WPC )qi]Oo50>.w>ͪ3LB>>ZhyCg[  b??O_8qkQ y0WlY'peŮܝ1XҖ;z5nd?R)ɷOM+-fAީ%ۙtW [hpbwg~g yŐ G--n +cgvRs}  fn}uZAwuC=)sS: HRi6dB W>didis]NezAN``KjO'qUINw4[[Rb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m  #  _ %  NEb 0 B 0 D3i D- 0K ASg 0- 0D A.w,s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9,:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2&$ !.85dXXd8         0   d(|3?$ !.85dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$ !.85dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.85dd8     _  58]XXdd8  @ t5INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#5t #Ԉ &   January10,2002Session L X]X5 #5XX]#CAROLINEELIZABETHSMITHv.MARKO.SMITHX]X5  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheGeneralSessionsCourtforSumnerCounty  J @@No.2509GBarryR.Brown,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200100689_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly30,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }       OPINIONGRANTINGAPPELLEEMARKO.SMITHSMOTIONFORAWARDOF x  ATTORNEYSFEESANDEXPENSES. d    #5X]p#X]X.5Irvinh._kilcrease_,jr.,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand (x PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J_J_.,joined. d GaryM.Williams,_Hendersonville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CarolineElizabethSmith. < MichaelW.Edwards,_Hendersonville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MarkO.Smith.  w#5XX]#X]X5I  #5XX] #X]X5  0  Initially,thiscasecamebeforethiscourtonanappealfromanOrderofthetrialcourt,whicht(#(# orderedthatthecustodyofthetwo(2)minorchildrenofthepartiesremainwiththeappellee,Mark ` O.Smith( father),becausetherehadnotbeenamaterialorsubstantialchangeofcircumstances L  inthecustodialarrangement.Theappellant,CarolineElizabethSmith( mother)appealedthe 8!  Orderofthetrialcourttothiscourt.Weaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourtandtaxedthecosts $"t! oftheappealtotheappellantCarolineElizabethSmith.However,thisCourtdidnotaddressthe #`" issuesoftheawardofattorneysfeesandexpenses. #L#   Inconsiderationoftheentirerecord,wegrantthefathersmotionfortheawardofattorneys %$!% feesandexpensesassociatedwithhisdefenseofthedecisionofthetrialcourtonappeal,forreasons &"& hereinafterstated. '"'   II )$)   0  SubsequenttothefilingoftheoriginalopinioninthiscaseonMay16,2002,thefather,as\+&+(#(# theprevailingpartyonappeal,filedtheinstantmotiononMay25,2002seekinghisattorneysfees H,', andcostsassociatedwithhisdefenseofthedecisionofthetrialcourt. 4-(- _ԇ  OnMay28,2002,themotherfiledaresponsetothefathersmotionforattorneysfeesand  costs.Inherresponse,themotheropposedthefathersmotiononthebasisthatthisCourtdidnot  makeafindingthatherappealwasfrivolous.Themothersassertioniswithoutmerit.Itisnot  necessaryforthecourttomakesuchfinding,beforeawardingattorneysfeesandexpensesinthis t instance. `   III 8      Theminorchildrenofthepartiesarebenefittedbythedecisionofthetrialcourtandthe  ` fatherssuccessfuldefenseofthedecisionofthetrialcourtonappeal.Accordingly,thefatheris  L  entitledtobeawardedhisreasonableattorneysfeesandexpensesincurredindefendingthedecision  8  ofthetrialcourtonappeal.Thus,thefathersmotionisgranted.Daltonv.Dalton858SW2d $  324,327(Tenn.App.1993)     IV       Thismatterisremandedtothetrialcourtforassessmentandajudgmentforthefathers p attorneysfeesandexpensesincurredonappealandforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybe \ necessary.Thecostsonappealaretaxedtotheappellantmother. H    `    #5XX]h#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#________________________________ (#(#    `     h   IrvinH.Kilcrease,Jr.,Sp.J.