WPCo Oޔ}𬊳vWd'|A-&p<1y`@Y [JLQ/zi+:5ezY%d~qj@̻9bqzwfҴ JnןrUjv 9T({eW^0 = 4dxP3TP$oS80xKjΨǟ,gTc6hBomrJNE63˫b=H #"hZ%[x IdMMj)3Ps﨟 ȶ PlTm&~{AނKt0-Oڮ5i \OL [F3=ӦZ$=;(0(YJJ&lZL{/f&>5DZ@ut"[~9,Bn==.b %\U@b 0U(N*^ xw4 z   m 0D T    U<l N % UNENU:!U@[#bdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 0llll BWW 0t D3 D-K 0Kxx AS 0 0D A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularg(L ~(C C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman  Ri$      1  XX  _X(> XXXRule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion.(b)TheCourt,withthe  concurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifythe  actionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhave   noprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbe   designated"MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecited   orreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.#XX XX(>~#XXXX(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z(Times New Roman  HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0- -(|G2i$ !.8dd8         0  XX d(|31$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|31$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE   @"MAY2000SESSION 8 0 XX #XX#  VICKIDIANNETUTTLEv.ROBERTEDWARDTUTTLEXX  @ 8 @1 1  ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty H @ @ No.1883DTheHonorableL.CraigJohnson,Judge 80 @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @@ @ No.M199901578_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly28,_2000_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<` A    XXXX  Inapreviousappeal,thisdivorcecasewasremandedtothetrialcourtforadeterminationof   whetherthepartieshadanymaritalpropertyand,ifso,forthetrialcourttomakeanequitable  divisionthereof.Fromthetrialcourtsfinaldecreeincompliancewiththeorderofremand,  defendantappeals.#XXXX؈##XX##XX   Tenn.R.App.P.3,AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  ~ Crawford,P.J.,W.S.#Xj#XX.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHighers,J.,andFarmer,J., f^ joined. VN RobertE.Tuttle,ProSe 6. Noappearancebyappellee.   #XXD#XXX(> XXX ..8dXXd8     @DD! MEMORANDUMOPINION   #  1      ׈ !   #XX XX(>##XXp#XX  XXXXThisdivorcecaseisbeforethisCourtforthesecondtime.In Tuttlev.Tuttle ,No.01A01 $! 9512CV00546(Tenn.App.,Oct.10,1997,asmodifiedJan.30,1998),thisCourtaffirmedthetrial %"' courtsdecreegrantingadivorcetoplaintiff,VickiDianneTuttle(Wife),fromdefendant,Robert  E.Tuttle(Husband).Thetrialcourtdidnotdealwiththeissueofdivisionofmaritalproperty,  althoughdefendantsanswerandcounterclaimassertedthathewasentitledtocertainpropertyas  hisseparatepropertyandalsowasentitledtoadivisionofmaritalproperty.ThisCourtremanded   thecasetothetrialcourtforadeterminationofwhetherthereisanymaritalpropertyand,ifso,to   valuethepropertyandequitablydividesame.     OnOctober8,1999,thetrialcourtconductedanevidentiaryhearing,andonOctober12, | t 1999entereda SupplementalFinalDecreewhich,afterdetailingthemultitudeofpleadingsfiled h` afterremand,provides: TL  8  8`    Onthe8thdayofOctober,1999,thiscausecameontobe ,$  furtherheardupontheaforementionedpleadings,testimonyofthe   PlaintiffandherdaughterinopenCourt,statementsandarguments   ofcounsel,fromallofwhichtheCourtfindsasfollows: ` x` x 8  8`   1.ThatallofthePlaintiffspersonalpropertywasaccumulatedprior  tothemarriageand,therefore,constitutesherseparateproperty  includingbutnotlimitedtothefollowing:householdfurniture,  ChevroletBlazersubjecttotheindebtednessthereon,andWalmart  ProfitSharingPlan.Sincethispropertyistheseparatepropertyof xp PlaintiffandtheDefendantdidnothingtoenhancethevalueofsame, d\ thepropertyisnotsubjecttodivisionpursuanttoT.C.A.#XXXXI #XPdXXX#XXXXPd@#XXXXԀ364121.PH` x` x 8  8`   2.ThattheseparatepropertyoftheDefendantwasdeliveredtohim (  includingawordprocessor,13"colorTV,stereo,varioustapesand   CDs,watch,ring,andgoldnecklace.` x` x 8  8`   3.Thatcertainitemsincludinga1947KnuckleheadHarley   Davidson,Craftsmantools,andthe1978FordMercuryMonarch ! eitherneverexistedorwereneverinthepossessionofPlaintiff."` x` x 8  8`   4.ThatthePlaintiffisresponsibleforthemedicalexpensesincurred $  inhernameandthereappearstobenomaritaldebtstobe t%l! apportioned.`&X"` x` x 8  8`   5.ThatcounselforPlaintiffhasfulfilledhisobligationsconcerning 8(0!$ thiscauseandishenceforthrelievedofallresponsibilityforthe $)"% representationofPlaintiff.*#&` x` x 8  8`   ITIS,THEREFORE,ORDERED,ADJUDGEDANDDECREEDas +$( follows:` x` x 8  8`   1.Thatallpropertyincludingthehouseholdfurniture,Chevrolet  Blazer,andWalmartProfitSharingPlanistheseparatepropertyof   thePlaintiffandisnotsubjecttodivisionpursuantto#XXXX؆#XPdXXXTCA#XXXXPd#XXXXԀ#XXXX#XPdXXX#XXXXPdQ#XXXXԀ364   121; ` x` x 8  8`   2.ThattheseparatepropertyoftheDefendantincludingaword | t processor,TV,stereo,andvarioustapesandCDs,awatch,ring,and h` goldnecklacearehisseparatepropertyandhavealreadybeen TL  deliveredtohim.@8 ` x` x 8  8`   3.Thattheotheritemsallegedtohavebeeninthepossessionofthe   Plaintiffeitherdonotexistorwereneverinherpossession,butifthe   Defendantcanfindsaiditems,theyareawardedtohim. ` x` x 8  8`   4.ThatthePlaintiffisherebyorderedtoberesponsibleforthe  medicalbillsincurredonherbehalf.` x` x 8  8`   5.ThatA.BurtonEnglish,attorneyforPlaintiff,isrelievedofany  furtherresponsibilityforrepresentationofthePlaintiffinthiscause.xp` x` x 8  8`   6.ThatthecostsofthiscausebeadjudgedagainsttheDefendantfor PH whichexecutionmayissueafterapplicationofPlaintiffsdepositon <4 saidcosts.( ` x` x   Husbandappealsandpresentstwoissuesforreviewwhich,asstatedinhisbrief,are:  #XXXXؗ#XXXX8  8`   1.Whetherthepropertysettlementawardedbythetrialcourtwas   bothlegalandequitable?!` x` x ! !8  8`   2.Whetherthetrialcourtgivingplaintifffullcontrolandpossession # ofdefendantspropertyisviolatingdefendantsrightsundertheequal $  protectionofthelawanddueprocess?%!` x` x #XXXX #XXXX  Thefirstissueforreviewisfactbased.Therecordcontainsneitheratranscriptofthe d'\ # evidenceorastatementoftheevidence,asprovidedforinT.R.A.P.24.In Coakleyv.Daniel ,840 P(H!$ S.W.2d367(Tenn.Ct.App.1992),thisCourt,facedwithafactbasedissueintheabsenceofa <)4"% transcriptorstatementoftheevidence,said: (* #& 8  8`    Thisissueisfactbased.Wheretheissuesraisedgotothe ,$( evidence,theremustbeatranscript.Intheabsenceofatranscriptof  theevidence,thereisaconclusivepresumptionthattherewas  sufficientevidencebeforethetrialcourttosupportitsjudgment,and  thisCourtmustthereforeaffirmthejudgment. McKinneyv.   EducatorandExecutiveInsurers,Inc. ,569S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.   CtApp.1977).Thisrulelikewiseapplieswherethereisastatement   oftheevidencewhichisincomplete.Theburdenisuponthe   appellanttoshowthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthe | t judgmentofthetrialcourt. CapitalCityBankv.Baker ,59Tenn. h` App.477,493,442S.W.2d259,266(1969).Theburdenislikewise TL  ontheappellanttoprovidetheCourtwithatranscriptoftheevidence @8  orastatementoftheevidencefromwhichthisCourtcandetermine ,$  iftheevidencedoespreponderatefororagainstthefindingsofthe   trialcourt.Theappellanthasfailedtocarrythisburden.Thisissue   iswithoutmerit. ` x` x  Id. at370.    Althoughpartieswhochoosetorepresentthemselvesareentitledtofairandequaltreatment,  theyarenotexcusedfromcomplyingwithapplicable,substantive,andprocedurallaw,andtheymust  followthesamesubstantiveandprocedurallawastherepresentedparty. Paehlerv.UnionPlanters xp Nat.Bank,Inc. ,971S.W.2d393,396(Tenn.Ct.App.1997); Irvinv.CityofClarksville ,767 d\ S.W.2d649,652(Tenn.Ct.App.1988). PH   Husbandsfirstissueiswithoutmerit. (    AstoHusbandssecondissue,wefindnothinginthefinaldecreeawardingWifepossession  ofHusbandsproperty.Thetrialcourtmadeaspecificfindingoffactthatthemajorityofthe  propertywasWifesseparateproperty.Thetrialcourtfurtherfoundthatthevariousdescribed   articlesofpersonalpropertyconstitutingHusbandsseparatepropertyhadalreadybeendeliveredto ! Husband.Finally,thecourtfound thattheotheritemsallegedtohavebeeninthepossessionofthe " Plaintiffeitherdonotexistorwereneverinherpossession,butiftheDefendantcanfindsaiditems, # theyareawardedtohim.Wedonotconstruethislanguagetobeanawardtoplaintiffof $  defendantspersonalproperty.AswenotedinconsideringHusbandsfirstissue,intheabsenceof t%l! atranscriptorstatementoftheevidence,wemustconclusivelypresumethattherewassufficient `&X" evidencebeforethetrialcourttosupportthetrialcourtsfindings. SeeLeekv.Powell ,884S.W.2d L'D # 118(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). 8(0!$   Husbandssecondissueiswithoutmerit. *#&   Accordingly,thefinaldecreeofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthiscaseisremandedtothe +$( trialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsthatmaybenecessary.Costsofappealareassessedagainst  theappellant,RobertEdwardTuttle,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.     `     h    `     h     ______________________________________      `     h     W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDING      `     h     JUDGE,_W.S._ | t #XXXX ###XX #XX#XX5#XX#XXD6#XX