WPC@ N8h(dwfh` `C} 3OrSiƦv~hGzu!θًj[1ahhȒߣmdw; J^gxeB sql3Q ieO%R{,5?KGr+] "1䐒I?h) fc{Ea3d4*|D WW}{ح]!1&'6|H630$9q\W،qI& cDefo%mdzStsw P ,JJ(H I*Œ_B긄oz†g|HC9 cp=􎂬hS8r q+VJL-x)\B ~pMh٨rH"& cuEMsP?u:c6Ɗr)Pgz SOl#!b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   M 0DNUNE333333333333333333333333b555555555555555555555555555555555555 0==== B(( 0E D3 D- 0KII AS 0 0DQ Ax) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular"q~):i+003|x 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.wptUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0  R>$      1  )   _ԀTherecordcontainstrialtestimonythat_Lightwave_Ԁisawhollyownedsubsidiaryof_Telescan_,Inc.Wifes  expertwitnessvaluedboth_Lightwave_Ԁand_Telescan_Ԁtogetherwhenconductinghisvaluationofthebusinesses.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2>$ !.8d d 8         0  j d(|3$ !.8d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ld d8     _  Z8oXXdd 8  @ [ZINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#Z[ #Ԉ &   December4,2000Session L XXZ #ZXX#STANWALLACE_MOSLEY_v.CARRIELYNN_MOSLEY_XXZ   " @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWashingtonCounty    @@No.6976JeanAnneStanley,Judge   FILEDDECEMBER20,2000   @@*AV) ` dE<m` A n  @@TTNo.E200001445_COA_ԄR3CV i  AV) ` dE<@` A A    Thisappealarisesfromabifurcatedtrialinadivorceaction.Afterhearingtheparties'proofinthe d secondphaseregardingalimony,childsupportanddivisionofproperty,theTrialCourtentereda P JudgmentwhichtheTrialCourtdesignatedas"final."TheJudgment,however,doesnotsatisfythe < requirementsofRule54.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.TheTrialCourtdidnot ( decidetheissueofwhetherexcessretainedearningsof_Telescan_,Inc.,acompanyinwhichStan  Wallace_Mosley_Ԁ("Husband")isa90%shareholder,shouldbeimputedasincometoHusband.The  JudgmentstatesthatthisissuewillbeconsideredbytheTrialCourtinthefuture.Husbandappeals  theJudgmentbutdoesnotraisetheissueof_Telescan_'sexcessretainedearnings.CarrieLynn_Mosley_  ("Wife")contendsthattheTrialCourterredbyfailingtoimputetheexcessretainedearningsof t _Telescan_ԀtoHusband'spersonalincomeforpurposesofcalculatinghischildsupportobligation.We ` dismissthisappealbecause#ZXX#XXZtheJudgmentisnotafinaljudgmentfromwhichanappeal_lies.___ L   Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealDismissed;caseRemanded.  #`"   #ZXz #XX.ZD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._, %$!% andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. &"& WilliamL.Francisco,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,StanWallace_Mosley_. (#( JudithFain,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,CarrieLynn_Checchi_Ԁ_Mosley_. p*%*  4-(-   OPINION #ZXX #XXZ  _#ZXX#XXZ  @% Background      ` ThePlaintiff,StanWallaceMosley( Husband),andtheDefendant,CarrieLynn h Mosley( Wife),weredivorcedinSeptember,1999,afterafouryearmarriage.Thepartiesagreed T  tobifurcatethetrialanddidnottrytheissuesofpermanentspousalsupport,childsupport,and @  propertydivisionuntilMay,2000.Atthattime,theTrialCourtenteredaJudgmentaddressingthese , | remainingissues.  h      ` Attrial,theTrialCourtwasaskedbyWifetodeterminewhetherexcessretained  @  earningsofTelescan,Inc.,abusinessinwhichHusbandisthe90%shareholder#ZXX#XXZ,shouldbeimputed ,  toHusbandspersonalincome.Wifesexpertwitness,acertifiedbusinessappraiser,testifiedthat   Telescanhadhighexcessretainedearnings,includingcashandaccountsreceivable,atthetimeof   thepartiesseparationanddivorce.Wifesexpertwitnesstestifiedthattheseretainedearningscould   havebeendistributedasincome.      ` InitsJudgment,theTrialCourtaddressedtheissueofTelescansexcessretained d earningsasfollows: P 8  8`   TheCourtfurtherfindsthatTelescan,Inc.,hashadexcessretained (x earningsbutwillnotatthistimeimputethoseasincometo d [Husband]buttheCourtwillconsiderthisissueagaininone(1)year P toseeiftherecontinuestobesimilarhighretainedearningswhichare < aboutTwoHundredTwentyThousandDollars($220,000)greater ( thanthenorminthetelecommunicationsindustry.` x` x @CC%******  8  8`   TheCourtfindsthatchildsupportshouldbecalculatedbasedupona t monthlygrossincomeofSixThousandFiveHundredSixtyfour `  Dollars($6,564.00).AtthistimetheCourtwillnotconsiderwhether L! ornottoincluderetainedearningsasadditionalincomebuttheCourt 8"  willlookatthisissueinthefuture.$#t!` x` x @CC%****** $L # 8  8`   Itis,therefore,ORDERED,ADJUDGEDANDDECREED:...&$"%` x` x 8  8`   That[Husband]provideto[Wife]updatedfinancialinformationsuch '#& and[sic]monthlyandannualbalancesheetsfromTelescan,Inc.and (#' LightwavefromnowthroughApril1,2001attheendofApril,2001, )$( [sic]sothattherecanbeadeterminationbythisCourt,if[Wife] *%) choosestorequestsame,whetheraportionofretainedearningsof p+&* TelescanIncorporatedshallalsobeconsideredasincometo  [Husband].Thefactthattherewillbeareviewin2001doesnot  preventthisOrderfrombeingaFinalOrderregardingtheissues  determinedherein.  #  1      t` x` x    ` HusbandappealstheportionsoftheTrialCourt'sJudgmentregardingvaluationof L  Telescan,divisionofmaritalproperty,andtheawardofrehabilitativealimonytoWife.Wife 8  disputestheTrialCourt'sfailuretoincludeinHusband'sincome,forpurposescalculatinghischild $ t supportobligation,theexcessretainedearningsofTelescan.  `    `  @))% Discussion   8     `    ` AlthoughneitherpartyraisestheissueofwhetherornottheJudgmentisfinal,we   holdthatthismatterisnotproperlybeforethisCourt.TheTrialCourtsJudgment,although   designatedas final,isnotafinaljudgmentfromwhichanappeallies.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(a).   Apartymaynotappealajudgmentifit adjudicatesfewerthanalltheclaimsortherightsand   liabilitiesoffewerthanallparties.Id.Rule54.02oftheTenneseeRulesofCivilProcedurecreates p aprocedurewherebyatrialcourtcancertifyajudgmentasfinalevenifthejudgmentdoesnot \ disposeofalloftheclaims.TheRule54.02requirements,inpertinentpart,areasfollows: H 8  8`   Whenmorethanoneclaimforreliefispresentinanaction...the  p court...maydirecttheentryofafinaljudgmentastooneormore  \ butfewerthanalloftheclaims...onlyuponanexpress H determinationthatthereisnojustreasonfordelayanduponan 4 expressdirectionfortheentryofjudgment.Intheabsenceofsuch   determinationanddirection,anyorderorotherformofdecision,   howeverdesignated,thatadjudicatesfewerthanalltheclaimsorthe  rightsandliabilitiesoffewerthanallthepartiesshallnotterminate  theactionastoanyoftheclaimsorparties,andtheorderorother  formofdecisionissubjecttorevisionatanytimebeforetheentryof l thejudgmentadjudicatingalltheclaimsandtherightsandliabilities X  ofalltheparties.D!` x` x    ` OurSupremeCourthasheldthatwhileRule54.02allowsatrialcourttomakea #l! judgmentappealableasofrightunderRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure#ZXX#XXZ,Rule $X" 54.02"requiresasanabsoluteprerequisitetoanappeal...atrialcourtto1)certifythat#ZXX(#XXZԀafinal $D # judgmentisenteredastooneormorebutfewerthanalloftheclaimscontainedinthelawsuit,and %0!$ 2)expresslydeterminethat thereisnojustreasonfordelay.Foxv.Fox,657S.W.2d747,749 &"% (Tenn.1983).Withoutthisfindingbythetrialcourt,theorderismerelyinterlocutoryandsubject '#& torevisionbythetrialcourtatanytimebeforealloftheclaimsareadjudicated.Id.(citingStidham (#' v.FickleHeirs,643S.W.2d324,325(Tenn.1982)).Afinalorderisonethat fullyandcompletely  definesthepartiesrightswithregardtotheissue,leavingnothingelseforthetrialcourttodo.  Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3d822,827(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(citationsomitted).     ` Inthismatter,thelanguageoftheJudgmentstatesthatitisa finaljudgment, ` providingthat [t]hefactthattherewillbeareviewin2001doesnotpreventthisOrderfrombeing L  aFinalOrderregardingtheissuesdeterminedherein.However,theJudgmentdoesnotcontainan 8  expressdeterminationbytheTrialCourtthat thereisnojustreasonfordelay.Tenn.R.Civ.P. $ t 54.02;Fox,657S.W.2dat749;seealsoBinghamv.KimberlyClark,Inc.,SupremeCourtof  ` Tennessee,SpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,AppealNo.02S019804CV00040,  L  1999WL167696,at*2,(1999Tenn.),filedMar.29,1999(holdingthatalthoughanorderstates  8  thatitis final,itdoesnotmeettherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.54.02whereit doesnotstate $  thatthereisnojustreasontodelayanappeal).      ` Moreover,therelationshipoftheexcessretainedearningsofTelescanandHusbands   personalincomeare inextricablylinkedtotheissueofchildsupportwhichWiferaisesonappeal.   Cranev.Sullivan,No.01A019207CH00287,1993WL15154,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.27, p 1993)(recognizingthat [p]iecemealappealsarenotfavored#ZXX(#XXZandholdingthatanorderwhichwas \ certifiedbythetrialcourtaccordingtoTenn.R.Civ.P.54wasnot,infact,afinaljudgmentdueto H thecloserelationshipbetweentheadjudicatedissueandthoseremainingissues).Thequestionof 4 whetherornottoincludetheexcessretainedearningsinHusbandsincomeforthepurposeof  p determiningchildsupportmustbeansweredbytheTrialCourtbeforeitproperlycandeterminethe  \ amountofchildsupporttobepaid.Accordingly,weholdthattheJudgmentinthismatterisnota H finaljudgmentfromwhichanappeallies.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.54.02;Tenn.R.App.P.3(a). 4 ̀@  % Conclusion       ` Thisappealisdismissed,andthismatterremandedforfinaladjudication,consistent  withthisOpinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedequallytotheAppellant,StanWallaceMosley,and  hissurety,andtotheAppellee,CarrieLynnMosley. p #ZXX2#XXZ   `     h     ___________________________________ & "%    `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE