ÿWPCØ :YYöqŒ„®zº“?BrÉM³k,Ñ%w?Lq»÷çg½‚!¡W}%óþ‰<îá/Òað[R„‚Š.UŠ÷MuŒi§ˆÃÁ¼áûH Gž;¸pŠŽ_yÆêUê9\Ï$ƒ°šË[a2-Ÿò„t΀ó¾pC£X™”ˆ°ò¯u+°n³]6#ƳàÀÄÈÀË_zb)BŠe|£º˜tÈÌ ¹"L±HƒGÛ(ا|iœ7dù3ÿ‚ú³ê¡|ˆ ù¥ ¶$ìÑÚi‚G‰ŽØ‚ñIìäÕ?ÈÈ–(9×î'Sy!YM\Ùl3lª]॓sŠO•t þ®Ó¶¹÷]þ<?AüTäÐ’Â|lÛ!««匙wòD 粿‚¡cC áût#E+k$¦÷Îy3)‡A÷òÓꑯ¨CÇÚØ'î¾}Ȳ}Q¶,&0ÙMÍOñ)TŒ¨üž¥¢T#‹Q{`¹"º¯z( ¯Å\Gô’u ×¤þÜÏý-Í–+ƒûE`8Š+ôÝ@¨ŽþFïOV˜®êsžäëùLϲØY¿ aÅèÁ´økD^ ‘ç4ö3Nžùì ¾yêZâÿ/8œ]²l×™ç%ý 2æ·±ò&<¶€U‘U,¹ö\Ãs«&W`4@T 0(c‹w“—UN™ 0lç 0DS m—#!®NÏ ^ Ñ 1‡Ý UNd 0c² UB W 1u_ 72Ô V 1‡\ U:ã ã UB %_eeU@eeeeeeeee B¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ AQÂÆ 0DÙ 0D 0Daa D3¥tpO'ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0ó›'L 05¨CEKQW]cioAutoList11.A.1.1.1.1.1.1.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àô\  `*Times New RomanTT ##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) LÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X]‘XXXÔÔ€èvtçXX]‘ÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€.…çèvtÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€13,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX öÝ ƒúÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ  ÐÒܰҀ€Ô€Xñ©XXXÔÔ€&9l %XXñ©ÔIn€the€course€of€the€trial€below,€the€Trial€Judge€asked€the€wifeððs€attorney€if€he€had€ever€heard€ofÐ Š‚ Ðrehabilitative€alimony,€and€the€attorney€responded€that€he€had.€€The€Trial€Judge€then€observed,€ð ðIÐ jb Ðbelieve€thatððs€where€we€are€in€Tennessee€now.ðð€€Ð B : Ð(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€ÙÖXXdêdÈ8ÑÔ€X03XXXÔÔ€ŠD€‹XX03ÔÔ_Ô€€€€à@M M ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜ Žtt¨¦Ð Wvßà@44%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆà œ àà ô àÐ   Ðó óà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àÌÌÌÌÌGLORIA€GEIGER€NEUENSCHWANDER,)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9903„CH„00120Ìà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à€€€€€)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à0 < àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à€€€€€)€KNOX€CHANCERYÐ  ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à€€€€€)Ìvs.à0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àà0<ä (#ä (#àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à€€€€€)€HON.€WILLIAM€M.€DENDER,Ð  ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à€€€€€)€CHANCELLOR€BY€DESIGNATIONÌROY€PATRICK€NEUENSCHWANDER,€€€€)€Ìà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à€€€€€)€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDÌà 4 àDefendant„Appellee.à0 ” àà0ì”(#”(#à€€€€€)€IN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDÐ ì(#ì(# ÐÌÌÌL.€CAESAR€STAIR,€III,€BERNSTEIN,€STAIR€&€McADAMS,€LLP,€Knoxville,€forÏPlaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌWILLIAM€W.€JONES,€THE€JONES€FIRM,€Knoxville,€for€Defendant„Appellee.ÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  " ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àÔ‡ŠD€‹‹ŠD€ÔIn€this€divorce€action,€the€Trial€Court€granted€a€divorce€to€the€wife,Ð  (!! Ðordered€the€marital€residence€sold,€and€divided€the€marital€property€almost€equally.ÏThe€wife€was€awarded€$3,000.00€per€month€rehabilitative€alimony€for€four€years,€andÏattorneyððs€fees€of€$5,000.00.€€The€husbandððs€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€judgmentÏto€reflect€the€changed€bank€account€balances€was€sustained,€and€wife€has€appealedÏfrom€the€final€Judgment€and€the€Order€on€the€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€review€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€of€fact€òòde€novoóó€with€aÐ  4-- Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€No€presumption€of€correctnessÏattaches€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusions€of€law.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€wife€insists€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€award€of€rehabilitativeÐ  :33ý Ðalimony.€Our€statutory€Ô#†ŠÓöˆˆŠÓö #ÔÔ‡ŠÓöˆˆŠÓöÔòòóóscheme€regarding€awards€of€alimony€is€set€forth€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð36„Ð  ÐÔ_Ô5„101(d)(1).€€While€the€statute€makes€clear€there€is€a€preference€for€rehabilitativeÐ   Ðalimony,€courts€may€grant€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€where€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible.€€Ð   ÐòòLong€v.€Longóó,€968€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€most€important€factors€to€consider€in€an€award€of€alimony€are€needÐ  Ðand€ability€to€pay.€€òòFord€v.€Fordóó,€952€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòLongóó.€Ð   ÐFurther,€the€party€obtaining€the€divorce€should€not€be€put€in€a€worse€financialÐ   Ðcondition€than€she€was€before€the€opposite€partyððs€misconduct€caused€the€divorce.€Ð  ÐòòLongóó.€€Alimony€is€not€meant€to€provide€a€former€spouse€with€total€financial€ease,€butÐ  Ðshould€be€awarded€ð ðin€such€a€way€that€the€spouses€approach€equity.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€294.€€€Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€partiesðð€tax€returns€for€the€past€six€years€demonstrated€thatÐ  Ðhusbandððs€average€yearly€total€income€was€approximately€$195,000.€€Wife€last€earnedÐ  Ð$14,000€per€year€as€a€teacher€in€1986,€but€husband€argues€that€her€earnings€would€beÐ  Ðgreater€now.€€€Ð ! Ðà 4 àà Œ àAssuming,€as€the€husband€argues,€that€the€wife€could€resume€full„timeÐ # Ðemployment€as€a€teacher€in€Knox€County€schools€with€a€gross€yearly€income€ofÐ % Ð$25,056.00,€that€amount€would€fall€short€of€the€wifeððs€needs€as€established€at€trial.€Ð '  ÐAccordingly,€there€is€no€question€that€the€wife€is€economically€disadvantaged,€asÐ )"" Ðcompared€to€the€husband,€and€would€not€achieve€a€standard€of€living€to€which€she€wasÐ +$$ Ðaccustomed€during€this€twenty„six€year€marriage.Ð -&& Ðà 4 àà Œ àMoreover,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð36„5„101(d)(1)(K),€it€is€proper€toÐ /(( Ðconsider€that€husband€is€at€fault€in€this€divorce€due€to€his€extramarital€affairs.€€Ð 1** Ðà 4 àà Œ àWith€the€need€for€alimony€established,€the€issue€is€whether€the€wife€canÐ 3,, Ðbe€rehabilitated.€€Pursuant€to€the€teachings€of€òòFord€óóand€òòLongóó€and€other€cases€dealingÐ 5.. Ðwith€this€issue,€it€is€improper€to€award€rehabilitative€alimony€where€rehabilitation€isÐ 700 Ðnot€feasible.€€These€cases€deal€with€situations€where€one€spouse€is€so€economicallyÐ 922 Ðdisadvantaged€when€compared€with€the€other,€that€the€spouses€could€not€beÐ  Ðeconomically€rehabilitated.€€Similarly€here,€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible€because€of€theÐ   Ðhuge€disparity€between€the€partiesðð€earning€capacities,€and€we€conclude€that€theÐ   Ðalimony€award€should€be€òòin€futuroóó,€rather€than€rehabilitative.Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€trial€judge€seemed€to€believe€that€he€could€not€award€periodicÐ  Ðalimony,€stating€that€to€do€so€would€be€ð ðcontrary€to€the€law€in€Tennessee.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ   ÐCourt€made€no€finding€regarding€the€wifeððs€ability€to€be€rehabilitated,€except€to€sayÐ   Ðthat€ð ðno€one€has€the€right€to€sit€down€and€not€do€anythingðð€and€the€wife€ð ðneeds€toÐ  Ðwork€and€make€her€own€livingðð.€€These€observations€are€not€a€finding€of€fact€that€theÐ  Ðwife€can€be€economically€rehabilitated.€€Moreover,€such€a€finding€would€be€againstÐ  Ðthe€weight€of€the€evidence.€€The€wife€is€nearly€50€years€old,€has€a€teaching€certificate,Ð  Ðand€six€years€experience€in€teaching€the€fourth€grade.€€While€she€can€earn€income,€andÐ  Ðshould,€such€a€level€of€income€will€not€be€sufficient€to€meet€her€needs.€€Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àNext,€the€wife€argues€that€it€is€improper€for€the€Trial€Court€to€reduce€theÐ ! Ðmonthly€expenses€listed€in€her€affidavit,€when€setting€her€òòPendente€Lite€óósupport.€Ð # ÐòòPendente€Liteóó€support€is€within€the€Trial€courtððs€discretion,€and€we€find€no€evidenceÐ % Ðthat€the€Trial€Court€in€this€case€abused€that€discretion.€€òòBrock€v.€Brockóó,€941€S.W.2dÐ '  Ð896€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€Ð )"" Ðà 4 àà Œ àAs€to€the€property€division,€T.C.A.€ðð36„4„121(c)€sets€forth€factors€thatÐ +$$ Ðmust€be€considered€when€distributing€a€marital€estate€pursuant€to€divorce.€€The€law€isÐ -&& Ðalso€well€settled€that€property€division€does€not€have€to€be€mathematically€equal€to€beÐ /(( Ðequitable.€€òòEllis€v.€Ellisóó,€748€S.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€1988.)€€Ð 1** Ðà 4 àà Œ àOur€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€valuation€and€distribution€of€maritalÐ 3,, Ðproperty€is€òòde€novoóó€affording€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidenceÐ  Ðpreponderates€otherwise.€€Ô#†ŠÓöˆˆŠÓöø#ÔÔ‡Šaó ˆˆŠÓöÔT.R.A.P.€Rule€13(dÔ#†ŠÓöˆ ˆŠaó$#ÔÔ‡ŠÓöˆˆŠÓöÔ.)€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€has€broadÐ   Ðdiscretion€in€these€matters,€and€its€decision€is€given€great€weight€on€appeal.€€òòMondelliÐ 4 , Ðv.€Howardóó,€780€S.W.2d€769€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Ð 4 , Ðà 4 àà Œ àØ! !ØIn€this€case,€the€Trial€Court€distributed€the€partiesðð€property€almostÐ 4, Ðequally,€and€wife€concedes€that€she€was€given€nearly€49%€of€the€marital€estate.€€TheÐ 4,  Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€award.€€In€this€regard,€theÐ 4,  Ðwife€also€contends€the€marital€estate€should€not€have€been€ordered€sold,€such€as€she€isÐ 4, Ðbeing€forced€from€her€home.€€On€this€point,€the€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion,€andÐ 4, Ðhere€the€Trial€Court€felt€that€the€only€way€to€equably€distribute€the€partiesðð€propertyÐ 4, Ðwas€to€order€the€house€sold€and€the€debt€on€the€house€satisfied.€€The€evidence€does€notÐ 4, Ðpreponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€ruling€that€the€house€be€sold€in€order€toÐ 4, Ðeffectuate€an€equitable€division,€especially€since€the€wife€did€not€demonstrate€a€realÐ 4, Ðneed€to€retain€that€property.€Ð 4!, Ðà 4 àà Œ àFinally,€after€the€Final€Judgment€of€Divorce€was€entered,€the€husbandÐ 4#, Ðfiled€a€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Final€Judgment,€based€upon€Rules€59€and€60€ofÐ 4%, Ðthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€Trial€Court,€upon€hearing€the€motion,Ð 4',  Ðallowed€the€husband€to€present€affidavits€from€himself€and€a€bank€officer€withÐ 4),"" Ðstatements€attached€showing€the€balances€in€the€accounts€in€January€1999,€and€alsoÐ 4+,$$ Ðallowed€the€husband€to€testify€regarding€these€accounts.€€The€wifeððs€counsel€objectedÐ 4-,&& Ðto€the€motion€evidence.€€The€husband€testified€that€the€balances€as€of€January€1999Ð 4/,(( Ðwere€different€than€what€was€reflected€on€Trial€Exhibit€#6,€and€that€the€balances€wereÐ 41,** Ðon€the€bank€statements€which€were€sent€to€his€office€every€month.€€Husband€did€notÐ 43,,, Ðtestify,€however,€that€he€had€never€looked€at€the€statements€before,€had€not€had€accessÐ 45,.. Ðto€them€during€the€entire€period,€had€never€reviewed€Trial€Exhibit€6,€or€advance€anyÐ 47,00 Ðother€reason€why€he€had€failed€to€object€to€the€values€at€trial.€€Ð 49,22 Ðà 4 àà Œ àHusbandððs€Motion€based€upon€both€Rule€59€and€Rule€60€of€theÐ  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€did€not€specify€the€grounds€upon€which€reliefÐ   Ðshould€be€granted.€Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€language€of€T.R.C.P.€59.04€provides€that€a€ð ðmotion€to€alter€orÐ   Ðamend€a€judgment€shall€be€filed€and€served€within€thirty€(30)€days€after€the€entry€ofÐ  Ðthe€judgment.ðð€€And€ð ðthe€purpose€of€T.R.C.P.€59€motions€is€to€prevent€unnecessaryÐ   Ðappeals€by€providing€trial€courts€with€an€opportunity€to€correct€errors€before€aÐ   Ðjudgment€becomes€final.ðð€€òòBradley€v.€McLeodóó,€984€S.W.2d€929€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð  Ð1998).€€The€Court€further€explained:Ð  ÐÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motions€may€be€granted€(1)€when€theÐ  Ðcontrolling€law€changes€before€the€judgment€becomes€final,€(2)Ð  Ðwhen€previously€unavailable€evidence€becomes€available,€or€(3)Ð  Ðwhen,€for€sui€generis€reasons,€a€judgment€should€be€amended€toÐ  Ðcorrect€a€clear€error€of€law€or€to€prevent€injustice.€€They€shouldÐ  Ðnot,€however,€be€granted€if€they€are€simply€seeking€to€relitigateÐ  Ðmatters€that€have€already€been€adjudicated.ÐŒ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓ¿1Óòòà 4 àà Œ àóóTypically,€T.R.C.P.€Rule€59€is€used€to€present€newly€discoveredÐ ! Ðevidence€in€order€to€attempt€to€reverse€a€grant€of€judgment.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€óó€òòBradley;€Ð # ÐCollins€v.€Greene€County€Bankóó,€916€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Ð % Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€husband€cannot€prevail€on€the€ground€that€the€evidence€was€newlyÐ '  Ðdiscovered,€because€the€bank€statements€were€in€his€possession€during€the€entireÐ )"" Ðperiod€the€litigation€was€pending,€as€he€so€testified.€€Husband€has€not€and€cannotÐ +$$ Ðassert€that€there€has€been€any€change€in€the€controlling€law.€€Thus,€his€only€potentialÐ -&& Ðargument€must€be€based€upon€the€third€ground€listed€above,€i.e.,€to€prevent€injustice.€ItÐ /(( Ðis€not€appropriate€for€the€husband€to€rely€upon€a€rule€established€to€ð ðprevent€injusticeððÐ 1** Ðand€ð ðunnecessary€appealsðð,€when€he€could€have€easily€detected€the€error€before€theÐ 3,, Ðjudgment€was€ever€rendered.€€He€is,€in€fact,€seeking€to€relitigate€the€propertyÐ 5.. Ðsettlement€issue.€€In€this€regard€òòsee€Seay€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€654€S.W.2d€397,€400Ð 700 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983),€Likewise,€T.R.C.P.€60€does€not€establish€a€basis€for€relief€forÐ 922 Ðthe€husband.€€The€husbandððs€motion€was€filed€on€the€30òòthóó€day€after€the€judgment€wasÐ  Ðentered,€and€the€judgment€had€not€become€final.€€òòSee€Campbell€v.€Archeróó,€555€S.W.2dÐ   Ð110€(Tenn.€1977).€€Moreover,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€is€ð ðnot€for€use€by€a€party€that€isÐ   Ðmerely€dissatisfied€with€the€results€of€his€case.ðð€€òòNCNB€Nat.€Bank€of€North€CarolinaÐ   Ðv.€Thrailkillóó,€856€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Under€T.R.C.P.€60.02(1)Ð  Ðregarding€mistake€or€excusable€neglect,€the€courts€have€made€it€clear€that€ð ðmereÐ   Ðnegligence€or€inattention€of€a€party€is€no€ground€for€vacating€a€judgment€against€him.€Ð   ÐCarelessness€is€not€synonymous€with€excusable€neglect.ðð€òòThrailkillóó,€quoting€òòFoodÐ  ÐLion€v.€Washington€County€Beer€Bd.óó,€700€S.W.2d€893,€896€(Tenn.€1985).€€Also,€theÐ  Ðcourts€have€made€clear€that€the€standards€of€T.R.C.P.€60.02(5)€ð ðare€more€demandingÐ  Ðthan€those€applicable€to€the€other€grounds€for€[Rule]€60.02€relief.€€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ  ÐCivil€Procedure€60.02(5)€is€intended€to€provide€relief€only€in€the€most€unique,òòÐ  Ðóóexceptional€or€extraordinary€circumstances.€òò€Thrailkillóó,€at154.€€The€husband€has€failedÐ  Ðto€carry€the€burden€to€establish€a€basis€under€this€rule€for€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuncan€v.Ð ! ÐDuncanóó,€789€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€Ð # Ðà 4 àà Œ àWhile€this€Court€reviews€the€Trial€Courtððs€decision€on€this€issue€underÐ % Ðan€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€we€conclude€òòóóthe€Trial€Judge€abused€his€discretion€inÐ '  Ðgranting€the€motion,€since€husband€offered€no€proper€basis€to€support€the€reliefÐ )"" Ðsought.€€Accordingly,€the€Order€amending€the€Final€Judgment€of€Divorce€is€reversed.€€Ð +$$ Ðà 4 àà Œ àFinally,€the€wife€argues€that€she€should€have€been€awarded€additionalÐ -&& Ðattorneyððs€fees€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Ð /(( Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€Trial€Court.€Ð 1** ÐThe€òòóóproof€that€was€presented€regarding€the€wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees€was€the€wifeððsÐ 3,, Ðtestimony€that€she€had€already€paid€$9,000.00€to€her€attorney€from€marital€funds,€andÐ 5.. Ðher€attorneyððs€representation€to€the€court€that€an€additional€$17,000€in€fees€remainedÐ 700 Ðunpaid.€€Based€upon€the€property€that€the€wife€was€awarded€in€this€divorce,€thereÐ 922 Ðshould€be€sufficient€funds€from€which€to€pay€any€fees€due€to€her€lawyer.€€We€find€noÐ  Ðbasis€to€hold€that€the€Trial€Judge€abused€his€discretion€in€this€regard.Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àAccordingly,€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversedÐ   Ðin€part,€and€the€cause€remanded,€with€one„half€of€the€cost€on€appeal€assessed€to€RoyÐ   ÐPatrick€Neuenschwander,€and€one„half€of€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€GloriaÐ  ÐGeiger€Neuenschwander.Ð   ÐÓÓÔ#†ŠÓöˆˆŠÓöc$#ÔÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ð  ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________Ð   ÐHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.Ð ! ÐÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________Ð '  ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Sr.J.Ð (!! ÐÌ