WPC KD*rqsKR6DZm^YRi,uV&rRb|I1x8ه Q m=t7d̳ Q.=7jDx>qfY6!J#l+>24(hS !UTcJbY}қ/lWÊ4| CnφL@h%P,sj|T}J؊vO槕1=@嘭VhyVJL]z(CrKCn²55nNo] Sߣ^SJU\<pľn w@ Qmz[&?lqIt G8/"l&ma4# : 0VGwxY{$߃Q TO3ܲ~2`jGĄ#ޑP(Е %b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 0c~E 1UNjUB 1u 72o 1 72( 1Z 72 0wb 0 B}} 0 D3> D-q 0K AS< 0 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0UY+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+:i+00 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(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `*Times New RomanTT3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#- -(|G2$ !.8Ed d 8         0  X/X d(|3 $ !.8Ed d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8Ed d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8[\d d8     _%"8-XXdd 8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @ZZAugust30,2001Session $ XsX%" #%"XXs#  ALFREDEARLVINCENTv.CHERYLLYNNVINCENTXsX%"  " @  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMorganCounty  " @ No.9976Hon.FrankV.Williams,III.,Judge      `     h FILEDOCTOBER25,2001    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200002529COAR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   Inthisdivorcecase,theTrialCourtawardedcustodyoftheminorchildtofatheranddividedthe < partiesmaritalassets.Thewifeappealedandweaffirm. (x #%"XXs##XsX%" Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  P HerschelPickensFranks#%"Xs#XsX.%",J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#%"XsK#XsX.%" ( P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,#%"Xs#XsX.%"ԀJ.,joined.  JoeR.Judkins,Wartburg,Tennessee,forAppellant,CherylLynnVincent.  JohnMcFarland,Kingston,Tennessee,forAppellee,AlfredEarlVincent. ` @66' OPINION #%"XXsR#XsX%"Ԉ !L! #%"XXs#XsX%"   ` Inthisdivorceaction,themotherappealsfromtheTrialCourtsJudgmentawarding % % custodyofthepartiesminorchildtothefatheranddividingthepartiesmaritalassets. &!&    ` Thepartiesweremarriedin1975,andseparatedin1993,andatthetimeoftrialhad p(#( fourchildren,onlyoneofwhomwasaminor. \)$)    ` TheTrialJudge,inawardingcustodytotheplaintifffather,stated: ...theminor 4+&+ childshallbeabletostaywithhermotherasmuchasshedesires,subjecttoplaintiffsoverall  ,p', supervision.  -\(- Ї   ` ThemotherarguesthattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheTrialCourtsaward  ofcustodytothefather.Ourstandardofreviewofaninitialcustodydeterminationis denovoupon  therecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unless  thepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554(Tenn.1984). t Moreover,becausecustodydecisionsarefactuallybasedandoftenaredeterminedbythecredibility ` ofthewitnesses,ourCourtishesitanttoreversethetrialcourtsdecisionsbecausethetrialjudgewas L  presentandwasabletoobservethewitnessestestifyandjudgetheircredibility.Adelspergerv. 8  Adelsperger,970S.W.2d482(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  $ t      ` Theparamountconcernincustodycasesisthewelfareandbestinterestsofthechild.  L  Kochv.Koch,874S.W.2d571(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Todeterminewhatisinthechildsbest  8  interests,courtsareinstructedtoconsidertheissueinlightofthefactorssetforthinTenn.Code $  Ann.366106.      ` Theevidenceestablishesthatthechildhasemotionalbondsandaffectionforeach   ofherparents,inthatshetestifiedshehadnoproblemwitheitherparent,butsimplypreferredliving   withhermotheratthetimeofthedivorcehearing.Fromthetimeofthepartiesseparationin1993 p to1999,shehadlivedwithherfather.Themotherconcededthatthedaughterandfatherhadagood, \ closerelationship,andduringthetimethedaughterlivedwiththefatherthemotherhadnotbeen H around,butdidkeepintouchbytelephoneandsomevisits. 4    ` Theevidenceestablishedthatthefatherwastheprimarycaregiverforthechild  \ duringtheyearsthemotherwasabsent,andtherewasvirtuallynofinancialsupportfromthemother. H Alsointhefathersfavorwasthefactthatheprovidedcontinuityandstabilityforthechildrenduring 4 theyearsthatmotherwasabsent,assuringthattheirneedsweremetandtheirattendanceatschool.   Thedaughter,duringhertestimony,expressedherpreferenceforwhereshelivedinthismanner:    (83! !"3"  0  0` (#(#3E2  Q  .3  0 ` (#` (#  So,justtomakesureIunderstand,youhavenoproblemswithyourdad,no  problemswithyourmother,youwouldjustprefertolivewithyourmother  atthistime.3E݌l (# (# Ќ  ! ! (88"3"  0   ` 32  A  .3  0 (#(#  Right.3݌D! (# (# Ќ     ` TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialJudgesdeterminationonthis #l! issue.Essentially,theTrialJudgedeterminedthatthefatherhadbeenthestablecareproviderover $X" theyears,andwouldcontinueinthatroleandprovidingforthechildsneeds.TheJudgemadeit $D # clearthatshewouldbeableto staywithhermotherasmuchasshedesired,butrequiredthemother %0!$ tocontributesupportforthechildtothefather,whowouldcontinueinhissupervisorycapacityas &"% custodian. '#&    ` WeaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtonthisissue,whichrendersmootthe )$( mothersissueregardingchildsupportandinsurance. |*%)  h+&*    ` Ontheissueofpropertysettlement,Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(a)(1)instructsthat  thetrialcourtisto equitablydividethepartiesmaritalproperty inproportionsasthecourtdeems  just.Factorstotakeintoaccountforanequitabledistributionforthetrialcourttoconsider,areset  forthinTenn.CodeAnn.364121(c). t    ` OurreviewoftheTrialCourtspropertydistributionisdenovowithapresumption L  ofcorrectness,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.X-XXXsTenn.R.App.P.13(d)#XsXXX- #; 8  Mondelliv.Howard,780S.W.2d769(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Thetrialcourthasbroaddiscretion & v insuchmatters,anditsdecisionisgivengreatweightonappeal.Id.  b Ѐ  N     ` Inthiscase,thecourtvaluedthepartiesrealpropertyat$40,000.00,andawardedit  :  tothehusband.Thehusbandwasalsoorderedtopayallofthemaritaldebts,whichtotaled &  $15,900.00,andwasorderedtopaythewife$4,000.00ininstallments,withhusbandsretirement   beingsplitequallybetweentheparties.       ` Theproofregardingthepartiesrealpropertywasthetestimonyoftheparties,   whereinthefathertestifiedthehousewasworthapproximately$30,000,andtheirhalfoftheother r land wasworthapproximately$5000.00.Themothertestifiedshedidnotknowwhattheotherland ^ wasworth,butshefeltthehousewasworthapproximately$60,000.00.Thewasnoprofessional N appraisaloftheproperty.Thehouseisahabitatforhumanityhousewhichwaspurchasedin1982 : for$32,000.00,andisapparentlyinneedofsignificantrepairs. &v      ` TheevidenceinthiscasedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsvaluation. N SeeKochv.Koch,874S.W.2d571(Tenn.App.1993).Thefatherhadsupportedthepartiesfour : childrenonhisownforsixyears,andwasabletokeepthehouseandprovideforallthechildrens & needswithvirtuallynohelpfromthemother,withmuchoftheoutstandingindebtednessbeing  incurredinconnectionwiththeseefforts.Weconcludefromalloftheevidenceandcircumstances,  thatthepropertydivisionwasequitable.SeeEllisv.Ellis,748S.W.2d424(Tenn.1988).     ` TheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,withthecostoftheappealassessedto r CherylLynnVincent,andthecauseisremanded. ^  #%"XXs#XsX%"    #%"XXsN*#XsX%" `     h     _________________________ %6!$    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J.