WPC LMu'hȗĀ16[| pNˍwYF~$n'fk N0+Ⱥ{JO(p s nn& )YϘNN܂ٵQKx{XkLɛi\T3!Pc 5嘼Ʒ4ZƋ<4FF+)K6p@K pcq FR_#kc(שh#`KBCF+X yT4yDtY2xe0*YR PlVeQXs]AgO%>6YPY*Q 0{t7 e]nщH[);5)a89Q q(k$Ǚ;ѣo^wr'CI@(@#^Mh a>Y0&aVb&6Eb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 0 c~E 1UNj 1u 72- 1_ 72abyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 0 Bll 0 D3- D-` 0K AS+ 0 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0j+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularQ+:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. W R=$      1  Xs^X  _TheCourterredinfailingtoconsiderthewifestestimonyregardingtherentalvalueofthe  home.Tenn.R._Evid_.701.Seealso:AirlineConst.Inc.v.Barr,807S.W.2d247(Tenn.Ct.App.  1990).Thewifesopinionwasbaseduponherdiscussionwith_realtors_,andthehusbandgaveno  basisforhisopinionwhatsoever.TheCourtacceptedtheevidenceoftherealtorastotherental t value,andtheCourtsrulingregardingthewifestestimonyisharmlesserror.Theevidencedidnot ` preponderateagainsthisconclusion. L  - -(|G2=$ !.8Pdd d 8         0  X64X d(|3$ !.8Pdd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Pdd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\\d d8     _%"88lXXdd 8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE $ @44October16,2001Session 6 Xs^X%" #%"XXs^#  GLORIAG._NEUENSCHWANDER_Ԁv.ROYP._NEUENSCHWANDER_Xs^X%"   4 @M M  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  4 @b b No.1374261Hon.William_Dender_,Judge      `     h FILEDDECEMBER18,2001   @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200100306_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<f` A g   #%"XXs^l#Xs^X%"TrialJudgerefusedtorecuse,setamountofalimony,andestablishedrentalvalueofparties b property.OnappealwereversethechangeintheamountofalimonybytheTrialCourt,but N otherwiseaffirm. :  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPart, N ReversedinPart,andRemanded.  : HerschelPickensFranks#%"Xs^;#Xs^X.%",J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,#%"Xs^K#Xs^X.%"  _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,#%"Xs^#Xs^X.%"ԀJ.,joined.  _Ricky_ԀA.W.Curtis,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellant. ^ CharlesH.Child,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellee. 6!  @66' OPINION #%"XXs^#Xs^X%"Ԉ %"!%    ` Inthisdivorceaction,thisisthesecondappeal,andresultsfromtheTrialCourts )$) actionsuponremand.Theissuesraisedonappealbythewifeare: n*%*  (Uh83"3"  0  0` (#(#3 2Uh  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Whetherthetrialjudgeerredinrefusingtorecusehimself?3 ݌F,', (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (##2-(- (# (# #"3"  0  0` (#(#3 2Uh  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Whetherthetrialcourterredinchangingtheawardofalimony?3 [ ݌ (# (# Ќ  _ (5h88! !"3"  0  0` (#(#325h  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Whetherthetrialcourterredinrelyinguponexperttestimonywhichwas  speculative? 3>݌t (# (# Ќ  #%"XXs^ #Xs^X%"   ` Afterthiscasewasremanded,thehusbandfiledaPetitionforModificationasserting L  thatthisCourtsOpinionsimplyheldthattheawardofalimonyshouldbeinfuturoinnature,and 8  remandedthecasetotheTrialCourtforadeterminationoftheproperamount.Thewifethenfiled $ t aMotionforRecusal,statingthatduringatelephoneconferencebetweentheJudgeandtheattorneys  ` tosetthetimeforthehearing,thattheTrialCourtsstatementsindicatedthathehadprejudgedthe  L  issues,andwasalsocriticalofthisCourtsOpinion.  8     ` TheTrialCourtoverruledaMotionforRecusal,conductedanevidentiaryhearing,   andruledthatthewifesalimonyshouldbesetat$2,000.00permonth.Heorderedarefundtothe   husbandofanyamountspaidovertheamountsetduringthependencyoftheoriginalappeal.The   Courtalsoestablishedthefairmarketrentalvalueofthehomeat$2,200.00permonth,andthatthe   wifewouldberequiredtopayrentalvalueofthehomeaslongasshelivedthere,andthatthesame p wouldbechargedagainsthershareoftheequitywhenthehomewassold,inaccordancewiththe \ partiesagreement,whichhadbeenapprovedbytheCourt. H    ` ThelawinTennesseeiswellsettledthatlitigantsareentitledtothe coldneutrality  p ofanimpartialcourt._Kinard_Ԁv._Kinard_,986S.W.2d220,227(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Further, if  \ thepublicistomaintainconfidenceinthejudiciary,casesmustbetriedbyunprejudicedand H unbiasedjudges.Davisv.LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,38S.W.3d560,564(Tenn.2001).Towarrant 4 recusal,anybiasorprejudicemustcomefromanextrajudicialsource,andmustnotbebasedupon   whatthejudgeseesorhearsduringtheTrial.Wilsonv.Wilson,987S.W.2d555(Tenn.Ct.App.   1998).Thus,itwouldappearthattheJudgescommentsaboutthewife,andpriorcomments  regardingtheamountofalimony,weresimplyhisreactiontowhathehadseenandheardduringthe  priortrial.Aswehavepreviouslyobserved, itisbetterpracticeforaTrialJudge,sittingwithout  ajury,tomaintainatleasttheappearanceofimpartialitythroughoutthetrialandtoreserveany l indicationofhisopinionuntilhisfinaldecisionisannounced.Spainv.Connolly,606S.W.2d540, X  544(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).However,trialjudgesstrayfromthisadmonition,andsometimes D! commentontheevidencewhichisbeingorhasbeenpresented,butthisgenerallydoesnotwarrant 0"  recusal.Spain.ThefactthattheJudgemadecommentsbeforetheremandhearingalsodoesnot #l! warrantrecusal,becausetheJudgehadalreadyconductedthefirsttrialandheardalltheevidence $X" onthealimonyissue.Thus,anycommentsregardingthealimonyawardmadejustpriortothe $D # remandhearingwouldnotbea prejudgmentofthatissue.Wefindthisissuetobewithoutmerit. %0!$    ` ThecentralissueofthisappealiswhethertheTrialCourtwasempoweredtoalterthe '#& alimonyawardapprovedbythisCourt.ThehusbandconvincedtheTrialCourtthatthisCourt (#' merelyheldtheawardshouldbeinfuturoinnature,andthenremandedthecasefortheTrialCourt )$( todeterminetheproperamount. |*%)  h+&*    ` InourpriorOpinion,weconsideredthewifesneedsandthehusbandsabilitytopay,  andfoundthatthealimonyawardwasproper,basedupontheevidence,andfurtherweconcluded  that thealimonyawardshouldbeinfuturo,ratherthanrehabilitative.HadthisCourtdetermined  thatafurtherhearingontheamountwasrequired,wewouldhaveorderedtheTrialCourttohear t evidenceontheproperamountofalimonytobeawarded.Accordingly,theTrialCourtwasinerror ` inconductingafurtherhearingontheissueoftheamountofalimonyawardedtothewife,andwe L  reversetheTrialCourtsrulingandreinstatetheawardof$3,000.00permonthmadebythisCourt 8  inthepriorOpinion. $ t    ` ThewifearguesthattheTrialCourterredinrelyingonexperttestimonywhichwas  L  toospeculativetobeofassistanceregardingthefairmarketrentalvalueofthemaritalresidence.  8  TennesseeRulesofEvidence702and703statethatexperttestimonyshouldsubstantiallyassistthe $  trieroffactindeterminingafactinissue,andthatthefactsordatawhichtheexpertbasesanopinion   onshouldindicatetrustworthiness.Wifearguesthatthetestimonyoftherealtorpresentedbythe   husband,wastoospeculativetobeofassistance.Thewitnessstatedthatitwouldbehardtoproject   thevaluebacktoFebruary1999,butthathecouldgivea closeguess.Wifearguesthatthis   opinionwasnotwithina reasonabledegreeofcertaintyasrequiredbycaselaw. p      ` TheTrialCourthasbroaddiscretioninissuesinvolvingtheadmissibilityofevidence, H andtheTrialCourt'srulingonthesemattersmaybeoverturnedonlyifthisdiscretionwas arbitrarily 4 exercisedorabused._Rumsey_Ԁv.Countyof_Humphreys_,2000WL157473at*6(Tenn.2000).As  p withanyothervaluationissue,theTrialCourtsdeterminationofthefairmarketrentalvalue  \ involvesaquestionoffact,andassuchcomestothisCourtwithapresumptionofcorrectness. H Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). 4      ` Thewitnesstestifiedthathehadfifteenyearsexperienceinmanagingresidential   rentals,thathehadlookedatthehome,andthathehadcompareditwithothercurrentrental  propertiesinthevicinity.Hetestifiedthathistoricaldataregardingrentalswasnotgenerallykept  andwouldbedifficulttoobtain.Hefurthertestifiedthatitwouldbedifficulttoprojectthevalue  backtothetrialdatewithabsolutecertainty,hewasoftheopinionthattherentalvalueswouldbe l aboutthesamebecausethemarketconditionshadnotchangedverymuch.TheCourtacceptedthis X  testimonyregardingthefairmarketrentalvalue,andtherecorddoesnotsupportthecontentionthat D! theTrialCourtsdiscretionindoingsowas arbitrarilyexercisedorabused.Wefindthisissueto 0"  bewithoutmerit. #  1       #l! _  #%"XXs^t#Xs^X%"   ` TheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedinpart,reversedinpart,andthecause  remanded,withthecostoftheappealassessedtoRoyP.Neuenschwander.  0  0` (#(# ` (#` (#   #%"XXs^`/#Xs^X%"   `    `     h     _________________________  L     `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J.  8