WPCV" 1# UN % 0N 0kb8 0D@w@4N 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0|; m= 0T 0 1uj 0d 1mC 0c B U>0 n   v~wvHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   (}(2^$ y!     XXv^X `   0  - -(#$  0    U U D oe  D E   y?*#3|x 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  U2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X #@e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;$2@e  0  .3  0   d<  9p`(&Times New Roman | !#d#%%   $   X %X       _Statev.Tuttle,914S.W.2d926,933(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995)recountsMr.Tuttlescriminalhistory.  !#d#%%   $   X %X       _TherecorddoesnotcontaindirectevidenceconcerningthelengthofMr.Tuttlesvoluntarymanslaughtersentence.Mr.Tuttlestatesinhisbriefthathereceivedasixyearsentenceforhisvoluntarymanslaughterconviction.  !#d#%%   $   X %X       _Mr.Tuttleassertsforthefirsttimeonappealthatthecomplaintandsummonswerenotproperlyservedonhim.Hehaswaivedthisissuebyfailingtoraiseitinthetrialcourt.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.12.08;Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).Wewillnotconsiderissuesregardingthesufficiencyofserviceofprocessforthefirsttimeonappeal.SeeBrewerv._DeCamp_ԀGlassCasketCo.,139Tenn.97,11012,201_S.W._Ԁ145,14849(1918).  !#d#%%   $   X %X       _Thepartieshavenotprovidedatranscriptorstatementoftheevidence.ThetrialcourtcorrectlydeniedMr.TuttlesrequestforatranscriptatstateexpensebecausedivorcecasesarenotthetypeofcivilproceedinginwhichtheStateisobligatedtoprovideatranscripttoeitherpartyatstateexpense.See_M.L.B._Ԁv._S.L.J._,___U.S.___,___,117S.Ct.555,568(1997)(holdingthattheStatemustprovidetranscriptsincriminalandquasicriminalproceedingsandinproceedingsinvolvingtheterminationofparentalrights);_Almarez_Ԁv.Carpenter,347F.Supp.597,599(D.Colo.1972)(findingnoconstitutionalrighttoafreetranscriptinadivorcecase).  !#d#%%   $   X %X       _Complaintsseekingadivorceforirreconcilabledifferencesneednotbeverified.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364107(a).Whilepartiesassertedthattheywereentitledtoadivorcebasedonirreconcilabledifferences,neitherpartywasentitledtoanirreconcilabledifferencesdivorcebecausetheyhadnotagreedonanequitabledistributionoftheirmaritalproperty.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364103(b).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva tuttle v. tuttle - opinion  7) ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    ! . %%   ݛ_       X \RA'\  \RA'\7dd7    @ % INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE% VICKIEDIANNETUTTLE,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   )      ) CoffeeCircuit      ) No.1883DVS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019512CV00546ROBERTEDWARDTUTTLE, )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORCOFFEECOUNTY@ ATMANCHESTER,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEGERALDL.EWELL,SR.,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellee:    FortheDefendant/Appellant:NoAppearance0 0     RobertE.Tuttle,ProSe@ % AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED %       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE   8 %@ OPINION % Thisappealinvolvesadivorceinwhichthehusbandhasbeenincarceratedthroughoutthemarriage.Afterapproximatelyfouryearsofmarriage,boththewifeandthehusbandfiledsuitfordivorceintheCircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty.Followingabenchtrialattendedonlybythewife,thetrialcourtgrantedthewifeadivorceonthegroundsthatthehusbandwasincarceratedandthathisconvictionhadrenderedhiminfamous.Onthisappeal,thehusbandassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavegrantedthewifeadivorcebecauseshedidnotproperlyverifyhercomplaintandassertsthathedidnotreceivepropertythatwasrightfullyhis.Wehavedeterminedthatthejudgmentshouldbeaffirmedandthatthecaseshouldberemandedforconsiderationofthehusbandspropertyclaims.@ I.  RobertTuttlehasalengthycriminalrecord. &   ׀Hewaslivingin_Tullahoma_underthealias TomJoneswhenhemetVickiLancaster.Mr.TuttleandMs.LancasterhadbeendatingforapproximatelyoneyearwhenthelawenforcementauthoritiesarrestedMr.TuttleinOctober1990foraggravatedburglaryandmurder.Mr.Tuttle,stillknownas TomJones,andMs.LancasterweremarriedinAugust1991whileMr.Tuttlewasstillinjailawaitingtrial.InFebruary1992,afterMr.Tuttlestrueidentitybecameknown,Mr.TuttleandMs.LancasterwereremarriedunderthenameofMr.andMrs.RobertTuttle. InApril1995,aCoffeeCountyjuryconvictedMr.Tuttleofvoluntarymanslaughter. '   ׀HewaslaterconvictedofaggravatedburglarybyaFranklinCountyjuryandwassentencedtoserveeightyearsinthestatepenitentiary.ThetrialcourtinFranklinCountydeterminedthatMr.Tuttleshouldservehissentenceforaggravatedburglaryconsecutivelywithhisvoluntarymanslaughtersentence.   Ms.TuttlesuedMr.TuttlefordivorceinApril1995intheCircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty.Sheassertedthreegrounds:(1)thatMr.Tuttlesconvictionshadrenderedhiminfamous[Tenn.CodeAnn.364101(5)(1996)],(2)thatMr.Tuttlehadbeenincarcerated[Tenn.CodeAnn.364101(6)],and(3)thatthepartieshadirreconcilabledifferences[Tenn.CodeAnn.364101(11)].Inexplicably,eventhoughMs.Tuttlehadretainedcounsel,hercomplaintwasnotverifiedasrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.364107(a)(1996)asitthenread. InhisproseanswerfiledonMay19,1995,Mr.TuttleadmittedthatMs.Tuttlehadgroundsfordivorcebasedonhiscriminalconvictionandincarcerationbutdeniedthatthepartieshadirreconcilabledifferences.However,helaterassertedinhiscounterclaimthatthepartieshadirreconcilabledifferencesandthatMs.Tuttlewasguiltyofcrueltyanddesertion.Mr.TuttledidnottakeissuewithMs.Tuttlesdefectiveverificationofhercomplaintorassertanyotheraffirmativedefense. (   ׀ ThetrialcourtconductedabenchtrialonAugust4,1995.Mr.Tuttlewasnotpresentbecausehewasincarcerated.BasedonMs.Tuttlesevidence,thetrialcourtgrantedMs.TuttleanabsolutedivorceonthetwogroundsbasedonMr.Tuttlescriminalconvictions.ThetrialcourtalsodismissedMr.Tuttlescounterclaimfordivorceandrestoredthepartiesrightsandprivilegesassinglepersonsbutmadenospecificmentionofthepartiesmaritalorseparateproperty.@ II. Therearefewfactualdisputesinthisrecord,andtheissuesMr.Tuttleseekstoraiseareessentiallylegalonesforwhicharecordisnotrequired. )   ׀Heinsiststhatthe    trialcourtshouldhaveprovidedhimwiththeassistanceofcounselatstateexpense,thatthetrialcourtshouldnothaveawardedMs.Tuttlejointlyheldstock,andthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavegrantedMs.Tuttleadivorcebecauseshehadnotverifiedhercomplaint.Wewilltakeeachoftheseissuesupinturn.@ A. @  Mr.TuttlesRighttoCounsel  Mr.Tuttlerepresentedhimselfthroughouttheproceedingsinthetrialcourt.Afterheperfectedhisappeal,herequestedthetrialcourttoappointcounseltorepresenthim.ThetrialcourtdeniedMr.Tuttlesrequest,andMr.Tuttlehasnotrenewedhisrequestforappointedcounselinthiscourt. Indigentcivillitigantsdonothaveaconstitutionalrighttostatepaidcounselinallcivilproceedings.SeeLassiterv.DepartmentofSoc.Servs.,452U.S.18,25,101S.Ct.2153,215859(1981);Cookishv.Cunningham,787F.2d1,2(1stCir.1986);Rosewellv.Hanrahan,523N.E.2d10,12(Ill.App.Ct.1988).TheylikewisehavenostatutoryrighttostatepaidcounselinTennessee,althoughTenn.CodeAnn.232101(1994)empowerscourtstoappointmembersofthebartorepresentindigentlitigantsincivilcases.Whenappointed,thesecounselserveprobono,notattaxpayerexpense. Mr.Tuttleinsiststhatprisonershaveastatutoryrighttostatepaidcounsel,evenifotherindigentcivillitigantsdonot.HerestshisclaimonTenn.CodeAnn.4121302(1997)whichstates:8 8  Ifabillorpetitionisfiledagainstaconvictinanycourthavingjurisdiction,oranyinterrogatoriespropoundedtohimasapartytothesuit,whichrequiretobeanswered,theconvictmaybeallowedtheaidofcounseltopreparehisanswer.ThisstatutedoesnotrequiretheStatetoprovidecounseltoprisonerswhoarepartiesincivilcases;itmerelypermitsprisonerstousecounsel. Otherpanelsofthiscourthaveheldonatleasttwoprioroccasionsthatpartiesindivorceproceedingsarenotentitledtoappointedcounsel.See_Northcott_Ԁv._Northcott_,App.No.01A019407CV00325,1995WL8029,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.11,1995),perm.app.denied(Tenn.May30,1995);Lyonv.Lyon,765S.W.2d759,763(Tenn._Ct.App_.1988).Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,wehavenobasistoconcludethatthetrialcourterredwhenitdeniedMr.Tuttlesrequestforappointedcounsel.@ B. @  TheVerificationofMs.TuttlesDivorceComplaint  Mr.TuttleassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavegrantedMs.TuttleadivorcebecausehercomplaintwasnotverifiedinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.364107(a).Hecorrectlypointsoutthatatonetimethelackofproperverificationofadivorcecomplaintprovidedgroundsfordismissal.SeeTurnerv.Bell,198Tenn.232,248,279S.W.2d71,78(1955);_DeArmond_Ԁv._DeArmond_,92Tenn.40,4246,20_S.W._Ԁ422,423(1892)._Fuqua_Ԁv._Fuqua_,No.01A019403_DR_Ԅ00143,1994WL441041,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.17,1994)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).However,theGeneralAssemblyrelaxedthisrequirementin1996whenitamendedTenn.CodeAnn.364107toprovidethatdivorcedecreesfiledpriortoMarch22,1996wouldnotbeconsideredinvalidsimplybecausethedivorcecomplaintdidnotcontainanaffidavitofverification.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.364107(c). ThedivorcedecreeinthiscasewasfiledonAugust4,1995.Thus,anytechnicaldefectresultingfromMs.TuttlescounselsfailuretocomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.364107(a)isofnolegalconsequence.Mr.Tuttledidnotraisethisissueuntilafterthetrialcourtsdecision.WhileadmittingthatMs.Tuttlehadgroundsfordivorcebasedonhisconvictionandincarceration,heassertedthatshewasentitledtoadivorceonthegroundsofdesertion,cruelty,andirreconcilabledifferences.Inalaterpleading,heassertedthathewasentitledtoanirreconcilabledifferencesdivorce. *   ׀Mr.TuttlesadmissionthathehadbeenconvictedofaninfamouscrimeandthathehadbeenincarceratedthroughoutthemarriageamounttoastipulationofgroundsfordivorceunderTenn.CodeAnn.364129(a)(1996).Accordingly,weletstandthejudgmentgrantingMs.TuttleadivorceonthegroundsthatMr.Tuttlehadbeenconvictedofaninfamouscrimethathadresultedinasentenceofconfinementinthestatepenitentiary.@ C. @  TheDistributionoftheMartialProperty  Asafinalmatter,wetakeupMr.Tuttlesassertionthatthetrialcourtdidnotequitablydistributethepartiesjointlyownedproperty.DespiteMs.Tuttlesassertionthatthepartieshadaccumulatednomaritalproperty,Mr.TuttleclaimedthathehadalegallyrecognizableinterestinanunspecifiedamountofWalMartstock,anautomobile,clothing,andotherpersonalbelongingsincludingmusicaltapes,compactdisks,tools,anddrawings.Wefindnoindicationinthisrecordthatthetrialcourtdealtwiththeseitemsofproperty. Judicialdecreesshouldbeconstruedlikeotherwritteninstruments.See_Livingston_Ԁv._Livingston_,58Tenn.App.271,281,429S.W.2d452,456(1967).Theyshouldbeinterpretedasawhole,see_Cookeville_ԀGynecology&Obstetrics,P.C.v.SoutheasternData_Sys_.,Inc.,884S.W.2d458,462(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),andwithreferencetothepleadings.SeeSouthwesternPresbyterianUniv.v.Clarksville,149Tenn.256,26566,259_S.W._Ԁ550,553(1924).Decreescannottranscend_above_Ԁandbeyondthepleadingsandtheproof.SeeFidelity_Phenix_FireIns.Co.v.Jackson,181Tenn.453,46263,181S.W.2d625,62829(1944);_Galbreath_Ԁv.Nolan,58Tenn.App.260,267,429S.W.2d447,450(1967). Thedivorcedecreeinthiscasedoesnotmentionmaritalorseparateproperty.Ms.Tuttleraisednoissueconcerningpropertyinherdivorcecomplaint,andtherecordcontainsnobasisforconcludingthatshepresentedanyproofatthedivorcehearingconcerningthepartiesseparateormaritalproperty.Wecannotpresumethatthecourtdisposedofanissuefromthemerefactthatajudgmentissilentconcerningtheissue.SeeGreenwoodv.Bankof_Illmo_,753S.W.2d637,640(Mo.Ct.App.1988).Accordingly,wefindthatwhateverrightsthepartiesmayhavehadtoseparateormaritalpropertypriortotheirdivorcehavenotyetbeenadjudicated. Thetrialcourthasnotdividedthepartiespropertyinequitablybecauseithasnotyetaddressedtheissue.Onremand,thetrialcourtshoulddeterminewhetherthepartiesaccumulatedanymaritalpropertyduringtheirmarriage.Iftheydid,thetrialcourtshouldvalueitandthendivideitinanequitablemannerinaccordancewiththecriteriafordividingmaritalpropertyinTenn.CodeAnn.364121(1996).@ III.  Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealinequalproportionstoRobertEdwardTuttleandVickiDianneTuttleforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________HENRYF.TODD,_PRES_IDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION___________________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE