WPC l֯KZ>[N-D 1gW N: .NO3t$^NK) :B/- P0 paW 7YNL}Uf G"$FB{/ RH U]߬t9rп_ XlZ7Z(j὿[=jlܱyT2S`X&)!!b[=t{dF3 o$?٦JDLo:_(1܉%f \uƼ3X1Gg#PD%ErQYb Z"HUqC4ܟس| !YHЍ!V܌nUPh%?ɽt _wOb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;=#EQb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   ASW 0p 0D AXHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0|A+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+: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(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R$      1     _ThisruleiscurrentlyRule14oftheRulesoftheChanceryCourtofShelbyCounty,Tennessee. x R$      2     _PursuanttoRule24(a)Tenn.R.App.P.,therecordonappealshallincludetheoriginalofanyexhibitsfiled  inthetrialcourtandthetranscriptorstatementoftheevidenceoftheproceedings.Theprimaryburdenisuponthe t appellanttoseethataproperrecordispreparedonappeal. SeeMcDonaldv._Onoh_ ,772S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.Ct. 8 App.1989) certdenied ,493U.S.859(1989); WilsonCountySch._Sys_.v.Clifton ,41S.W.3d645,661(Tenn.Ct.App. N 2000) perm.app.denied (Tenn.Oct.9,2000).However,bothpartiessharetheresponsibilitytoinsurethattherecord  onappealiscomplete. _Karr_Ԁv.Gibson ,No.01A019605CH00220,1998WL57536,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.13,  1998) noperm.app.filed .  G R$      3     _Subsequenttothetrialofthismatter,Rule803(6)wasamendedtoprovidethat,inadditiontothetestimony  ofthecustodianorotherqualifiedwitness,arecordofregularlyconductedactivitymayalsobeadmissibleasan t exceptiontothehearsayruleifshown bycertificationthatcomplieswithRule902(11)orastatutepermitting 8 certification...ThisamendmentwaseffectiveJuly1,2001.Effectiveatthesametimewastheadditionofsection L 11toRule902andtheAdvisoryCommissionCommenttothatruleprovidesthatitallowsaffidavitsbycustodiansto  establishthefoundationforbusinessrecordsandthecustodianneednotattendtrialasawitness.Section11further  providesthatthepartyintendingtoofferarecordintoevidenceunderthissectionmustprovidenoticetoalladverse H  parties.- -(|G2$ !.8]Ld d 8         0  40 d(|3$ !.8]Ld d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8]Ld d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8]d d8     _  8;4XXdd 8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ &   June19,2001Session L XX #XX#DAVIDWAYNEROUSEv.IRANELLROUSEXX  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.D296662FloydPeete,Jr.,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199902126COAR3CVFiledSeptember26,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisadivorceactionwhereinthetrialcourtdeclaredthepartiesdivorced.Husbandappealsthe x  trialcourtsdecisiontoadmitevidenceregardinghisretirementplan;itsvaluationofthesame;its d awardofrehabilitativealimonytoWife;itsawardofattorneysfeestoWife;itsdivisionofmarital P debt;itsadoptingWifesproposedfinaldecreeofdivorce;itsdivisionofmaritalproperty;its < admittingevidenceregardingHusbandsuseofpornography;anditsrefusaltopermitHusbands (x Rule15Memorandumintherecordonappeal.Additionally,Wifeseeksherattorneysfeeson d appeal.Weaffirminpart,reverseinpart,andremand. P #XXe#XXt Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinpart; ( Reversedinpart;andRemanded     #X#XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andFranklinMurchison,Sp.J.,joined.  VenitaMarieMartin,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,DavidWayneRouse. ` KayFareseTurner,MartinW.Cash,Jr.andWilliamE.Miller,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe 8!  appellee,IraNellRouse. $"t!  OPINION #XX#XX #L# #XX #  XX  DavidWayneRouse(Mr.Rouse)andIraNellRouse(Ms.Rouse)weremarriedonAugust %$!% 5,1989.Mr.RousefiledforadivorceinJuneof1998,allegingirreconcilabledifferences.Mr. &"& RouseamendedhiscomplaintinJanuaryof1999toallegetheadditionalgroundofinappropriate '"' maritalconduct.Ms.RousefiledacountercomplaintfordivorceinFebruaryof1999,alleging (#( irreconcilabledifferencesandinappropriatemaritalconduct.Intheirrespectiveanswers,bothparties )$) deniedthattheywereguiltyofinappropriatemaritalconduct. p*%*   Atthetimeofdivorce,bothpartieswere38yearsoldandweregainfullyemployed.Mr. H,', RousewasaFieldServiceTechnicianwithFederalExpressandearnedapproximately$41,750.00 4-(- peryear.Ms.RousewasalicensedregisterednursewithEyeCorpandearnedapproximately  $41,380peryear.    Afterathreedaytrialonthematter,thetrialcourtdeclaredthepartiesdivorced.Mr.Rouse t wasawardedapproximately$68,039.33inmaritalpropertyincluding, interalia ,hisFederalExpress ` profitsharingaccountandpensionplan.Ms.Rousewasawardedapproximately$56,888.31in L  maritalproperty,including,butnotlimitedto,themaritalresidence,her401(k),andhermarital 8  portionofherUniversityofTennesseeretirementannuity.Mr.Rousewasheldliableforthedebt $ t owingonthecreditcards,andMs.Rousewasheldliableforthemortgage,thecarlien,debtowed  ` forrestorationofapiano,andthedebtincurredbyhersincetheseparationspecificallyowedtoher  L  parents.Ms.Rousewasawardedrehabilitativealimonyintheamountof$400.00permonthforsix  8  months,andherattorneysfeesintheamountof$5,000.00.Mr.Rouseappeals,raisingthe $  followingissuesforthiscourtsreview:   8  1.0`   Whetherthetrialcourterredandabuseditsdiscretioninadmittinghearsay   documentsobtainedfromhusbandsemployerpursuanttosubpoenainto   evidenceoverhusbandsobjections.p` `  8  2.0`   Whetherthetrialcourtsvaluationofabenefitplanestablishedand H maintainedbyhusbandsemployerwassupportedbytheevidencewherewife 4 reliedonandtestifiedregardinghearsaydocumentsthatwerenot  p authenticatedattrial. \` `  8  3.0`   Whetherthetrialcourtsawardofrehabilitativealimonytowifewasproper 4 underTennesseelawwherewifeearnsmorethanhusband,wherewifehad   asubstantialseparateestate,andwherethetrialcourtawardedwifea   substantialportionofthemaritalestate.` `  8  4.0`   Whetherthetrialcourterredandabuseditsdiscretioninorderinghusbandto  paypostseparationdebtincurredbywife.l` `  8  5.0`   Whetherthetrialcourterredandabuseditsdiscretioninawardingwifeher D! attorneysfeeswherethecourtdeclaredthepartiesdivorcedpursuantto 0"  section364129(b)oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotatedandwherethetrial #l! courtawardedwifeagreatershareofthemaritalestate.$X"` `  0   (#(# 8  6.0`   Whetherthetrialcourterredinenteringtheexpartefinaldecreeofdivorce %0!$ whichcontainedrulingsandrepresentationsnotaddressedinaletterto &"% husbandscounselregardingthetrialcourtsdecisionandwherecounselfor '#& wifesubmittedtwoordersforthetrialcourttoselectfromwithoutinputfrom (#' husbandscounsel.)$(` `  8  7.0`   Whetherthetrialcourtdividedthemaritalestateequitably.|*%)` `   h+&* 8  8.0`   Whetherthetrialcourterredinallowingtestimonyanddocumentsregarding  pornographywheretheinformationwasprovidedthehusbandscounselthe  eveoftrialandwherethedocumentswerecreatedand/ordownloadedfrom  awebsitebywifeorherattorneys.t` `  0   (#(# 8  9.0`   WhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninexcludinghusbandsRule15 L  Memorandumfromtherecordonappeal.8 ` `  Additionally,Ms.Rouserequestsherattorneysfeesonappeal.  `     Becausethiscasewastriedwithoutajury,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactis  8   denovo ,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectness,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidence $  isotherwise. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Ourreviewofthetrialcourtsdeterminationsregarding   questionsoflawis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. SeeBainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,   622(Tenn.1997);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wewillnowaddresseachissueinturn.     RehabilitativeAlimony  p "  ThetrialcourtorderedMr.RousetopayMs.Rouse$400.00permonthforsixmonthsas D rehabilitativealimony.Anawardofrehabilitativealimonymustbepredicateduponafindingthat 0 therecipientspousecanbeeconomicallyrehabilitated. See Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(1999). l   Acourtdoesnotreachtheissueofrehabilitation,however,unlesstherecipientspouseis X economicallydisadvantagedrelativetotheotherspouse. SeeCunninghamv.Cunningham ,2000 D WL33191364,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.20,2000). 0   Intheinstantcase,Ms.Rouseisalicensedregisterednursewithultrasoundexperience,  earningapproximately$41,380peryearatthetimeofdivorce.Mr.RouseisaFieldService  TechnicianwithFederalExpress,earningapproximately$41,750.00peryear.Baseduponthefacts  intherecord,wefindthatMs.RouseisnoteconomicallydisadvantagedrelativetoMr.Rouse. | Accordingly,wereversethetrialcourtsawardofrehabilitativealimonytoMs.Rouse. h   Attorneysfees  @! '  Trialcourtshavethediscretiontoawardadditionalsumstodefraythelegalcostsresulting #d! fromadivorceproceeding. SeeFoxv.Fox ,657S.W.2d747,749(Tenn.1983); Palmerv.Palmer , $P" 562S.W.2d833,83839(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).Indivorcecases,awardsforlitigationexpensesare $< # consideredalimony insolido , seeHoughlandv.Houghland ,844S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.Ct.App. %(!$ 1992),andareappropriatewhenonespouseiseconomicallydisadvantaged,lackssufficient &"% resourceswithwhichtopayattorneysfees,orwouldberequiredtodepleteonesresources. See '#& Herrerav.Herrera ,944S.W.2d379,390(Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d (#' 163,170(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). )$(   t*%)   Intheinstantmatter,Ms.Rousetestifiedthatshewasunabletoaffordherattorneysfees.   Ms.Rousesmother,MarySueRowland,testifiedthatMs.Rousehasborrowedapproximately  $12,000.00to$13,000.00fromhertoapplytowardspaymentofMs.Rousesattorneysfees.  Further,wenotethatMs.Rousehadtoexpendadditionalattorneysfeesinorderforhercounselto t prepareadefensetoMr.Rousespretrialpositiononnumerousissues,including,butnotlimited ` to,theexistenceofhisretirementplan,hisinterestinMs.Rouses1934Ford,andhisallegationthat L  Ms.Rousehadanabortionratherthanhavingsufferedamiscarriage,whichwerethenrecantedat 8  trial.Baseduponthefactsinthiscase,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin $ t awardingMs.Rouse$5,000.00inattorneysfees.  `   ProposedFinalDecreeofDivorce   8   0  Mr.RousearguesthatthetrialcourterredinadoptingMs.Rousesproposeddecreeof   divorcewithoutahearingtoaddressthepartiesdisputesregardingthetrialcourtsruling.Rule17   oftheRulesoftheChanceryCourtofShelbyCounty,Tennessee,provides,inpertinentpart,as   follows:   8   ` (c)OrdersandDecreesshallbepreparedbytheattorneyfortheprevailing X partiesandsubmittedtoattorneysforotherpartiesforapproval....D   8   ` (d)IntheeventofadisagreementregardingtheproperwordingofanOrder 0 orDecree,theattorneysshallsubmittotheCourttheirversionofwhattheythinkis l theappropriateOrderorDecreefortheCourtsdetermination.X   NowhereinthelanguageofRule17doesitstatethatahearingmustbehadwhenpartiesdisagree 0 astowhattheproperwordingofanOrderorDecreeshouldbe.Becausebothpartieshadan  opportunitytoanddidsubmittheirrespectiveproposedfinaldecreesofdivorce,wefindthatthetrial  courtdidnoterrinadoptingMs.Rousesproposedfinaldecree.   @EvidenceofPornography |    Mr.Rousearguesthattheadmissionoftestimonyindocumentsregardingpornographywas L  prejudicialandshouldnothavebeenadmitted.Allrelevantevidenceisadmissibleunlessits 8! probativevalueisoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice. See Tenn.R.Evid.402,403.The $"t  trialcourtdeclaredthepartiesdivorcedpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b).Therefore,this #`! wasnotafaultbaseddivorce.Husbandarguesinhisbriefthat theadmissionofsuchevidencewas #L" prejudicialtohusbandasreflectedinthetrialcourtsdistributionofmaritalassetsandtheawardof $8 # alimonyandattorney[s]feestoWife.Wefindnoevidenceintherecordthatthetrialcourtwas %$!$ prejudicedbythisevidenceand,iferror,wefindtheerrortobeharmless. See rule36(b)Tenn.R. &"% App.P. '"&  \+&* @CC! Rule15Memorandum     Mr.RouseallegeserrorbythetrialcourtsrefusaltoincludehisRule15  #  1      ׀memorandumin  therecordonappeal.Inviewofthefactthatthismatterisremandedtothetrialcourttoconsider p distributionofmaritalpropertypursuanttothisopinion,thisissueispretermitted. \   @ DistributionofMaritalProperty  4    ThebulkofthemaritalassetsawardedHusbandconsistedofhisFedExpensionplantotaling  X $56,283.60.Wifecontendsthatthetrialcourterredinadmittingintoevidencea 1997FedEx  D  compensationbenefitsstatementwhichpurportedlyestablishedthathisretirementaccounthada  0  valueofthisamount.ThesedocumentsweresubpoenaedbyWifesattorneyfromHusbands   employer.Husbandcontendsthatthedocumentswerenotproperlyauthenticated.Weareunable   toreviewtheauthenticityofthedocumentsastheexhibitsarenotintherecordbeforeus.T  #  2           Husbandcontendsthatthesedocumentsconstituteinadmissiblehearsayevidence.Wife |  countersthattheyareadmissibleunderRule803(6),RecordsofRegularlyConductedActivity. h Husbandacknowledgestherule,butcontendsthatitisstillnecessarythatawitnesstestify,towit T  thecustodianorotherqualifiedwitnessassetforthintherule. @ 8  Oneofthepurposesofthebusinessrecordshearsayexceptionistofacilitatethe h presentationofbusinessrecordswithoutundulydisruptingthebusinesssactivities. T Certainlythereisnorequirementthatalldeclarantsbecalledawayfromworkto @ testify, butordinarilyatleastonewitnessmustcometocourttotestifyaboutthe , foundationfacts.Rule803(6)simplyprovidesthatthewitnessbetherecords   custodianorotherqualifiedwitness. Typicallythatwitnesswillbeinchargeof  maintainingrecordsoftheparticularbusiness,butotheremployeesorofficersor  appropriatelyinformedwitnessescouldbeusedaswell.Thekeyisthatthewitness  haveknowledgeofthemethodofpreparingandpreservingtherecords.Ifnowitness t isavailabletotestify,therecordscannotbeauthenticatedasbusinessrecords,unless ` thepartiesstipulatetoauthentication.L    NeilP.Cohen, TennesseeLawofEvidence 811[11](4thed.2000)(emphasisadded).Certain $"t  documentsareselfauthenticatingpursuanttoRule902,butthesubjectdocumentsdonotfallwithin #`! theruleastheyexistedatthetimeoftrial.    #  3      ׀Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourterredin  admittingsameintoevidence.SinceHusbandspensionplanwasasubstantialportionofthemarital  propertyawardedtohim,wereversethetrialcourtsdistributionofmaritalproperty.Onremand,  thetrialcourtshallfashionadistributionofmaritalpropertyand,inthecourtsdiscretion,mayhear t additionalevidence. ` @  PostSeparationDebt  8    Inviewofthefactthathismatterisbeingremandedforareconsiderationofthedistribution  \ ofmaritalproperty,thecourtatthattimewillalsoconsidertheallocationofpostseparationdebt.  H  @ AttorneysFeesonAppeal       Ms.Rouserequestsherattorneysfeesonappeal.Werespectfullydenythisrequest.   @*    Conclusion |   K  Thetrialcourtsawardofrehabilitativealimonyanddistributionofmaritalpropertyis P reversed.Thefinaldecreeisotherwiseaffirmedandthiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtfor < furtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. (x   ThecostsofthisappealaretaxedequallytoDavidWayneRouseandhissuretyandtoIra P NellRouse. <    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE