sà  Ð358€(Tenn.€1966)).€€€On€the€record€before€us,€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€in€not€granting€the€Husband€a€continuance.€€We€cannot€agreeÏwith€the€court's€assessment€that€there€was€little€at€issue.€€In€the€final€hearing,€theÏcourt€had€to€determine€the€grounds€for€divorce,€the€proper€parent€to€have€custodyÏof€the€minor€child,€the€appropriate€amount€of€child€support€and€alimony,€theÏclassification€and€division€of€marital€property€and€apportionment€of€marital€debt.€Ïœñ¿ñÌñ¿ñ›Ìà  àThe€law€is€clear€that€"in€order€to€show€an€abuse€of€discretion,€theÏplaintiff€must€show€some€prejudice€or€surprise€which€arises€from€the€trial€court'sÏfailure€to€grant€the€continuance."€€òòò òCommissioner€of€Dept.€of€Transp.€v.€Halló óóó,€635Ð f!¶$ ÐS.W.2d€110,€111€(Tenn.€1982)€(citing€òòò òBrady€v.€Stateó óóó,€584€S.W.2d€245€(Tenn.Ð #Q& ÐCrim.€App.1979)).€€The€prejudice€to€the€Husband€is€obvious€here.€€The€Husband'sÏown€testimony€is€no€doubt€the€best€evidence€he€has€in€this€case.€€Without€benefitÏof€this€testimony,€the€court€made€a€decision€which€greatly€impacted€the€Husband'sÏlife.€€The€Wife€received€custody€of€the€parties'€child€with€the€Husband€being€givenÏextremely€minimal€visitation.€€All€marital€property€was€awarded€the€Wife.€€SheÏwas€awarded€child€support,€and€alimony€and€attorneys€fees€without€considerationÏof€any€proof€from€the€Husband€himself€regarding€his€ability€to€pay.€€ÌÌà  àLastly,€we€dismiss€€the€court's€concern€about€the€Wife€having€alreadyÏpurchased€airline€tickets.€€As€the€Husband€asserts,€plane€tickets€are€generallyÏrefundable€or€transferable€and€if€the€Wife's€were€not,€the€Court€could€haveÏremedied€any€prejudice€to€the€Wife€by€requiring€the€Husband€to€purchase€newÏtickets.€€While€we€can€understand€the€court's€initial€problem€with€the€Husband'sÏfailure€to€present€proof€of€his€mother's€illness€with€his€motions€for€continuance,Ð T9¤4B Ðthe€fact€is€that€he€did€supplement€the€record€with€such€proof€for€our€review€onÏappeal.€€These€hospital€records€verifying€his€mother's€hospital€stays€along€with€theÏHusband's€affidavit€are€sufficient€to€convince€us€on€appeal€of€the€veracity€of€theÏHusband's€need€to€be€absent.€ÌÌœñ¼ññ¸ñÒ€°Òñ¸ñ›ñ¸ñÒ„°Òñ¸ññ¼ñ›à  àIn€light€of€the€significance€of€this€decision€to€both€parties€and€of€theÏprejudice€suffered€by€the€Husband€at€the€court's€decision€not€to€grant€aÏcontinuance€and€to€thereby€hold€the€trial€without€him,€we€conclude€that€the€lowerÏcourt€should€have€granted€the€Husband€a€new€trial.€€We€therefore€vacate€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€this€case€for€a€re„trial€on€the€merits.€€TheÏlower€court€is€directed€to€make€œsuch€orders€so›€that€the€Wife€is€not€œfinanciallyÏprejudiced›€by€œthe€continuance.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee.›ÌÌœñ½ñÌ›Ìñ½ññ¿ñ›ñ¿ñÌÌÓ€Óà  àà \ àà ¼ àñ¹ñà è àà @ àà ð àñ¹ññ¾ñà H! àà  # àñ¾ññÁñ¼à  àñÁññÁñà \ àñÁññ¾ñà ¼ àñ¾ñ________________________________ñ»ñ_ñ»ññºñ_ñºñÌà  àà \ àà ¼ àÔ€ X]X¼ ¼'ÔWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ ¸  ÐÌÌÌÌÌñÈñCONCUR:ÌñÈññÇññÆñpñÆññÇññÈñÌÌÌñÈññÄññÃñdisñÃññÄññËññÅñDISSENTING€OPINIONñÅñÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌñËññÌñÌñÉñÌÌñÉññÌññÊñCONCUR:ñÊññÉñÌñÉññÍñÌñÍñÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌñÎñDISSENTING€OPINIONÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌñÎñÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ