WPCJ n<(~0ZMCV\٥pL5;r’#o܍,iUqX!`}q%rOQk3{o &.EkHȀxP(N*fv0CKGae$tFs'lMP>‰$ozeD:ByS`zt1/\ITBԭ}*FJT-.j{r' ai@0gkO60,G Lhy fMب;@`҇pķpVuݧmVxH57xVz\htC?>Ep#8yaߒVNʓU[Q'Pыb\i7b?=2~3;):?N5KUG;"O ~W2$裏3659 XH쿴- ^+"qNԆWxoU+>P 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0T 06 0 0 0 0 0 0u 0Y 0= 0 0 0 0! 0" 0 q# 0b$ 0<% 0>% 0s% 0nJ& 0B& 0& 0:' 0L' 0Y(^( 0Z*U>++ i+ y+  + +  + +  + +  + +  + +  , ,  %, /, ?, D+Q, A|,@ -o'-  - -@ -o- (g.  . .  . . .  .  . V. I/ V[/ / 1g/ 7*0 B80 0CU0n047;? 1gD 7D 1UE 0:VE B-F BFF 0 F#GU NaI %IMI(INI 1uI 72XJ^ JwJ4JJ mJ\  `&Times New Roman'  LA satisfied Microsoft Office User0jstevens .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  6A8 54Heading 1XXX     23  ..      XXX65 (4Heading 2 X         X <:Default Para<%% :Body Text I1 ,      , <%% :Body Text In X      X < :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number6  4Body Text    64Hyperlink      *I)..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _! !X!&  XX0kX0kX+X0kXXX0k%$ !!$  %R  &*  X0kXX+X0k(2I$ al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  \  `&Times New RomanText1Text2a1Text3a2Text4a3Text5a4Text6a5Text7a6Text8a7Text9Text10'dxd=&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK@ WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8Text11D WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a_Opinion_Summarya9Text13a10Text14Text15a11a12a_Appellant_s_Attorney_Name___Appellant_Text18a_Appellee_s_Attorney_Name___Appellee_s_Text19 35;CIOU[a1I.(A)i.1.a.i.1.a.Q i. d($     d al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _?+ 4 <DL!X?#XX0k  X#  $    1  $_a  ݀Mr.Wardput$25,000ofthisamounttowardtherepaymentofanequityloanontheparties  property.Thus,theallegeddissipatedamountisreducedtoapproximately$107,000.#@݌ o ЌX0kX  #XX0k  X#  X0kX  al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _?+ 4 <DL!X?#XX0k  X#  $    2  $_a  ݀TherecordclearlyreflectsMs.Wardsgamblingactivitiesbetween1994and1997.#@݌  ЌX0kX  #XX0k  X#l  X0kX  al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _?+ 4 <DL!X?#XX0k  X#  $    3  $_a  ݀Ms.Blanchardisemployedbyanassetmanagementcompanyinthestocktradingdepartment.  RegardingthedetailsofthefinancialmanagementrelationshipbetweenMr.WardandMs.Blanchard,this o courtmakesnofactualdeterminationbaseduponthetrialcourtsfindingthatbothwitnessestestimonywas .~  credible.Curiously,Mr.Wardhadnoexplanationforwhyhedidnotjustdepositthe$53,000inthe  Boatmansaccount,whichMs.Warddidnotknowexisted.#@݌ o ЌX0kX  #XX0k  X#=  X0kX  al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _?+ 4 <DL!X?#XX0k  X#  $    4  $_a  ݀Unfortunately,theledgerwasdestroyedfollowingtheendofMr.WardandMs.Blanchards  financialrelationship.BecauseMr.Wardcouldnotaccountforthemoneydeposited,withdrawnandspent, o hecreatedasheetestimatingexpenses[Exhibit7]whichisdiscussedlaterinthisopinion.#@݌ .~ ЌX0kX  #XX0k  X#c  X0kX  al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _<(4 44 <DLX<#XX0k  X#  $    5  $\a  ݀ApparentlytheChancellorrelieduponanunreportedcase,Walkerv.Walker,No01A019001  CH00029,1990Tenn.App.LEXIS440(Tenn.Ct.App.June27,1990),whendecidingthedissipation o issue.InWalker,anissuewaswhetherfundsexpendedonthechildrenduringmarriagecouldbe .~ consideredinawardinganunequalpropertydivision.Id.at*9.Indecidingthisissue,thecourtsaid =  [_a]bsent_Ԁfraud,adivorcecourtmaynotorderareimbursementorcompensatoryinequalityofdivisionof  propertyfordissipationofmaritalpropertyduringthemarriage.Id.at*11.X0kX 35=CIOU[a2(1)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.Z i.$359=AEIMQ311111111(26T$ al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  0kXXX0k  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(l$..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0kHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcX3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)hi)~-s [-Xk@U al!..      cX0kXXcXX0kXXcX0k  _       )XX80kXXdd8  0DL!X0RXX0kQ  ɈRINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Q(AT% , -  JACKSON-  RɈ%,0Ԉ    H+ 4 <DL!DX!H% - -  March5,2002-  %-ԀSession > X0kXRRXX0k % . %.% / -  JAMESO.WARD-  %/Ԁv.% 0 %0% 1 -  SUSANAMPFERERWARD-  X0kXR %1 0  % 2 %2% 3 -  Ԁ-  %3ԀAppealfromthe% 4 %4 % 5 -  Chancery-  %5(ԀCourtfor% 6 %6q% 7 -  Shelby-  %7ԀCounty  " No.% 8 %8% 9 -  297661-  %9 Ԁ% : %:L% ; -  WalterL.Evans-  %;j,% < -  Chancellor-  %<   -  >?k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  No.% A %A% B -  W200101078COAR3CV-  %B ԀFiledDecember19,_2002_ _  -  >Ck[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE+ K K+2 -   % E '    '   %E Mr.JamesWardfiledaCompliantfordivorceonJuly31,1998.Mrs.Wardfileda V CounterComplaintforAbsoluteDivorceonNovember30,2000.Thetrialwasheld < February19,2001throughFebruary22,2001andcontinuedMarch1,2001toMarch2, " 2001.OnMarch2,theChancellorissuedfindingsoffactanddividedthemarital  property.Mrs.WardaskedthecourttofindMr.Warddissipatedapproximately  $107,355inmaritalassets,andrequestedthecourtawardherattorneysfeesaswellas  litigationexpensesbecausethesearchforhiddenfundsresultedinalargeportionofher j attorneysfees.TheChancellordeterminedMr.Warddidnotdissipatemaritalassets, P anddeniedtherequestforattorneysfees.Thechancellorenteredthefinaldecreeof 6 divorceonApril6,2001.Thisappealfollowed.' ݌ l Ќ   % F %F% G -  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight-  %G;;Judgmentofthe% H %H% I -  ChanceryCourt-  %I 8 ReversedinPart,AffirmedinPart,andRemanded     % J -  DonR.Ash,S.J.,-  %JwԀdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% K %KDavidR.Farmer,J.% L %L'and,  AlanE._Highers_,J.joined.    % M %M% N Daniel_Loyd_ԀTaylor,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Susan_Ampferer_ԀWard.%N L""   % O %O% P -  LarryRice,Memphis,Tennessee,andLauraD.Rogers,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe $h$ appellee,JamesO.Ward.-  %P $N %     OPINION '#(  Q (03h ""X0kXXX0k      ?(` ` <DL!X!?& J  V2  I  .3   `    FactsVB  Ԍ  Ќ   X0kXXX0k  " X    ":  AppellantSusan_Ampferer_ԀWardandAppelleeJamesO.WardmarriedAugust | 26,1966.Duringthemarriage,thepartiesdividedresponsibilities.Mr.Wardprovided b incomefromhisjobwithFederalExpress,maintainedthehomesexteriorand H surroundingproperty,aswellashandlingtheirinvestments.Ms.Wardmaintainedthe . ~ household,cookedmeals,caredforthechildren,andpaidmonthlybills.'J,":݌  d Ќ   X  " X    "9  "9݌  J Ќ   X  " X    "  Mr.Wardssalarywasdividedandseparatelymaintainedindifferentaccounts.  0 First,Mr.WarddepositedhispaycheckintheFederalExpressCreditUnion.Fromthis    account,Mr.Wardcoveredexpensesrelatedtohisresponsibilitiestotheexteriorofthe    home,includingthemortgages,andthepropertyimprovements.Healsomaintaineda   separateaccountatBoatmansBank.Next,Mr.WarddrewachecktotheorderofMs. x  WardtocoverhouseholdexpensesfromtheCreditUnion.Ms.Wardcontrolledajointly ^  heldfamilycheckingaccountfromwhichshepaidthefamilybills.Anymoneyleftover D  wasconsideredbythepartiesasMs.Wardsmoney.Inthelate1980sthemarriage *z  souredforvariousreasons."o݌ ` Ќ   X  " X    "h  "h݌ F Ќ   X  " X    "E  Inearly1994,Mr.Wardcameintoasubstantialamountofmoneythroughoneof , hisinvestments.RatherthandepositingthismoneyinhisBoatmansBankaccountor  theCreditUnionaccount,Mr.Wardenteredintoanarrangementwithanacquaintance  LeighBlanchard.Undertheirarrangement,Mr.WardgaveMs.Blanchardmoneyand  thenshedepositeditinanEnterpriseBankaccountinMr.Wardsname.Whenhe t neededcash,shewithdrewitforhim.Attimes,Ms.Blanchardwouldsimplytendercash Z fromasafeshemaintainedasaloanagainsttheEnterpriseaccount.Duetothe @ complexityoftheirfinancialdealings,Mr.WardandMs.Blanchardkeptaledgeroftheir &v transactions.Mr.WardandMs.Blanchardsrelationshipturnedintimatelaterin1994  \ andcontinuedthrough2000."E݌ B Ќ   X  " X    ""  ""G#݌ ( Ќ   X  " X    "#  ThepartiesseparatedinJune1997.Mr.WardfiledaComplaintforDivorceon  July31,1998.Ms.WardfiledaCounterComplaintforAbsoluteDivorceonNovember  30,2000,andthetrialwasheldfourmonthslater.February19,2001throughFebruary   22,2001andonMarch1throughMarch2,2001.OnMarch2,theChancellorissuedhis p!  findingsanddividedthemaritalproperty.Mrs.WardarguedMr.Warddissipated V"! approximately$107,000throughhisrelationshipwithMs.Blanchard.Additionally,she <#" soughtanawardofattorneysfeesforcostsincurredwhiletracingthefinancial "$r# transactionswithMs.Blanchard.TheChancellordeterminedMr.Warddidnotdissipate %X $ maritalassetsanddeniedtherequestforattorneysfees.Thechancellorenteredthefinal %>!% divorcedecreeonApril6,2001.Mrs.WardfiledanoticeofappealonMay3,2001."#$$݌ &$"& Ќ   X  " X    "(  "( )݌ ' #' Ќ   X  ""X0kXXX0k     E+` ` <DL!` ` X!E&  )2  II  .3   `    StandardofReview)|*  *Ԍ (#( Ќ   X0kXXX0k     H+ 4 <DL!` ` X!H'(^* X  Wereviewthefindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawbythetrialcourtinthis l*%* nonjurytrialdenovouponthetrialcourtrecord._T.R.A_ԀP.13(d).Wepresumethe R+&+ correctnessofthetrialcourtsfactualfindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidence 8,', isotherwise.Id.󀀀 Inadenovoreview,thepartiesareentitledtoareexaminationofthe -n(- wholematteroflawandfactandthiscourtshouldrenderthejudgmentwarrantedbythe  lawandevidence._Bookout_Ԁv._Bookout_,954S.W.2d730,731(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)  citing_Thornburg_Ԁv.Chase,606S.W.2d672(Tenn.Ct.App.1980);AmericanBuildings | Co.v.White,640S.W.2d569(Tenn.Ct.App.1982);TennesseeRulesofAppellate b Procedure,Rule36.Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawhavenopresumptionof H correctness.Adamsv.DeanRoofingCo.,715S.W.2d341,343(Tenn.Ct.App.1986). . ~ Furthermore,wedefertoatrialcourtsdivisionofmaritalpropertyunlessthetrial  d courtsdecisionisinconsistentwiththestatutoryfactorsorisunsupportedbythe  J preponderanceoftheevidence.Manisv.Manis,49S.W.3d295,306(Tenn.Ct.App.  0 2001).     X  &   III. 4 DissipationofAssets  x   X  Inanactionfordivorceorlegalseparation,thetrialcourtmayequitablydivide D  maritalpropertywithoutregardtofault,upontherequestofeitherparty.Tenn.Code *z  Ann.364121(a)(1)(2001).ThisstatutesetsouttheGeneralAssemblysbasicpremise ` _regardingthe_Ԁdivisionofmaritalproperty,namely,itshouldbeequitablybaseduponwhat F  maybejustandreasonableunderthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.Fisherv. , Fisher,648S.W.2d244,246(Tenn.1983)quoting_Langford_Ԁv._Langford_,421S.W.2d  632,634(Tenn.1967).'  2    Trialcourtsfirstclassifypropertyasmaritalorseparate,accordingtothe t definitionssetforthin_T.C.A._Ԁ364121(b)(1)(A)and(B).Uponclassifyingthe Z property,thetrialcourtdividesmaritalpropertyweighingtheevidencepresentedattrial @ asitrelatestothefactorslistedin_T.C.A._Ԁ364121(c). [T]hetrialjudgesgoalisto &v dividethemaritalpropertyinanessentiallyequitablemanner._Kinard_Ԁv._Kinard_,986  \ S.W.2d220,230(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Anequitabledivisionisnotnecessarilyan B equalone._Barnhill_Ԁv._Barnhill_,826S.W.2d443,449(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Onefactor ( tobeconsideredisapartysdissipationofmaritalproperty.Tenn.CodeAnn.364  121(c)(5)(2001).     S l<` " XX    ":  Attrial,Ms.WardarguedMr.Warddissipated$107,000inmaritalassetsby p!  transferringapproximately$132,000ofmaritalfundstoMs.Blanchard$  U T  1     $<eya  .Inearly1994, V"! Mr.Wardliquidatedaninvestmentpropertyworthapproximately$53,000.Accordingto <#" Mr.Ward,hedidnotwanttoputthismoneyinthefamilycheckingaccountmanagedby "$r# Ms.Wardbecauseofhergambling.$  V T  2     $=eya  ݀Instead,Mr.WardandMs.Blanchardallegedly %X $ establishedafinancialmanagementrelationshipwhereMr.Wardentrustedmaritalfunds %>!% toMs.Blanchard.$  W T  3     $?eya  ݀Apparently,Mr.WardgaveMs.Blanchardthemoneyandshewould &$"& deposititintoanEnterpriseBankaccountinMr.Wardsname.WhenMr.Wardneeded  money,heletMs.BlanchardknowandshewouldgetiteitherfromtheEnterprise  accountorfromherpersonalsafe.Mr.WardandMs.Blanchardallegedlymaintaineda | ledgerrecordingeachtransaction.$  X T  4     $gAeya  ݀Whenallwassaidanddone,Mr.Wardallegeshe b spenttheestimated$107,000onhimselfbecauseofhisincreaseddailyexpensesdueto H themaritalproblemsbetweenhimselfandMs.Ward.":B;݌ . ~ Ќ   XX  " XX    "GC  "GCC݌  d Ќ   XX  " XX    "$D  TheChancellorfoundMr.Warddidnotdissipatemaritalpropertythroughhis  J allegedtransactionswithMs.Blanchard.Inreachingthisconclusion,theChancellor  0 stated"$D}D݌    Ќ   XX  " XX    X X X?(4 44 <DLX!?"E  inorderforthiscourttoconcludethattherehadbeenadissipationof    assetsthiscourthastofindthat,numberone,therehadbeensomesortof   fraudthatexistsandthattherewasnothingthat8tocounterbalancethis x  allegeddiscretionaryexpenditurebyMr.Wardontheotherhand.$  _Y7 T  5     _$Heya  8[_t]he_ ^  courtisnotsatisfiedwiththeprooftothepointthatthecourthasto D  concludethatMr.Wardused$107,000inafraudulentmannerthatthe *z  courtshouldtakeintoconsiderationinmakingadisproportionate ` allocationofthemaritalassets."EF݌ F Ќ   X  " XX    X X X"J  "JK݌̌   X  " XX    X"K  WedonotfindthedictacitedinWalkertobepersuasive.UnderTennesseelaw,a  findingoffraudisnotaprerequisitetoacourtfindingapartydissipatedmaritalassets."KK݌  Ќ   X  " XX    X"@M  "@MM݌̌   X  " XX    "N  Thecourtnotesdissipationisnotdefinedinthestatute.Insuchcircumstances, t courtsmustlooktotheplainlanguageofthestatuteandapplytheordinarymeaningof Z thewords.Cohenv.Cohen,937S.W.2d823,827(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). Dissipateis @ defined [_t]o_Ԁdestroyorwaste,astoexpendfundsfoolishly.BlacksLawDictionary &v 473(6thed.1990).ThisCourtfindsinstructiveanarticlebyLeeR.Russexamininghow  \ courtsaroundthecountryhavedealtwiththedifficulttaskofmakingthefineline B distinctionbetweendissipationanddiscretionaryspending.SeeLeeR.Russ, ( Annotation,SpousesDissipationofMaritalAssetsPriortoDivorceasaFactorin  DivorceCourtsDeterminationofPropertyDivision,41_A.L.R._Ԁ4th416(1985).Trial  courtsmustdistinguishbetweenwhatmaritalexpendituresarewastefulandselfserving   andthosewhichmaybeilladvisedbutnotsofarremovedfrom normalexpenditures p!  occurringpreviouslywithinthemaritalrelationshiptorenderthemdestructive."NpN݌ V"! Ќ   XX  " XX    "8T  "8TT݌ <#" Ќ   XX  " XX    "U  Indeterminingwhetherdissipationoccurred,wefindtrialcourtsshouldconsider  thefollowing:(1)whethertheevidencepresentedattrialsupportstheallegedpurposeof  thevariousexpenditures,andifso,(2)whethertheallegedpurposeequatestodissipation | underthecircumstances.Id.at420421.Thefirstprongisanobjectivetest.Tosatisfy b thistest,thedissipatingspousecanbringforwardevidence,suchasreceipts,vouchers, H claims,orothersimilarevidencethatindependentlysupportthepurposeasalleged.The . ~ secondprongrequiresthecourttomakeanequitabledeterminationbaseduponanumber  d offactors.Thosefactorsinclude:(1)thetypicalityoftheexpendituretothismarriage;  J (2)thebenefactoroftheexpenditure,namely,whetheritprimarily_benefited_Ԁthemarriage  0 orprimarily_benefited_Ԁthesoledissipatingspouse;(3)theproximityoftheexpenditureto    thebreakdownofthemaritalrelationship;(4)theamountoftheexpenditure.Id.at421."UnU݌    Ќ   XX  " XX    "Z  "Z>[݌   Ќ   XX  " XX    "[  Webelievetheaboveannouncedanalysiswillbehelpfulinguidingtrialcourts x  whenmakingthisdistinction.Wereverseandremandbacktothetrialcourttodecide ^  whetherthefactssupportMs.WardsallegationthatMr.Warddissipatedapproximately D  $107,000ofmaritalassetsinhisdealingswithMs.Blanchardapplyingthefactors *z  previouslyenumeratedabove."[\݌ ` Ќ   XX  " XX    "`^  "`^^݌ F Ќ   XX  " XX    X"=_  IV. 4 AdmissionofEstimatedExpendituresintoEvidence"=__݌ , Ќ   X  " XX    X"l`  "l``݌̌   X  " XX    "Fa  TorebutMs.WardsallegationregardingMr.Wardsdissipationof$107,000in  maritalassets,Mr.Wardsoughttopresentevidenceofhisyearlyexpenditures.OverMs.  WardsobjectionstheChancellorallowedMr.Wardtotestifyfromadocumentmarked t Exhibit7estimatingMr.Wardsexpendituresbetween1990and1997andadmittedthe Z documentintoevidence.Ms.Wardmakestwoargumentsregardingtheexhibits @ admission:(1)Exhibit7violatesRule1006oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidenceasa &v summaryofdocumentswithoutsupportinginformationand(2)Mr.Wardscounsel  \ failedtolaytheproperfoundationunderRule612oftheRulesofEvidenceforaprior B recollectionrefreshed."Faa݌ ( Ќ   XX       Z (00Q / /"" X ,H.4 <DL!444XH   X,  E(4 4 <DL!4X!EYf2(  1  )3   4   Rule1006summaryofdocuments  YfZg݌  Ќ X'444X44X!' X  X XE+4 44 <DL!444XE X XE+ 4 <DL!444X!ERule1006operatesasanexceptiontothebestevidencerulebyallowingaparty p!  toadmitasummaryoforiginalsratherthantheburdensomeproductionof voluminous V"! writings,recordingsorphotographswhichcannotconvenientlybeexaminedincourt. <#" Tenn.R._Evid_.1006.Forthesummarytobeadmissible,thepartyseekingadmission "$r# mustlaytheproperfoundation,consistingoftestimonythat (1)theoriginalevidenceis %X $ voluminous,and(2)thesummaryissufficientlyaccurateinrepresentingtheoriginal %>!% evidence.NeilP.Cohenetal.,TennesseeLawofEvidence,10.06(3)at1021(4thed. &$"& 2000).Attrial,Mr.Wardadmittedhenolongerpossessedthereceipts,vouchers,and ' #' othersimilarevidencetosupporthisestimatedexpensesinExhibit7.Hefailedtomeet (#( thefirstprongbecausetheoriginalevidenceisnotvoluminousitisnonexistent. )$)  l*%* Mr.WardarguesExhibit7wasnotasummaryofdocumentsandtherefore,Rule R+&+ 1006doesnotapply.HemaintainsExhibit7isadmissibleunderRule106asawritingof 8,', aparty.Rule106dealswiththesituationwhereonepartyoffersonlyaportionofa -n(- writingorrecordingandtheotherpartyseeksoutoffairnesstoplacethatportioninto  contextbyrequestingtheentirewritingorrecordingbepresentedintoevidence.Statev.  _Keough_,18S.W.3d175,182(Tenn.2000).WefailtoseehowRule106isapplicable. |  b "" X ,E.4 <DL!X!E   X,H+4 4 <DL!4X!HVp2(  2  )3   4   FoundationnecessarytorefreshpriorrecollectionVpKq݌ H Ќ X' X!44X!' X  X XB+4 44 <DL!X!B! ,    X, X!r  Ms.WardassertstheproperfoundationwasnotlaidbyMr.Wardtoestablishhe  d neededhismemoryrefreshed.Rule612requiresaminimalfoundationbelaidwhena  J witnessonthestandcannotremembercertainfacts.Ondirectexamination,thewitness  0 must:(1)beunabletorecallrequestedinformation,(2)counselapproachesandallows    thewitnesstoinspectthewriting,whichrefreshesthewitnesssmemory,(3)thewriting    istakenbackbycounsel,(4)thewitnessthentestifiesfromhisrefreshedmemory.Tenn.   R._Evid_.612AdvisoryCommitteesComments.Clearly,Mr.Wardestimatedhis x  expensesbecausehecouldnotrecallexactlyonwhathehadspenthismoneybetween ^  1990and1997.However,hewasallowedtotestifydirectlyfromExhibit7overMs. D  Wardsobjections.!r+s݌ *z  Ќ   X  ! ,    X,!w  !wx݌ ` Ќ   X  " X    "x  RegardingboththeRule1006issueandRule612issue,wefindthetrialcourt F erredinadmittingExhibit7intoevidence.Mr.Wardfailedtoestablishtherequired , prerequisitesunderbothrules.However,thetrialcourtstateditwouldnotconsider  Exhibit7assubstantiveevidence.TherecordclearlyestablishestheChancellorrelied  solelyuponwitnesstestimonytoestablishthecredibilityoftheestimatedamounts.  Therefore,weholdtheChancellorerredunderRule1006andRule612regardingthe t introductionintoevidenceofExhibit7.However,weholdtheadmissionwasharmless Z erroranddidnotprejudiceMs.Wardsrights._T.R.A.P._Ԁ36(b)."xx݌ @ Ќ   X  " X    "|  "|}݌ &v Ќ   X  " X    "}  "}}݌  \ Ќ   X  " X    "d~  "d~~݌ B Ќ   X   \(40Z / /E+ 4 <DL!444X!E&  AttorneysFees (   '6" X    "  Mrs.Wardseeksattorneysfeesforcostsincurredinsearching,findingand   tracingtheapproximately$107,000Mr.WarddivertedtoMs.Blanchard. Thedecision p!  toawardattorneysfeestoapartyinadivorceproceeding,andtheamountthereof,are V"! largelywithinthetrialcourtsdiscretionandwillnotbedisturbeduponappealunlessthe <#" evidencepreponderatesagainstsuchadecision._Houghland_Ԁv._Houghland_,844S.W.2d "$r# 619,623(Tenn.App.1992).Wefindnoevidencetoreversethetrialcourtsdenialof %X $ attorneysfees."݌ %>!% Ќ   X  " X    "V  "V݌ &$"& Ќ   X  " X    "3  "3݌ ' #' Ќ   X    B+ 4 <DL!X!B&  Conclusion (#( " X    "  '(^"݌ )$) Ќ   X  " X    "  "ۇ݌ l*%* Ќ   X  " X    "e  Weconcludeitwasreversibleerrortorequirefraudtobeshownasaprerequisite R+&+  tofindingmaritalassetsweredissipated.Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentofthe 8,', trialcourtisreversedinpart,remandedinpart,andaffirmedinpart,asconsistentwith  thisopinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoMr.Ward."e݌      X  " X    "݊  "݊6݌ | Ќ   X  " X    "     <      D   ________________________"݌ b Ќ   X  " X    "     <      D   DonR.Ash"h݌ H Ќ   X  " X    "P     <      D   SpecialJudge"P݌ . ~ Ќ   X    B+ 4 <DL!X!B