T en n. C t

. A p p

. R

. 1 0 st ates: 1

T hi s C o urt , wi t h t he co ncurrence of al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af firm , r e v e rs e o r m o d i f y t he

ac t i o ns o f

t he t rial co urt b y m em o ran d um o p i nio n w he n a fo rm al o p i nio n w o uld ha ve no p rec ed en t i al value

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed by m em o randum o p i ni o n i t shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " shal l no t be pub l i shed, and

s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 5, 200 5 S es sio n
LIND A M . F ERR ELL v. CH AR LES R . F ERR ELL
Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Sumner County No. 2002D-400 TomE. Gr ay, Chancellor

No. M2003- 02435-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Jul y 22, 2005

Hu sb a ndapp e a ls the div isi on of mari ta l pr op e rt y

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt fo un d Hu sb a nd didno t bring int o the marria g e a s ma ny

a sse ts as W if

e di d, thu s a wa

rd ing a g re a te r p ortio n o f the pa rt ie s' ho me to Wif e rathe r tha n Hus ba nd

. Th e tr ia l cou rt fu rthe r fo un d tha t Hus ba nd ha d diss ipate d ma ri ta l a sse ts wh e n h e so ld the pa

rt ie s' ho rs e ri din g ri ng s in vio la tio n of the sta tut or y inj un c tio n. Hu sb a nd c la ims that th e div isi on of

pr op e rt y wa s n ot e qu a l a nd c ha lle ng e s th e fi nd ing that he dis sip a te d mari ta l a sse ts while not making the same f inding with re g ard to Wife. We af firm.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Aff irm ed

F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich W I L L I AM B. C A IN and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J J ., joined.

Th oma s F . B loo m, N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Cha

rl e s R. F e rr e ll.

L aura Y. Goodall, Ga llatin, Tennessee , and Robert Todd Jackson, Na shville, Tennessee , for the
app e lle e , Lind a

M. F e rr e ll. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

Charles R. Fe rre ll (Husband) a nd L inda M. Fe rre ll (Wi fe) wer e mar ried in 1988. The pa

rties met in Chattanoog a, Te nnessee but Wi fe w as a resident of L ouisiana where she owned a home and
wa s a c o- ow ne r o f a

be a uty sc ho ol. Wif

e so ld he r ho me fo r $ 15 5, 00 0 a nd he r p ortio n o f the be a utyW i fe recei ved pa y m ent s o n t he no t e f o r onl y ei ght een (18 ) mo nt hs rat her t han t he f ul l f i ve (5) y ears d ue t o t he 2
b u ye r' s b a n k ru p tc y.

H us band had no bank acc ount s or as s et s of r ecor d w hen t he part i es marr i ed. H i s s oci al s ecu r i t y r eport s s howed 3

n o i n come for 1986 a n d 1987 a n d s h owe d on l y $10, 650 for 1988.

A t t he t i me of

t he di vor ce, t he hous e wa s va l ued a t $24 0, 00 0 wi t h a $15 , 00 0 m ort gag e bal anc e. 4

-2- school fo r $ 1 5 0,000 in cash a nd a promissory note for $150,000. Husband' s line of work w as 2 mostlyentre prene urial. He boug ht and sold rea l estate, tra ctors and hor se equipmen t. Husband t es t i fi ed t o en t er i n g t h e m ar ri age wi t h $ 6 8 , 0 0 0 fr o m s ev er al l an d s al es h e m ad e p ri o r t o t h e m ar ri age but offer ed nothing in the way of evide nce to support this proposition. 3
Upon the sale of her

home and business, Wife moved to Te nnessee to be with Husband. They purcha sed land toget h er and buil t a home. Husba nd paid $8,000 while Wife contributed $30,000 toward the purcha se price of the land. Wife furthe r contributed $224,000 towa rd the a ctual building of the home. Husband did not make any financ ial contributions but contributed by serving
a s g e ne ra l c on tr a c tor

fo r the bu ild ing of the ho us e

. He a lso sa ve d the pa rt ie s mone y by

do ing so me of the labor

and improveme nts to the house himself rathe r than c ontrac t the work out.

Wife filed for divor ce in 2002. Subseque ntly , b o t h parties f iled motions for contempt claiming the other party had taken marital property in violation of the statutory injunction preventing either pa rty from taking any

action with reg ard to marital property . Tenn. Code Ann. § 46-4-106( d). The c ourt order ed the pa

rties to r eturn the marital property , howeve r, Husband had alre ady sold the parties' horse r iding r ing f or appr ox imately

$600.

There afte r, Wife re quested that she be allowed to sell the pa rties' hors es an d horse tra iler. F oll ow ing a he ari ng on the ma tte r, the c ou rt g ra nte d pe rm iss ion to se ll bo th the ho rs e s a nd the ho rs e trailer. H usband objec ted to the sale but did not offer to car e for

the horses or

provide the f

inance s to car e for

the horses in the inter im.

The trial c ourt ultimately awa rded the marital hom e to W ife a nd $74,000 in cash to Husband fo r h is i nte re st i n th e ho me. P e rs on a l pr op e rt y a nd oth e r a sse ts w e re a lso div ide d b ut the larg e st 4 portion of the esta te was the marital home.

Husband prese nts two issues on appea l. He contends the trial court did not divide the marital pr op e rt y e qu a lly . H e a lso c ha lle ng e s th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s fi nd ing he dis sip a te d th e mari ta l e sta te wh ile failing to make the sa me finding with reg ard to Wife' s sale of the horses a nd trailer.

Re vie w of the tr ia l cou rt ' s fin din g s o f f a c t is de novo with a

presumption that the finding s of fac t are corr ect unless the e vidence preponde rates o t h erwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). When a deter mination depends on the c redibility of witnesses, the finding s of cr edibilitymade by the trial judge are entitled g rea t weig ht beca use t he trial court has the opportuni ty to observe the appea

ranc e-3-

and deme anor of

the witnesses. Royal Insurance Co. vs. Alliance Insuranc e Co., 690 S.W .2d 541, 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

We find Husband' s complaints pertaining to the d i v i s ion of marital prope rty to be without meri t

. He cl aims the trial court erre d beca use it did not make an " equal" division of the marital property ; however , Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4-121(c ) does not require an equal division, it requires an equitable division of mari t al p ro p erty . Furthermore , when a n equitable division of marital property is at issue, Tenn. Ct. App. R. 7 require s that the appe llant provide a li sting of a ll marital property . Husband fa iled to provide that informa tion. Ac co rdi ng ly , we a re una ble to deter mine whether the trial court made an equitable divis ion of all marital property

. Trial courts are g rante d wi de dis c re tio n in fa sh ion ing div isi on of pr op e rt y be c a us e a n e qu ita

ble division re qu ir e s a

fu ll consideration of the fac ts and circ umstances spe cific to the pa rties bef ore the m. Loyd v. Loyd , 860 S.W. 2d40 9 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 3) ; Batson v. Batson, 769 S.W .2d 849, 859 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). We theref ore a ffirm the division of marital pr operty

. As for Husband' s second issue, he contends the tr ial court e rre d in two way s: (1) finding he dissipated marit al p ro p er t y , and (2) by not making a

simil ar f inding a g ainst Wi fe. The evidenc e conce rning this iss ue is primarily limit ed to the testimony of two witn esses, Husband and Wife. Significa ntly , the trial co u rt made a specific finding that Husband' s testimonywas not cr edible. Moreove r, it is undisput ed that Husba nd sold the riding rings in violation of the statutory injunction, without the knowledg e or c onsent of Wife or the c ourt, and Husband did not restore the property or the value of

the prope rty

as orde red by

the trial court. As for Husband' s complaint that Wife was not fo un d to ha ve dis sip a te d ma ri ta l pr op e rt y

a s we ll, the e vid e nc e simply do e s not p re po nd e rate a g a ins t the trial court's f

inding. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm on this issue as we ll.

We theref ore a ffirm the judg ment of the trial court in a ll r espec ts a nd this matter is remande d wi th c os ts o f a

pp e a l a sse sse d a g a ins t app e lla nt, Cha rl e s R. F e rr e ll.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CL EMENT, JR ., J UDGE