ÿWPC} ÈKµwÕgë|PZìáý0ê,Ð[æÖ‹41±2"úÀ Ê”(^F>5+m(`6`s˜ÖðÄÛùÅZŽ'’mºFÆ-(«cÿJâ·*' ÊõB„O<Œ°‚ÝY¥( 0~Í 0DK U N 9Ý Ý Ý Ý & E< < > bD ^¦ ¦      $ , 4 < D  LL  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV B`˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô p{H-s š‚,-'š›Backup3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `‹&Times New Roman(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular /Ý ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKaren€Cain€was€the€Motherððs€divorce€lawyer€in€the€original€case.€€€Although€she€neverÐ ° Ðentered€an€appearance,€she€did€appear€and€request€a€one€week€continuance€which€the€courtÐ œì ¨ Ðgranted.€€Thereafter,€the€Mother€retained€Jean€Ô_ÔCroweÔ_Ô.€€She€made€one€appearance€and€was€thenÐ ° Ðallowed€to€withdraw.€€John€Cannon€filed€the€motion€to€set€aside€the€judgment€and€the€appeal.\Opinion SummaryH?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.1234567891012 dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ‡XøèXXXÔÔ‡î©îXXøèÔÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÓ›Óà@--#ìàAT€NASHVILLE€€Ô#†XøèXîî©|#ÔÔ‡¼˜»XXøèԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óò òMARCH€19,€2002ó óÔ#†XøèX»¼˜3#Ô€Ô‡¼˜»XXøèÔò òSESSIONó óÔ#†XøèX»¼˜¬#ÔÐ üL Ðò òÔ‡¼˜»XXøèÔÔ% ‡ ÔLESLIE€SWEATT€(ACKERMAN)Ô%†2Ôòòóó€v.€Ô% ‡ ÔMICHAEL€SWEATT€€Ô%†rÔòòóóÔ#†XøèX»¼˜#Ôó óÐ ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€CountyÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†'ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†EÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† cÔÐ  ` Ðà@@øøìàNo.€Ô% ‡! Ô99D„3036Ô%†!¬Ô€€€€€€Ô% ‡" ÔMuriel€Robinson,€JudgeÐ ü L Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô%†"ØÔÐ è 8 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€Y) °°` d€÷E<¿ ` AßÐ À   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔM2000„02537„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÔ%†#ËÔ€„€Filed€October€8,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ »  ÐÌßA€Y) °°` dE<’` AßÐ “ã  Ðó óÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓÔ#†XøèXXXøè]#ÔÔ‡ XøèXXXøèÔMother€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€her€motion€to€set€aside€what€she€characterizes€as€a€ð ðdefaultÐ ŽÞ  Ðjudgmentðð€awarding€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children€to€the€Father.€Because€the€MotherððsÐ zÊ  Ðprocedural€due€process€rights€were€protected€by€the€trial€court,€and€the€trial€court€heard€evidenceÐ f¶ Ðregarding€factors€which€must€be€considered€by€a€court€in€making€custody€modifications,€we€affirm.Ô#†XøèXX Xøè#ÔÔ%†ÆÔÔ‡XøèXXXøèÔÐ R¢ ÐÓÓÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€aÔ%†$pÔs€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€AffirmedÔ% ‡% ÔÔ%†%ÛÔó óÐ *z ÐÌòòÓ  ÓBuddy€D.€Perry,€Sp.óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.,€Ð R Ðand€William€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.Ô% ‡' Ô,òòóóÔ%†'ú Ôóó€joined.Ð î> ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔJohn€M.€Cannon,€Ô_ÔGoodlettsvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Leslie€Ô_ÔSweattÔ_Ô€(Ackerman).Ð Æ ÐÌJeffrey€S.€Pulley,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Michael€Ô_ÔSweattÔ_Ô.€€Ô%†@ ÔÐ žî ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† ÔÔ% € ÔÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONÐ b² ÐÌÌòòóóÓ  ÓßA€Y) °°` d€÷E<%"` Aßó óÔ#†XøèXXXøè(#Ôà  àÐ &"v! Ðà  àÌà  àLeslie€Ô_ÔSweattÔ_Ô€Ackerman€(ð ðMotherðð)€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€her€motion€to€set€asideÐ !#q# Ðwhat€she€characterizes€as€a€default€judgment€awarding€Michael€Ô_ÔSweattÔ_Ô€("Father")€custody€of€theÐ  $]$ Ðpartiesðð€minor€children.€€The€Mother€failed€to€appear€at€the€custody€hearing.€€Because€the€trial€courtÐ ù$I % Ðheard€proof€concerning€the€fitness€of€the€parents€and€the€childrenððs€best€interests,€we€affirm€the€trialÐ å%5!& Ðcourtððs€denial€of€her€motion.Ð Ñ&!"' ÐÌà  àOn€January€31,€2000,€the€parties€were€divorced,€and€the€marital€dissolution€agreement€gaveÐ ©(ù#) Ðthe€Mother€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children.€€Thereafter,€the€Mother€remarried€and€told€theÐ •)å$* ÐFather€that€she€intended€to€move€with€the€children€to€North€Carolina€on€May€20,€2000.€€On€May€19,Ð *Ñ%+ Ð2000,€the€Father€filed€a€complaint€for€change€of€custody€and€for€a€restraining€order€prohibiting€theÐ m+½&, ÐMother€from€removing€the€children€from€Davidson€County.€€The€Father,€by€motion,€also€soughtÐ Y,©'- Ðsummer€visitation€with€the€children.Ð E-•(. Їà  à€The€ex€parte€restraining€order€was€granted€and€set€for€hearing€on€May€26,€2000.€€Prior€toÐ ° Ðbeing€served€with€the€complaint€for€change€of€custody€and€the€restraining€order,€the€Mother€left€theÐ œì ÐState€with€the€children.€Karen€Cain,€Motherððs€counsel€in€the€original€divorce€proceedings,€soughtÐ ˆØ Ðto€postpone€the€May€26,€2000,€hearing€date,€and€the€matter€was€rescheduled€to€June€2,€2000.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Mother€did€not€attend€the€June€2,€2000,€hearing,€but€she€was€represented€by€Jean€Ô_ÔCroweÔ_Ô.€Ð L œ ÐWith€the€agreement€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔCroweÔ_Ô,€the€trial€court€granted€the€Father€summer€visitation€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðminor€children.€€By€order€dated€June€30,€2000,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCroweÔ_Ô€was€allowed€to€withdraw€as€counsel,€andÐ $ t Ðthe€Mother€was€given€fifteen€days€to€secure€counsel.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOn€June€29,€2000,€the€Father€filed€a€criminal€contempt€petition€alleging€that€the€Mother€wasÐ è 8  Ðin€contempt€for€violating€the€restraining€order€and€the€summer€visitation€order.€€The€Mother€failedÐ Ô$  Ðto€answer€the€criminal€contempt€petition€and€the€Father's€complaint€for€custody€modification.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Father€filed€a€motion€to€set€the€case€on€the€contested€trial€docket€along€with€a€certificateÐ ˜è  Ðof€readiness€for€trial€of€a€contested€divorce€case.€€The€certificate€of€readiness€for€trial€was€signed€byÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court€judge€on€July€19,€2000,€and€the€case€was€set€for€trial€on€September€19,€2000.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àNo€transcript€of€the€evidence€was€filed.€€However,€the€September€29,€2000,€trial€court€orderÐ H˜ Ðstates€that€the€case€was€tried€on€September€19,€2000,€and€€the€court€heard€testimony€from€the€FatherÐ 4„ Ðand€other€witnesses.€€The€order€found€that€the€Mother€had€been€personally€served€with€process,€andÐ  p Ðshe€had€entered€a€defense€in€the€lawsuit€and€then€abandoned€it.€€€The€order€further€found€the€MotherÐ  \ Ðin€violation€of€the€provisions€of€the€parental€relocation€statute,€and€she€was€the€subject€of€a€pendingÐ øH Ðpetition€for€criminal€contempt.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€found€that€it€was€in€the€best€interests€of€theÐ ä4 Ðminor€children€that€the€Father€be€awarded€custody.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Mother€filed€a€pro€se€notice€of€appeal.€€Subsequently,€she€retained€John€Cannon,€and€heÐ ¨ø Ðfiled€a€motion€to€set€the€judgment€aside.€€The€motion€alleged€that€the€Mother€was€led€to€believe€thatÐ ”ä Ðshe€did€not€have€to€respond€or€appear€at€the€trial€because€the€matter€was€being€resolved€byÐ €Ð Ðagreement.€€The€Father€and€his€counsel€filed€affidavits€denying€the€Motherððs€allegations€that€she€hadÐ l¼ Ðbeen€misled.€€The€Mother€responded€with€an€affidavit€admitting€that€she€knew€about€the€trial€date.€Ð X ¨ ÐShe€says€she€failed€to€appear€because€she€ð ðhad€no€funds€to€attend€and€I€had€been€advised€by€the€localÐ D!” Ðauthorities€at€the€Kids€First,€Inc.€to€minimize€any€contact€that€the€children€might€have€with€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐÔ_ÔSweattÔ_Ô€due€to€allegations€of€abuse.ððÐ #l! ÐÌà  àThe€question€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€having€a€custody€modification€hearing€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðabsence€of€the€Mother.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  à€Motherððs€counsel€asserts€that€ð ðthere€was€no€motion€for€default,€no€order€setting€a€hearing,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€no€notice€that€the€hearing€would€occur€on€September€19òòthóó€of€record."€€Therefore,€he€argues€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€trial€court€improperly€granted€a€change€of€custody€based€upon€a€ð ðdefault€judgment.ðð€AlthoughÐ )à$( Ðthe€decision€to€set€aside€a€default€judgment€rests€with€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€trialÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourts€ð ðshould€grant€relief€whenever€any€reasonable€doubt€exists€concerning€whether€the€defaultÐ h+¸&* Ðjudgment€should€be€set€aside.ðð€€òòòòóóNelson€v.€Simpsonóó,€826€S.W.2d€483,€485„86€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)Ð T,¤'+ Ð(citation€omitted).€Counsel€insists€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€failing€to€set€theÐ @-(, Ðð ðdefault€judgmentðð€aside.Ð ° ÐÌà  à€Finally,€the€Mother's€counsel€argues€that€the€court€cannot€sustain€a€custody€award€withoutÐ ˆØ Ðhearing€relevant€proof€as€to€the€childrenððs€best€interests.€€Citing€òòÔ_ÔCastlemanÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCastlemanÔ_Ô,óó€No.Ð tÄ ÐM2000„00270„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€820,€2000€WL€1862836€(Tenn€.Ct.€App.€DecÐ `° Ð21,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€ò òó óCounsel€insists€that€the€court€must€hear€not€onlyÐ L œ Ðthe€Fatherððs€proof,€but€also,€the€Motherððs€proof.€€€He€insists,€ð ðTo€contend€that€such€a€lopsidedÐ 8 ˆ Ðhearing€actually€allowed€proof€relevant€to€those€best€interests€would€be€ludicrous,€at€best.ððÐ $ t ÐÌà  àFatherððs€counsel€argues€that€classification€of€the€judgment€is€insignificant.€€He€argues€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€because€the€Mother€took€no€action€to€protect€her€interestÐ è 8  Ðand€the€trial€court€changed€custody€only€after€considering€material€evidence€regarding€the€childrenððsÐ Ô$  Ðbest€interests.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€common€thread€among€the€cases€dealing€with€custody€hearings€in€the€absence€of€oneÐ ˜è  Ðparent€is€the€protection€of€the€absent€partyððs€procedural€due€process€rights,€òòseeóó€òòMohan€v.€Mohanóó,€Ð „Ô  ÐNo.€01A01„9708„CV„00415,€1998€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€669,1998€WL€743332€(Tenn.€Ct.€€App.€Oct€9,Ð pÀ Ð1998)€(no€Tenn.€R€.App.€11€application€filed),€€and€a€requirement€that€the€court€hear€proofÐ \¬ Ðcomparing€the€fitness€of€the€parents€and€the€childrenððs€best€interests.€€€òòSeeóó€òòMartin€v.€Martinóó,€No.Ð H˜ Ð01A01„9002„GS„00064,€1990€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€396,€1990€WL€73928€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€6,Ð 4„ Ð1990)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€òòMartinóó€this€court€concluded€€that€a€custody€change€could€occur€by€a€default€judgment€ifÐ øH Ðthe€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€made€a€determination€regarding€the€childrenððsÐ ä4 Ðbest€interests.€€However,€in€òòÔ_ÔMahonÔ_Ôòòóóóó€this€court€reversed€a€trial€courtððs€custody€modification,€after€aÐ Ð  Ðfull€hearing,€where€the€father€missed€the€trial€because€of€his€motherððs€illness.€€Because€the€fatherÐ ¼  Ðfailed€to€properly€document€his€continuance€motions,€the€trial€court€denied€the€fatherððs€two€motionsÐ ¨ø Ðfor€continuance.€€Based€on€evidence€not€presented€to€the€trial€court,€this€court€found€that€the€fatherÐ ”ä Ðwas€absent€from€the€trial€because€he€was€attending€his€ailing€mother€overseas,€and€that€he€wasÐ €Ð Ðprejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€grant€his€continuance€requests.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔCastlemanÔ_Ô,óó€this€court€reversed€a€custody€modification€where€the€mother€failed€to€appearÐ D!” Ðin€court€on€time.€€The€case€was€set€for€9:00€a.m.€€The€mother€called€her€attorney€and€said€she€wasÐ 0"€  Ðrunning€late.€€At€9:50€a.m.€the€court€granted€a€default€judgment€without€an€evidentiary€€hearing€onÐ #l! Ðthe€issue€of€the€childððs€best€interest.€€The€mother€arrived€at€10:10€a.m.€€This€court€reversed€andÐ $X" Ðremanded€for€hearing€on€the€merits€for€two€reasons:€€First,€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€conductÐ ô$D # Ðan€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€issue€of€the€children's€best€interests;€second,€because€this€court€found€Ð à%0!$ Ðcompelling€the€motherððs€genuine€efforts€to€notify€her€attorney€and€the€court€that€she€was€runningÐ Ì&"% Ðlate.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€trial€court€protected€the€Motherððs€€procedural€due€process€rightsÐ )à$( Ðand€conducted€a€full€hearing€on€the€childrenððs€best€interests.€€The€Mother€had€two€or€three€attorneysÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ |*Ì%) Ðrepresenting€her€interests.€€She€offered€conflicting€excuses€for€her€failure€to€appear€at€the€trial.€€InÐ ° Ðher€motion€to€set€aside€the€judgment,€the€Mother€says€she€was€led€to€believe€no€response€wasÐ œì Ðnecessary,€and€the€matter€was€being€resolved€by€agreement.€€In€view€of€a€pending€petition€forÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€contempt,€her€allegation€is€not€credible.€€In€her€affidavit,€she€admits€she€knew€about€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðdate,€but€offers€other€excuses€for€failing€to€appear.€€She€never€attempted€to€contact€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðprior€to€her€failure€to€appear,€and€she€offers€no€rational€reason€for€not€appearing.€€When€the€motionÐ L œ Ðto€set€aside€the€judgment€was€heard,€she€again€failed€to€appear.€€The€record€supports€a€finding€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Mother€deliberately€failed€to€appear€and€protect€her€rights.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAlthough€no€transcript€was€filed,€nor€did€the€attorneys€file€a€statement€of€evidence,€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourtððs€order€of€September€29,€2000,€reflects€a€finding€by€the€court€that€it€was€in€the€childrenððs€bestÐ è 8  Ðinterest€for€custody€to€be€modified.€€Without€a€record,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€record,€hadÐ Ô$  Ðit€been€preserved,€would€have€contained€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòSeeóó,Ð À  ÐÔ_ÔòòSherrodÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWixÔ_Ô,óó€849€S.W.2d€780€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1992);€òòGotten€v.€Gottenóó,€748€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.€Ct.€l987).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àBecause€the€trial€court€protected€the€Motherððs€procedural€due€process€rights€and€conductedÐ pÀ Ða€full€hearing€on€the€childrenððs€best€interests,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð \¬ ÐÌÔ‡XøèXXXøèÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBUDDY€D.€PERRY,€JUDGEÔ#†XøèXXXøèÏ;#ÔÔ_ÔÐ ä4 Ðà  àÔ_Ô