ÿWPCÙ „jÛpUðècUõèTËÚA‹ ’‚ëõ½…ý:è.™g߯7Mv‘Ïœm(.Î6•Ì.—ísJ‰1mÃ^fP–ˆZØü|Á|Gb™{¨M]Föx„W¢ÁëÞlÿìé‰Ú°í˜,æo{í4±Ü‘šìbA&!ÚB™5€ÿ""Ã|ìÌìTÒ{ ßÉÖó˜?ûÚ ¥Ä¤®I UÄ›Ÿè–CDZ¡v,Á'LY:IøXÌήfÜ#6¢Ão» ådnË—š¬z„šQ¿m:§ƒ«);˜ã‰äÚ~›½²lÖ²NóóèÚú#[£û(¨yøšF†17¨Ùå"ZËÓZôÒy9Ð3xùkŒäm»íä-: ÊæŽY„x!sÃh¦ô]€ùy9$EJáÀ¹£%´w=cUx„’~o+'ØK›mõO³*”²“û®®–@z3·¨Ð(ܸû”U0d¨‡¼ïâ f™9ú¡Žkj8 Ãç =ÞŸ¢˜·ªãSàúÅè1x×ÛWz3ó6(åcSÀ®¨VOÃ-[¼ñ¶Í4Óe‹{ –ésê²çyù˜YÎÓeÚFFE#Íʧ„y^œø$~dÈn QÌ/ ¬'~b#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN 0DO “ z ÒŽ ^ `wlú|4vÆŠÆPÆÆÜ¢N±³ mµEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌbÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ 0ëÖÖÖÖ BÁÁ 0¤Þ D3‚ D-µ 0Kââ AS-Æ€ 0¤F 0Dê A«.˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó wÝ ƒR¦W$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôªhò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Both€depositions€were€taken€after€the€trial€in€this€matter€below.€€The€deposition€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔCapertonÔ_Ô€was€takenÐ ° Ðon€February€12,€2003,€and€the€deposition€of€Charles€Cary€was€taken€on€February€19,€2003. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptBq1Ï U ðÝ ƒR¦W$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôªhò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€final€decree€did€not€contain€a€summary€of€the€evidence€presented€during€the€proceedings€below.€€If€noÐ ° Ðtranscript€of€the€evidence€was€made,€ð ðthe€appellant€shall€prepare€a€statement€of€the€evidence€or€proceedings€from€theÐ qÁ Ðbest€available€means,€including€the€appellantððs€recollection.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c)€(2003).€€6hö0ê:i¢Ø+00Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2¦W$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€œá»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôªhò»»Ô d(|3?#$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€œá»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?#$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€œá»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€œá»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼œá»»»ÔÑ8€£XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡îvÊœáÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼œá»îîvÊ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓSEPTEMBER€20,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡X£X»¼œáÔÌò òÔ#†¼œá»XX£õ#ÔRONALD€HUGH€PARCHMANòòóó€v.€BRENDA€PARCHMANòòóóÔ‡X£X»¼œáÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€58411€€€€€€Joe€C.€Morris,€ChancellorÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„01204„COA„R3„CVññ€„€Filed€November€17,€2004ññÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X:ZXXX£ÔThis€case€involves€the€validity€of€a€final€divorce€decree€entered€by€the€trial€court€which€incorporatedÐ V¦  Ðan€agreement€reached€by€the€parties€regarding€alimony€and€property€division.€€The€wifeÐ ? Ðsubsequently€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial,€or€in€the€alternative€to€alter€and€amend€the€judgment,Ð (x Ðalleging€that€the€final€divorce€decree€was€invalid.€€The€wife€alleged€that,€at€the€time€she€entered€intoÐ a Ðthe€agreement€with€her€husband,€she€was€not€mentally€competent.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€wifeððsÐ úJ Ðmotion.€€On€appeal,€the€wife€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€post„trial€motion,€as€wellÐ ã3 Ðas€in€its€division€of€marital€property€and€award€of€alimony€in€the€final€decree.€€For€the€reasonsÐ Ì Ðcontained€herein,€we€affirm.Ð µ ÐÔ#†X£XXX:Zi#ÔÔ#†¼œá»XX£n#ÔÔ‡X£X»¼œáÔÌÓ]ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed€andÐ pÀ ÐRemandedó óÐ Zª ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼œá»àX£I#ÔÔ‡X£X.¼œáÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ -} Ðand€òòDavid€r.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð f ÐÌM.€Scott€Smith,€Louis€W.€Ringger,€Jr.,€Jackson,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ è 8  ÐÌLloyd€R.€Tatum,€Henderson,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ º" " ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼œá»XX£8 #ÔÔ‡X£X»¼œáÔÐ Œ$Ü$ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼œá»XX£é #ÔÔ‡X£X»¼œáÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X:ZXXX£Ôà@ìàFacts€and€Procedural€Background€ˆÐ _&¯!& ÐÌó óà  àWe€begin€by€noting€that€we€are€presented€only€with€the€technical€record€and€two€depositionsÐ 3(ƒ#( Ðfiled€post„trial€for€review.€€Ronald€Hugh€Parchman€(ð ðHusbandðð)€apparently€married€BrendaÐ )l$) ÐParchman€(ð ðWifeðð)€in€1962,€and€the€couple€divorced€at€some€point€in€1973€or€1974.€€InÐ *U%* Ðapproximately€1975€or€1976,€Husband€and€Wife€remarried.€€Two€daughters€were€born€of€theÐ î*>&+ Ðmarriage.€One€daughter€died€during€the€marriage,€and€the€other€daughter€is€no€longer€a€minor.€Ð ×+'', Ðâ âÐ À,(-ý Ðà  àOn€March€30,€2001,€Husband€filed€a€Complaint€for€Absolute€Divorce€in€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ° Ðâ âof€Madison€County,€Tennessee,€alleging€irreconcilable€differences.€€Wife€filed€an€answer€to€theÐ ™é Ðcomplaint€and€included€her€counter„complaint€for€divorce€for€irreconcilable€differences€andÐ ‚Ò Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€On€September€17,€2002,€the€parties€met€at€the€office€of€WifeððsÐ k» Ðlawyer€to€negotiate€a€property€and€alimony€settlement.€€On€September€18,€2002,€the€late€ChancellorÐ T¤ ÐJoe€C.€Morris€entered€a€final€divorce€decree€incorporating€the€agreement€reached€by€the€parties€onÐ =  Ðthe€previous€day.€€The€decree€provided€for€the€distribution€of€the€marital€property€between€theÐ & v Ðparties,€instructed€Husband€to€pay€Wife€$48,630.50,€and€awarded€Wife€periodic€alimony€in€theÐ  _ Ðamount€of€$50.00€per€month€payable€until€Wife€dies,€remarries,€or€reaches€sixty„five€(65)€years€ofÐ ø H Ðage.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àOn€October€18,€2002,€Wife€filed€a€Motion€for€New€Trial€or€in€the€Alternative€Motion€toÐ ³  ÐAlter€or€Amend€Judgment€with€the€chancery€court.€€€Wife€alleged€that€when€she€entered€into€theÐ œì  Ðagreement€on€September€17,€2002,€she€did€not€clearly€understand€what€she€was€signing€and€herÐ …Õ  Ðattorney€at€the€time€pressured€her€into€accepting€the€agreement.€Wife€stated€that€when€she€acceptedÐ n¾  Ðthe€agreement€she€was€suffering€from€severe€depression€related€to€the€death€of€her€daughter€and€theÐ W§  Ðimpending€divorce.€€Wife€relayed€to€the€trial€court€how€this€prevented€her€from€understanding€whatÐ @ Ðshe€was€agreeing€to€and€from€making€an€informed,€rational€decision.€In€support€of€her€motion,€WifeÐ )y Ðsubmitted€a€letter€written€to€her€present€attorney€by€Dr.€Rebecca€Caperton€(ð ðDr.€Captertonðð),€aÐ b Ðclinical€psychologist€who€treated€Wife€during€the€divorce.€€The€letter€indicates€that€Wife€visited€Dr.Ð ûK ÐCapertonððs€office€on€October€14,€2002,€and€explained€to€Dr.€Caperton€that€she€had€signed€papersÐ ä4 Ðunder€pressure€and€without€fully€understanding€their€meaning.€€Dr.€Caperton€was€of€the€opinion€thatÐ Í Ðð ðher€depression€was€so€severe€at€the€time€she€became€divorced€that€she€was€incapable€of€makingÐ ¶ Ðclear,€competent,€well€thought€out€decisions€regarding€her€best€interest.ðð€€€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àOn€February€23,€2003,€the€chancellor€held€a€hearing€on€Wifeððs€motion.€€At€the€hearing,Ð qÁ ÐWifeððs€counsel€submitted€the€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Caperton€while€Husbandððs€counselÐ Zª Ðsubmitted€the€deposition€testimony€of€Charles€Cary€(ð ðMr.€Caryðð),€Wifeððs€attorney€at€the€time€of€theÐ C“ Ðnegotiations.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€chancellorððs€order€indicates€that€he€took€€took€both€depositions€under€advisementÐ ,| Ðbefore€issuing€an€order€on€April€11,€2003,€denying€Wifeððs€motion.€€Ð e ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€chancellorððs€ruling€on€her€motion,€Wife€filed€an€appeal€to€this€CourtÐ ç 7 Ðpresenting€the€following€issues€for€our€review:Ð Ð!   ÐÌI.à0  àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€Appellantððs€Motion€for€a€New€Trial€or€in€theÐ ¢#ò" ÐAlternative€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Judgment;€Ð‹$Û#(#(# ÐII.à0  àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€alimony€without€considering€the€criteria€in€sectionÐ t%Ä $ Ð36„5„101(d)(1)€of€the€Tennessee€Code;€Ð]&­!%(#(# ÐIII.à0  àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€approving€the€property€settlement€without€considering€theÐ F'–"& Ðâ âcriteria€in€section€36„4„121(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Code;€and€Ð/(#'(#(# ÐIV.à0  àWhether€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€her€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€during€the€divorceÐ ° Ðâ âproceedings€and€on€appeal.Йé(#(# ÐÌIn€addition€to€the€issues€raised€by€Wife,€Husband€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review€asÐ k» Ðwell:Ð T¤ ÐÌV.à0  àWhether€the€record€presented€to€this€Court€on€appeal€precludes€this€Court€from€consideringÐ & v Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€determinations€relating€to€property€division€and€alimony;Ð  _ Ðand€à ` àÐø H(#(# ÐVI.à0  àWhether€the€Appellee€is€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€pursuant€to€section€27„1„122€of€theÐ á 1  ÐTennessee€Code€due€to€the€Appellantððs€filing€of€a€frivolous€appeal.€€ÐÊ  (#(# ÐÌFor€the€reasons€contained€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€in€this€matter€and€remand€forÐ œì  Ðfurther€action€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð …Õ  ÐÌÓ  Óò òAlimony€and€Property€DistributionÐ W§  ÐÌó óÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€Generally€we€review€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€related€to€awards€of€alimony€inÐ +{ Ðdivorce€cases€ð ðòòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÐ d Ðcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð ýM ÐP.€13(d)€(2003);€òòsee€also€Crabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€16€S.W.3d€356,€360€(Tenn.€2000);€òòKinard€v.€Kinardóó,Ð æ6 Ð986€S.W.2d€220,€231€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€We€review€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€òòde€novoóóÐ Ï Ðgiving€no€presumption€of€correctness€to€those€findings.€€òòS.€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€County€Bd.Ð ¸ Ðof€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð ¡ñ ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€the€factual€findings€made€by€the€trial€court,€we€are€constrained€to€consideringÐ sà Ðð ðthose€facts€established€by€the€evidence€in€the€trial€court€and€set€forth€in€the€record.ðð€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð \¬ ÐP.€13(c)€(2003).€€In€reviewing€the€final€divorce€decree,€we€note€that€the€chancellor€specifically€statesÐ E• Ðthat,€in€addition€to€the€pleadings,€he€entertained€the€testimony€of€witnesses€in€open€court€to€reachÐ .~ Ðhis€decision.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Regarding€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€related€to€alimony€and€property€division,€theÐ g ÐAppellant€has€submitted€only€the€technical€record€for€our€review€and€failed€to€submit€a€transcriptÐ  P Ðof€the€evidence€presented€to€the€court€below.Ð é 9 ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€place€the€responsibility€primarily€with€theÐ »" ! Ðappellant€to€ensure€that€a€proper€record,€including€a€transcript€of€the€evidence,€is€filed€in€this€Court.€Ð ¤#ô" ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24€(2003);€òòsee€also€McDonald€v.€Onohóó,€772€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $Ý# Ð1989).€€ð ðThis€court€cannot€review€the€facts€òòde€novoóó€without€an€appellate€record€containing€the€facts,Ð v%Æ $ Ðand€therefore,€we€must€assume€that€the€record,€had€it€been€preserved,€would€have€containedÐ _&¯!% Ðsufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.ðð€€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,Ð H'˜"& Ð783€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€also€Threadgill€v.€Threadgillóó,€740€S.W.2d€419,Ð 1(#' Ð426€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(citing€òòJ.C.€Bradford€&€Co.€v.€Martin€Constr.€Co.óó,€576€S.W.2d€586,€587Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1979)).€€We€agree€with€the€Appellee€that€the€record€presented€on€appeal€prevents€us€fromÐ ™é Ðreviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€regarding€alimony€and€property€division.€€Therefore,€we€affirmÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€trial€courtððs€decisions€regarding€these€matters.Ð k» ÐÌÓ  Óò òAppellantððs€Post„Trial€Motionó óÐ =  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€sole€justification€put€forth€by€Wife€in€her€post„trial€motion€was€her€mental€state€at€theÐ  ` Ðtime€she€entered€into€the€divorce€decree.€€Yet,€in€her€brief,€Wife€argues€that€an€abuse€of€discretionÐ ù I Ðexists€in€the€chancery€courtððs€initial€decision€regarding€the€award€of€alimony€and€property€settlementÐ â 2  Ðwhich,€according€to€Wife,€taints€the€subsequent€decision€to€deny€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€to€alterÐ Ë   Ðor€amend€a€judgment.€€Wife€also€points€out€that€a€letter€was€sent€to€Husbandððs€counsel€in€FebruaryÐ ´  Ðof€2002€by€her€treating€physician€notifying€Husband€of€Wifeððs€delicate€mental€state.€Ð í  ÐÌà  àDr.€Caperton€began€seeing€Wife€as€a€patient€on€September€6,€2001,€shortly€after€HusbandÐ o¿  Ðfiled€for€divorce,€and€spoke€with€Wife€five€other€times,€with€the€last€visit€occurring€on€October€11,Ð X¨  Ð2002.€€Wifeððs€attorney€at€the€time€referred€her€to€Dr.€Caperton€to€discuss€her€depression.€€Dr.Ð A‘ ÐCaperton€stated€that€she€gleaned€from€their€conversations€that€Wife€suffered€from€depression€relatedÐ *z Ðto€her€daughterððs€death€and€the€breakup€of€her€marriage.€€During€their€visit€on€October€11,€2002,Ð c ÐWife€related€to€Dr.€Caperton€that€she€had€signed€the€agreement€on€September€17,€2002,€without€fullyÐ üL Ðunderstanding€what€she€was€doing.€€Dr.€Caperton€stated€that,€in€October€of€2002,€Wifeððs€mentalÐ å5 Ðcondition€was€ð ðhorribleðð€and€that€she€would€have€advised€against€Wife€making€any€major€decisionsÐ Î Ðduring€this€period€of€time.€€Originally,€Dr.€Caperton€admitted€she€was€skeptical€of€Wifeððs€story,€butÐ · Ðshe€stated€that€after€speaking€with€Wifeððs€attorney€she€came€to€believe€Wifeððs€version€of€events.€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àConversely,€Mr.€Caryððs€deposition€testimony€revealed€a€different€set€of€circumstances€on€theÐ r Ðday€Wife€signed€the€agreement.€€Mr.€Cary€began€representing€Wife€in€this€matter€in€May€of€2002,Ð [« Ðand€he€was€present€during€the€negotiations€on€September€17,€2002.€€According€to€Mr.€Cary,€theÐ D” Ðmeeting€lasted€seven€hours€and€he€described€Wifeððs€demeanor€as€follows:Ð -} ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓA.à ¸ àWe€started€off€in€this€conference€room€on€the€second€floor€ofÐ ÿO Ðmy€building€with€Ms.€Ann€Turner€Moore,€her€client€Mr.€Parchman,Ð è 8 Ðmyself,€and€Ms.€Parchman.€€They€were€on€one€side€of€the€table€andÐ Ñ!!  Ðwe€were€on€the€other.€€We€stayed€up€here€several€hours€and€wentÐ º" ! Ðthrough€a€schedule€of€all€of€their€marital€property€and€assets€and€gotÐ £#ó" Ðthem€at€least€together€to€agree€upon€the€values.€€Then€later,€when€weÐ Œ$Ü# Ðwerenððt€getting€anywhere,€we€separated€and€Ms.€Moore€stayed€upÐ u%Å $ Ðhere€with€her€client,€and€Ms.€Parchman€and€I€went€down€to€myÐ ^&®!% Ðoffice.€€Then€the€attorneys€would€shuttle€back€and€forth€between€theÐ G'—"& Ðrooms€and€bring€the€proposals€back€and€forth.€€Ð 0(€#' ÐQ.à0 ¸ àDuring€your€discussions€with€Ms.€Parchman€did€you€find€her€Ð)i$(¸ x¸ x Ðto€be€rational€or€irrational€that€day?Ð *R%) ÐA.à0 ¸ àOn€the€day€that€the€divorce€was€settled,€she€was€the€calmest€Ðë*;&*¸ x¸ x Ðand€the€most€rational€that€I€had€ever€observed€her.Ð Ô+$'+ ÐQ.à0 ¸ àDo€you€have€an€opinion€as€to€whether€or€not€she€understood€Ð°¸ x¸ x Ðthings€that€you€were€discussing€with€her€and€the€nature€of€theÐ ™é Ðsettlement€that€was€ultimately€reached€in€the€case?Ð ‚Ò ÐA.à0 ¸ àYes.€€She€understood€completely.€€She€participated€in€various€Ðk»¸ x¸ x Ðoffers.€€There€were€certain€things€that€she€wanted€that€I€told€her€sheÐ T¤ Ðwas€not€going€to€get,€such€as€attorney€fees.€€She€said€she€wanted€theÐ =  Ðcase€definitely€to€be€over€that€day.€€She€wanted€to€be€sure€that€sheÐ & v Ðmaintained€her€home,€that€that€was€the€most€important€thing€to€her.€Ð  _ ÐWe€went€through€several,€several€drafts,€at€least,€Iððd€say,€a€minimumÐ ø H Ðof€four€and€probably€more€proposals.€€She€was€advised€as€to€all€ofÐ á 1  Ðthose.€€When€the€case€was€finally€settled€and€the€decree€was€preparedÐ Ê   Ðin€my€office€that€day€and€both€attorneys€and€the€clients€signed€it,€sheÐ ³  Ðsaid€that€she€wished€sheððd€come€here€first,€that€she€was€satisfied.€€SheÐ œì  Ðhugged€me.€€She€hugged€my€secretary€who€did€the€work,€and€toldÐ …Õ  Ðeverybody€how€thankful€she€was€that€it€was€over.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌÓ °48ÓÓ °&8Óà  àThe€decision€as€to€whether€to€grant€a€motion€for€new€trial€or€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€aÐ @ Ðjudgment€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòEsstman€v.€Boydóó,€605€S.W.2d€237,€240Ð )y Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€We€will€affirm€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€unless€theÐ b Ðparty€seeking€the€motion€is€able€to€show€an€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSmithÐ ûK Ðv.€Smithóó,€No.€E2003„02877„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€690,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.Ð ä4 Ð25,€2004).€€Likewise,€we€must€also€affirm€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€aÐ Í Ðjudgment€unless€the€movant€is€able€to€demonstrate€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€òòStovallÐ ¶ Ðv.€Clarkeóó,€113€S.W.3d€715,€721€(Tenn.€2003).€€ð ðA€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€only€when€itÐ Ÿï Ðððapplies€an€incorrect€legal€standard,€or€reaches€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€thatÐ ˆØ Ðcauses€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.ðððð€òòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001)Ð qÁ Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)).€€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€governing€motions€for€a€new€trial€and€motions€toÐ ,| Ðalter€or€amend€a€judgment€do€not€provide€specific€grounds€for€granting€such€motions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð e ÐCiv.€P.€59.02€(2003);€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€(2003).€€This€Court€has€indicated€that€granting€Rule€59Ð þN Ðmotions€may€be€appropriate:Ð ç 7 ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò(1)€when€the€controlling€law€changes€before€a€judgment€becomesÐ ¹" ! Ðfinal,€(2)€when€previously€unavailable€evidence€becomes€available,Ð ¢#ò" Ð(3)€when,€for€òòsui€generisóó€reasons,€a€judgment€should€be€amended€toÐ ‹$Û# Ðcorrect€a€clear€error€of€law€or€to€prevent€injustice.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌÒ°` #IÒÒ°` IÒòòBradley€v.€McLeodóó,€984€S.W.2d€929,€933€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(citing€òòHelton€v.€ACS€Groupóó,€964Ð F'–"& ÐF.Supp.€1175,€1182€(E.D.€Tenn.€1997)),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€Harris€v.€Chernóó,€33€S.W.3dÐ /(#' Ð741€(Tenn.€2000);€òòsee€also€Vaccarella€v.€Vaccarellaóó,€49€S.W.3d€307,€312€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€Ð )h$( Ðð ðThey€should€not,€however,€be€granted€if€they€are€simply€seeking€to€relitigate€matters€that€haveÐ *Q%) Ðalready€been€adjudicated.ðð€€òòBradleyóó,€984€S.W.2d€at€933€(citing€òòWindsor€v.€A€Fed.€Executive€Agencyóó,Ð ê*:&* Ð614€F.Supp.€1255,€1264€(M.D.€Tenn.€1983)).€€Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àThis€case€does€not€involve€a€change€in€law€during€the€pendency€of€the€proceedings€below,Ð ° Ðnor€can€we€say€that€a€clear€error€of€law€exists€in€the€chancellorððs€final€decree€because€we€have€anÐ ™é Ðinadequate€record€with€which€to€make€this€determination.€€Likewise,€we€cannot€say€that€WifeððsÐ ‚Ò Ðmotion€includes€newly€discovered€evidence€regarding€her€mental€state.€€In€her€brief,€Wife,€in€anÐ k» Ðattempt€to€thwart€the€argument€by€Husband€that€she€knowingly€and€willingly€signed€the€agreementÐ T¤ Ðof€September€17,€2002,€points€to€a€letter€sent€by€her€psychologist€to€Husbandððs€counsel€in€FebruaryÐ =  Ðof€2002.€€This€letter€advised€Husbandððs€counsel€that€Wifeððs€mental€state€was€questionable.€€ThisÐ & v Ðdoes€not€constitute€newly€discovered€evidence€because,€like€Husband,€Wife€was€also€aware€of€theseÐ  _ Ðfacts€at€the€time€she€entered€into€the€agreement.€€Yet,€Wife€never€raised€this€issue€with€the€trial€courtÐ ø H Ðat€the€time€the€court€approved€the€agreement€and€incorporated€it€into€the€final€decree.€€ð ðThe€movingÐ á 1  Ðparty€must€demonstrate€that€the€new€evidence€was€not€known€prior€to€or€during€the€trial€and€that€itÐ Ê   Ðcould€not€have€been€ascertained€by€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence.ðð€€òòCollins€v.€Greene€CountyÐ ³  ÐBankóó,€916€S.W.2d€941,€945€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€For€the€same€reason,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trialÐ œì  Ðcourtððs€refusal€to€allow€a€new€trial€or€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€amounts€to€a€manifest€injustice.€Ð …Õ  ÐWe€also€note€that€the€trial€court€was€able€to€interact€with€Wife€and€view€her€demeanor€during€theÐ n¾  Ðproceedings€below,€whereas€we€are€left€with€reviewing€a€partial,€cold€record.€€òòSee€Azbill€v.€Azbillóó,Ð W§  Ð661€S.W.2d€682,€687€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòMize€v.€Skeenóó,€468€S.W.2d€733,€736€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð @ Ð1971).€€For€these€reasons,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€WifeððsÐ )y Ðmotion.ò òÐ b ÐÌÓ  ÓAttorneyððs€FeesÐ å5 ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àOn€appeal,€both€parties€have€requested€that€this€Court€award€them€their€respective€attorneyððsÐ ¹  Ðfees.€Wife€requests€that€this€Court€award€her€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€incident€to€the€divorce,Ð ¢ò Ðincluding€those€litigation€expenses€incurred€as€a€result€of€this€appeal.€€ð ð[A]ttorneyððs€fees€are€onlyÐ ‹Û Ðawarded€if€provided€for€by€contract,€statute,€or€a€recognized€ground€of€equity.ðð€€òòAustin€Powder€Co.Ð tÄ Ðv.€Thompsonóó,€No.€03A01„9607„CV„00229,€1996€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€805,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.Ð ]­ Ð16,€1996)€(citing€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€585€S.W.2d€606,€607€(Tenn.€1979)).€€In€divorce€cases€theÐ F– Ðrecovery€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€permitted€by€statute,€which€provides€that€a€spouse€seeking€enforcementÐ / Ðof€an€alimony€or€custody€award€may€be€granted€attorneyððs€fees.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c)Ð h Ð(2003).€€à ` àÐ  Q Ðà  àIn€this€case,€however,€Wife€is€not€seeking€to€enforce€the€provisions€in€the€divorce€decree.€Ð ê : ÐInstead,€she€is€seeking€to€have€the€entire€decree€declared€void.€€The€decision€of€whether€to€awardÐ Ó!#  Ðattorneyððs€fees€on€appeal€rests€solely€within€the€discretion€of€this€Court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð ¼" ! Ð103(c)€(2003);€òòsee€also€Archer€v.€Archeróó,€907€S.W.2d€412,€419€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€We€are€alsoÐ ¥#õ" Ðmindful€of€the€following:Ð Ž$Þ# ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓOur€supreme€court€has€defined€the€factors€that€should€be€appliedÐ `&°!% Ðwhen€considering€a€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€on€appeal.€Ð I'™"& ÐThese€factors€include€the€ability€of€the€requesting€party€to€pay€theÐ 2(‚#' Ðaccrued€fees,€the€requesting€partyððs€success€in€the€appeal,€whether€theÐ )k$( Ðrequesting€party€sought€the€appeal€in€good€faith,€and€any€otherÐ *T%) Ðequitable€factor€that€need€be€considered.Ð í*=&* ÐÐ Ö+&'+ ÐÓ °z\ÓÓ °l\ÓòòDulin€v.€Dulinóó,€No.€W2001„02969„COA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€628,€at€*26ð!ð27€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€Sept.€3,€2003)€(citing€òòFolk€v.€Folkóó,€357€S.W.2d€828,€829€(Tenn.€1962)).€€In€light€of€theÐ ™é Ðnature€of€Wifeððs€appeal€regarding€the€final€decree,€as€well€as€our€disposition€of€Wifeððs€other€issues,Ð ‚Ò Ðwe€decline€Wifeððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees.Ð k» ÐÌà  àHusband€has€asked€this€Court€to€award€him€attorneyððs€fees€pursuant€to€section€27„1„122Ð =  Ðwhich€provides:Ð & v ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒWhen€it€appears€to€any€reviewing€court€that€the€appeal€from€anyÐ ø H Ðcourt€of€record€was€frivolous€or€taken€solely€for€delay,€the€court€may,Ð á 1  Ðeither€upon€motion€of€a€party€or€of€its€own€motion,€award€justÐ Ê   Ðdamages€against€the€appellant,€which€may€include€but€need€not€beÐ ³  Ðlimited€to,€costs,€interest€on€the€judgment,€and€expenses€incurred€byÐ œì  Ðthe€appellee€as€a€result€of€the€appeal.€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌÒ°` #aÒÒ°` aÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122€(2003).€€ð ðAn€appeal€is€deemed€frivolous€if€it€is€devoid€of€merit€or€ifÐ W§  Ðit€has€no€reasonable€chance€of€success.ðð€€òòWakefield€v.€Longmireóó,€54€S.W.3d€300,€304€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð @ ÐApp.€2001)€(citing€òòBursack€v.€Wilsonóó,€982€S.W.2d€341,€345€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòIndus.€Dev.€Bd.Ð )y Ðof€City€of€Tullahoma€v.€Hancockóó,€901€S.W.2d€382,€385€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)).€€ð ðThus,€an€appealÐ b Ðin€which€the€reviewing€courtððs€ability€to€address€the€issues€raised€is€undermined€by€the€appellantððsÐ ûK Ðfailure€to€provide€an€adequate€record€is€deemed€frivolous€because€it€has€no€reasonable€chance€ofÐ ä4 Ðsucceeding.ðð€€òòYoung€v.€Barrowóó,€130€S.W.3d€59,€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003)€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoÐ Í ÐBrooks€v.€United€Unif.€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€1984).€€Accordingly,€we€deem€this€appealÐ ¶ Ðto€be€frivolous.€€We€remand€this€case€to€the€chancery€court€for€a€determination€of€appropriate€legalÐ Ÿï Ðexpenses€incurred€by€Husband€in€defending€this€appeal.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ Zª ÐÌó óÓ  Óà0  à€€€€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€chancery€court€and€remand€for€Ð.~(#(# Ðfurther€action€consistent€with€this€opinion.€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€Appellant,Ð g ÐBrenda€Parchman,€and€her€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†X£XXX:Zu #ÔÔ#†¼œá»XX£G #ÔÔ€X£X»¼œáÔÐ  P ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤#ô" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEññÐ $Ý# ÐÌññ