ÿWPC2 ‚VÖ×”ø|â\î+,JìUò<¦³ˆ¨¢+¨úø„™Œ¿É¹‹Xa«¤ çÉbXHù*D^D†ùªÑ‡ÇCRjXÞm_&½Ûà1SJØ'¦€0^Ë#HLPÖû½)‰Íïв+Ëi®ªzÉÒ)«=Á™¬xéKÖâ/DXz'¿Ó9jš,_lƒOtâ#øÇ#œyª”âsÅlW7ïÑ‚Ç?. uÙ,îmi^êÃ9*¯¤xfÄ)©ÿûÜJ–ŠU&ýñ&«’÷nårÛ»èí¡X÷‹ âcý³ì,¡u–ˆÁ£qlÞªWÌ’ÙÝG ëdý˜^H·$Æß%Q…sø4ýÈ °…œ%È•§Š r¡Z@bi_R’Ýo]2äf õž¿ãF×V­’¢YZ’@ÕóG ôÓªsWÐYWyT&Š­xŠÓrYÎA'$=΢£ƒgøá’˜ãü†s=ÌÂP×Ä>,¥;–ÎKóÕuœÀÄÑã³ ½Ç$°•‘x&8ô¬OÖ¿ƒU`²ªY}u"ÊÄ‚—a #;‹N¬ií¥ÄÜòCÝ«º5¦\#ñ†,r˜ÃRöƒÝUð5;:OºF?J—r7fb×X€³äØ"cƒOÇ|ËíÛLø: ”þW# ÂUNÍ % 04! 0ÏUb$ , 0D/ ^ s w@ 4¿ Ó â mä ~û U:y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y AQ³ Æ 0DÊ 0D 0DRR D/–– BÅ D3âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó((2MÛ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X¿)X»»ÔÑ  ÑÑÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€»~Í»»»ÔÔ€ é »»~ÍÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xû] X  éÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€16,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóB‡O%ä #$%D&'()*+Ó€5Ö…#%ing`®„3|x5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ €SOLIMASolimaNikolas&miscommunicationsGotwaldMusselmanAcufft]hereDantzlerBadenhopeT]heyScarbroughBinkleyHartzogBrumitMcDaniel AabyVarley,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdVVVV'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ„°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Wp»»ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€„¬"„»»Ôò òñ5ññ+ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E ±` 8ttxPX°ð  rßñ+ññ5ññ5ññ5ñÌñ5ññ5ñÌñ5ñßt€ )>.*jxÁÿ` `€€@Eá’` 8ttxP€ð  tßñ5ñà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€¼×s¼„„¬"ԈРè8 ÐÌÌÌMARY€P.€SOLIMA,à0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ð’ â€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)à0p€%€%àWilliamson€Chanceryо p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àNo.€21880„R2ÐÔ$ p€%p€% ÐVS.à0 ` àà0¸ ` €%` €%àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ðê: €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àAppeal€No.ÐP p€%p€% ÐDAVID€J.€SOLIMA,à0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)à0p€%€%à01A01„9701„CH„00012Ðf p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellant.à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)ÐB’€%€% ÐÌÌÌÌà@ÑÑDàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYˆÌà@xx$DàAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@, , DàTHE€HONORABLE€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%àòòFor€Defendant/Appellantóó:Ð`$°p€%p€% ÐÌEdward€P.€Silvaà0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%àMike€W.€BinkleyÐŒ&Ü!p€%p€% ÐHartzog,€Silva€&€Daviesà0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%àNashville,€TennesseeТ'ò"p€%p€% ÐFranklin,€TennesseeÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌà@%Dàò òÔ‡„¬"„¼¼×sÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÔ#†¼×s¼„„¬"Ö #Ôó óˆÐ ~2Î-) ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ  j:º50 ÐÑX„Ñò òÔ€„¬"„¼¼×sÔÓ€ÓÑ  Ñà@ÎÎ)DàòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€¼×s¼„„¬"ԈР° ÐÌà ` àThis€appeal€involves€a€bitter€change€of€custody€proceeding.€€Two€years€afterÏthe€divorce,€the€father€filed€a€petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÏseeking€€custody€of€three€of€the€partiesðð€five€children€on€the€ground€that€the€motherÏwas€progressively€alienating€the€children€from€him.€€The€mother€counterclaimed€forÏincreased€child€support.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€declined€to€changeÏthe€custody€of€the€children€and€increased€the€fatherððs€child€support.€€The€father€assertsÏon€this€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€find€that€the€circumstances€hadÏchanged€sufficiently€to€warrant€a€change€in€the€custody€of€the€partiesðð€three€youngestÏchildren.€€Ìà@ÜÜ.Dàò òI.€ó óˆÐ f ÐÌà ` àMary€P.€Solima€and€David€J.€Solima€moved€to€Tennessee€in€1989€when€Mr.ÏSolima€went€to€work€as€an€engineer€for€Saturn€Corporation.€€They€had€four€childrenÏat€the€time,€and€their€fifth€child€was€born€shortly€after€they€arrived€in€Tennessee.€ÏTheir€marriage€began€to€falter€several€years€later,€and€Ms.€Solima€filed€for€divorceÏin€February€1992.€€She€withdrew€her€divorce€complaint€in€December€1992€becauseÏthe€parties€were€seeking€marital€counseling€but€filed€a€second€divorce€complaint€inÏJanuary€1993.ÌÌà ` àThe€divorce€proceedings€were€particularly€bitter.€€The€partiesðð€open€hostilityÏtoward€each€other€affected€their€childrenððs€behavior€and€performance€in€school€andÏforced€the€children€into€counseling.€€On€May€11,€1994,€the€Chancery€Court€forÏWilliamson€County€awarded€Ms.€Solima€the€divorce€and€sole€custody€of€the€fiveÏchildren€who€were€then€between€four€and€thirteen€years€of€age.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏgranted€Mr.€Solima€specific€visitation€rights,€including€visitation€every€otherÏweekend,€holiday€visitation,€and€extended€visitation€during€the€summer.€€Mr.€SolimaÏwas€ordered€pay€$1,615€per€month€and€one„half€of€any€bonus€he€received€as€childÏsupport€and€to€provide€appropriate€insurance€coverage€for€the€children.ÌÌà ` àThe€partiesðð€hostility€did€not€abate€following€the€divorce.€€Since€they€could€notÏcommunicate€with€each€other€directly,€they€communicated€through€their€lawyers.€ÏMs.€Solima€continued€to€denigrate€Mr.€Solima€in€front€of€the€children€and€declinedÐ ì:<6B Ðto€keep€Mr.€Solima€informed€about€the€childrenððs€activities.€€Mr.€Solimaððs€exerciseÏof€his€visitation€rights€provided€a€recurring€flashpoint€between€the€parties,€and€theirÏconduct€intensified€after€Mr.€Solimaððs€female€companion€moved€in€with€him€inÏAugust€1994.€€ÌÌà ` àBy€Thanksgiving€1994,€the€partiesðð€two€oldest€children,€who€were€then€thirteenÏand€twelve€years€old,€were€resisting€visitation€with€Mr.€Solima.€€Mr.€SolimaððsÏrelationship€with€his€two€oldest€children€finally€disintegrated€during€their€ChristmasÏ1994€visitation.€€Mr.€Solima€had€planned€to€take€all€five€of€his€children€to€St.€LouisÏto€visit€their€paternal€grandparents€during€this€extended€visitation.€€However,Ïfollowing€a€violent€confrontation€with€his€oldest€son€and€daughter,€he€returned€theseÏtwo€children€to€Ms.€Solima€early€and€took€the€remaining€three€children€to€St.€Louis.ÌÌà ` àMr.€Solima€and€his€family€severed€all€communications€with€his€two€oldestÏchildren€following€the€Christmas€1994€holidays.€€In€January€1995,€his€lawyer€notifiedÏMs.€Solimaððs€lawyer€that€Mr.€Solima€intended€to€continue€visitations€with€only€hisÏthree€youngest€children.€€After€1994,€Mr.€Solima€and€his€family€continued€to€lavishÏattention€and€presents€on€his€three€youngest€children€but€pointedly€declined€toÏremember€his€two€oldest€children€on€their€birthdays€or€at€Christmas.€€Likewise,€theÏtwo€oldest€children€declined€to€initiate€any€sort€of€communication€with€their€fatherÏon€his€birthday,€Fatherððs€Day,€or€during€any€other€holiday.ÌÌ€à ` àOn€April€24,€1996,€Mr.€Solima€filed€a€petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€forÐ È($, ÐWilliamson€County,€seeking€custody€of€the€partiesðð€three€youngest€children€and€childÏsupport.€€He€alleged€that€Ms.€Solima€had€alienated€the€two€oldest€children€from€himÏand€that€she€was€progressively€alienating€the€three€younger€children€from€him€too.€ÏHe€also€alleged€that€Ms.€Solimaððs€actions€were€harming€the€children€emotionally€andÏpsychologically€and€that€it€was€in€their€best€interest€that€custody€be€changed.€€Ms.ÏSolima€answered€the€petition€and€counterclaimed€for€an€increase€in€child€support€onÏgrounds€that€Mr.€Solima€was€not€exercising€visitation€with€the€two€oldest€children€asÏset€in€the€divorce€decree€and€contemplated€under€the€child€support€guidelines.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€bench€trial€on€June€26,€July€29,€and€August€17,Ï1996.€€After€considering€the€evidence€from€both€sides,€the€trial€court€held€that€thereÐ Ô:$6B Ðhad€been€no€material€change€of€circumstances€warranting€a€change€in€the€custodyÏarrangement€for€the€three€youngest€children.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€Mr.€SolimaÏwas€no€longer€exercising€visitation€with€the€two€oldest€children€and,€for€that€reason,Ïthat€his€child€support€obligation€should€be€increased€from€$1,615€to€$1,850€perÏmonth,€in€addition€to€one„half€of€the€net€amount€of€all€bonuses€he€received.€€Mr.ÏSolima€perfected€this€appealÌÌà@ËË.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ ,|  ÐÌà ` àMr.€Solimaððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€relates€to€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€awardÏhim€sole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€three€youngest€children.€€He€asserts€that€the€weightÏof€the€evidence€demonstrated€that€substantial€and€material€changes€of€circumstancesÏhad€occurred€since€the€original€custody€decree€and€that€these€changes€warrantedÏchanging€the€custody€of€his€three€youngest€children.€€In€considering€these€arguments,Ïwe€must€review€the€record€de€novo€and€must€give€great€weight€to€the€factualÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€who€both€heard€and€observed€the€witnesses.€ÏòòSee€Gotwald€v.€Gotwaldóó,€768€S.W.2d€689,€695„97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòScarbroughÐ ð@  Ðv.€Scarbroughóó,€752€S.W.2d€94,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).Ð ” ä" ÐÌà ` àCustody€and€visitation€decisions,€once€made€and€implemented,€are€res€judicataÏupon€the€facts€in€existence€or€reasonably€foreseeable€when€the€decision€was€made.€ÏòòSee€Young€v.€Smithóó,€193€Tenn.€480,€485,€246€S.W.2d€93,€95€(1952);€òòBrumit€v.€Brumitóó,Ð $'t"* Ð948€S.W.2d€739,€740€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€€òòIn€re€Parsonsóó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€893Ð È($, Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€They€may,€however,€be€altered€if€intervening,€materialÏchanges€in€the€childððs€circumstances€require€modifying€an€existing€custody€orÏvisitation€arrangement.€€òòóóAccordingly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1)€(Supp.Ð ´-)2 Ð1998)€empowers€the€courts€to€change€custody€ð ðas€the€exigencies€of€the€case€mayÏrequire.ðð€ÌÌà ` àThere€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€determining€when€a€childððs€circumstancesÏhave€changed€sufficiently€to€warrant€a€change€of€his€or€her€custody€or€visitationÏarrangement.€€òòSee€Dantzler€v.€Dantzleróó,€665€S.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€Ð Œ7Ü2> ÐThe€party€seeking€to€modify€an€existing€custody€or€visitation€arrangement€has€theÏburden€of€proof.€€òòSee€Blair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô:$6B Ð1996).€€The€courts€will€change€a€custody€or€visitation€arrangement€if€the€partyÏseeking€the€change€proves€(1)€that€the€childððs€circumstances€have€changed€materiallyÏin€a€way€that€could€not€reasonably€have€been€foreseen€at€the€time€of€the€originalÏcustody€decision,€òòsee€Smith€v.€Haaseóó,€521€S.W.2d€49,€50€(Tenn.€1975);€òòMcDaniel€v.Ð œ ì ÐMcDanielóó,€743€S.W.2d€167,€169€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987),€and€(2)€that€the€childððsÐ @  Ðinterests€will€be€better€served€by€changing€the€existing€custody€or€visitationÏarrangement.€€òòSee€Hall€v.€Hallóó,€No.€01A01„9310„PB„00465,€1995€WL€316255,€at€*2Ð ˆØ  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€25,€1995)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€ÌÌà ` àCustody€and€visitation€arrangements€should€promote€the€development€of€aÏhealthy€relationship€between€children€and€both€their€parents.€€òòSee€Aaby€v.€Strangeóó,Ð h Ð924€S.W.2d€623,€629€(Tenn.1996);òò€Taylor€v.€Tayloróó,€849€S.W.2d€319,€331-32Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.1993);€òòVarley€v.€Varleyóó,€934€S.W.2d€659,€668€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Mr.Ð `° ÐSolimaððs€argument€is€that€the€present€custody€relationship,€if€permitted€to€continue,Ïwill€enable€Ms.€Solima€to€destroy€his€relationship€with€his€three€youngest€children,Ïjust€as€she€has€already€successfully€destroyed€his€relationship€with€his€two€oldestÏchildren.€€Like€the€trial€court,€we€have€concluded€that€this€argument€embodies€anÏoversimplified€view€of€the€complex€emotional€dynamics€in€this€family€for€which€bothÏparents€must€accept€their€share€of€responsibility.ÌÌà ` àMr.€Solimaððs€relationships€with€his€five€children€has€been€far€from€ideal€everÏsince€1994.€€Part€of€this€is,€no€doubt,€due€to€Ms.€Solimaððs€efforts€to€undermine€theseÏrelationships,€but€part€is€also€due€to€Mr.€Solimaððs€intransigence€and€almost€juvenileÏpetulance€about€his€two€oldest€children.€€Rather€than€seeking€to€re„establish€hisÏrelationship€with€these€two€children,€he€and€his€family€seek€to€discard€them€and€toÏsettle€for€a€relationship€with€the€remaining€three€children.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€during€and€immediately€after€the€1994€divorce,€Ms.ÏSolima€was€obstructing€Mr.€Solimaððs€visitation€and€otherwise€undermining€Mr.ÏSolimaððs€relationship€with€his€children.€€However,€the€trial€court€also€concluded€thatÏMs.€Solima€had€tempered€her€behavior€and€that€the€partiesðð€circumstances€at€the€timeÏof€the€1996€hearings€were€ð ðmuch€better€for€the€last€12€months€than€they€have€beenÏfor€the€time€prior€to€that.ðð€€While€Ms.€Solima€may€have€abused€her€position€asÏcustodial€parent€in€the€past,€the€weight€of€the€evidence€shows€that€she€is€now€abidingÐ Ô:$6B Ðby€the€terms€of€the€divorce€decree.€€Accordingly,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððsÏconclusion€that€nothing€about€Ms.€Solimaððs€present€behavior€rises€to€the€level€of€aÏmaterial€change€in€circumstances€warranting€a€change€is€custody€of€the€partiesðð€threeÏyoungest€children.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€last€hearing,€the€trial€court€admonished€the€parties€toÏcommunicate€directly€to€each€other€without€using€their€lawyers€as€intermediaries.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€admonished€Mr.€Solima€to€attempt€to€re„establish€his€relationshipÏwith€his€two€oldest€children€and€warned€Ms.€Solima€that€she€must€encourage€theÏchildren€to€love€and€to€cooperate€with€Mr.€Solima.€€While€we€concur€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€observation€that€courts€cannot€control€the€hearts€and€minds€of€divorcedÏparties,€we€agree€that€both€parties€must€continue€to€work€to€repair€the€damage€to€theirÏchildren€caused€by€their€discord€and€mutual€animosity.ÌÌà@-Dàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà ` àWe€affirm€the€denial€of€Mr.€Solimaððs€petition€to€change€custody€and€remandÏthe€case€to€the€trial€court€for€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€alsoÏdeny€Ms.€Solimaððs€request€for€the€payment€of€her€legal€expenses€incurred€on€thisÏappeal.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€David€J.€Solima€and€his€surety€for€whichÏexecution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.€€Ó€ÓÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€ÌPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEñ*ñ€Ð  8h39 ÐÔ€ Ó!»¼{>Ôà@¡ ¡ Dàñ!ñÔ‡„|„»¼{>Ôñ!ñò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óñ!ñÔ#† Ó!„„|Ã9#Ôñ!ñˆÐ h Ðñ"ñÌñ"ñÌÔ‡¼{>»»¼{>ÔMARY€P.€SOLIMA,à0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ð T€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)à0p€%€%àWilliamson€ChanceryÐ4 „p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àNo.€21880ñ#ñ„R2ñ#ñÐL œp€%p€% ÐVS.à0 ` àà0¸ ` €%` €%àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ðd´ €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àAppeal€No.Ð|Ì p€%p€% ÐDAVID€J.€SOLIMA,à0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)à0p€%€%à01A01„9701„CH„00012Дä p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellant.à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)ÐÄ €%€% ÐÌÔ#† Ó!»¼{>¨:#ÔÌò òà@cc(DàòòJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ 6† ÐÌÔ€Š0‹‹! ÓÔÓ€Óà ` àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€ñ$ñWilliamsonÐ º  ÐCounty€Chanceryñ$ññ*ññ%ñ___ñ%ññ*ñ€Court,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€arguments€of€counsel.€€UponÏconsideration€of€the€entire€record,€this€court€finds€and€concludes€that€the€trial€judgeððsÏjudgment€should€be€ñ&ñaffirmed.ñ&ññ*ññ&ñ____.ñ&ññ*ñÌÌà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€contemporaneously€with€this€judgment,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered,€adjudged,€and€decreed€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€be€and€is€herebyÏñ'ñaffirmñ'ññ(ñed,ñ(ññ*ññ'ñ_____,ñ'ññ*ñ€and€that€the€cause€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistentÏwith€this€courtððs€opinion.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€further€ordered€that€the€costs€of€this€appeal€be€taxed€ñ)ñto€David€J.€Solima,€principal,Ïand€Michael€W.€Binkley,€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ñ)ññ*ññ)ñ___.ñ)ññ*ñÌÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àHENRY€F.€TODD,€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.€€€€€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE€ñ*ñ