# FILED
April 29, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk JOHN D. BICKFORD, ) RUTHERFORD CHANCERY ) No. 95DR-1163 Plaintiff/Appell

ant )

) Appeal No. v. ) 01A01-9711-CH-00645 ) ) CHRISTI MARIA BICKFORD, ) ) Defendant/Appellee )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

APPEAL FROM THE RUTHERFORD COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

AT MURFREESBORO, TENNESSEE

HONORABLE DON R. ASH

JUDGE

Jerry Scott John L. Kea, II Scott & Kea 100 E. Vine St. P. O. Box 1216 Murfreesboro, T

N 37133-1216 ATTORNEYS FOR THE APPELLANT William Kennerly Burger 301 North Spring St. P. O. Box 1969 Murfreesboro, T

N 37133-1969 ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLEE

MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED

WILLIAM H. INMAN, SENIOR JUDGE CONCUR: HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGEJOHN D. BICKFORD, ) RUTHERFORD CHANCERY ) No. Plaintiff/Appell

ant )

) Appeal No. v. ) 01A01-9711-CH-00645 ) ) CHRISTI MARIA BICKFORD, ) ) Defendant/Appellee )

O P I N I O N The sole issue on appe

al in this domesti

c relations case is

whether the trial court’s de

termination of

the value of a coin c

ollection is contrar

y to the preponderance of t

he evidence. A r

easoned resolution of

this issue is made difficult by vir

tue of the fact that

the trial court doubt

ed the credibility

of both principals. According to the app

ellant, he began a coin collection as a youngster and continued this hobby throughout a subsequent military career which involved several tours of ove

rseas duty. Co

ins of various countri

es were added to hi s collection, half of

which eventually

was comprise

d of such coins. Incl

uded in his collection were “wheat” pennies and “buffalo” nickels; the remainder w ere face-value. H

e estimated the

value of the collec

tion to be $2,000.00 to $2,500.00. Afte

r the parties separ

ated, he sold a substa

ntial portion of the c

oins for $800.00, accor

ding to his testimon

y, and estim

ated the value of the remaining coins

to be $500.00 to $700.00. The appellee test

ified, initially , that the coin colle ction was worth between $40,000.00

and $60,000.00. She

later reduced this

estimate to $30,000.00; still later, she said she had “no earthly idea” of its value, but thatthe appellant had sta ted that the collect

ion was worth betw

een $40,000.00 and $60,000.00. There was no documentation of any kind as to the valu e of the collection. There were no records presented of the kind, number, face value, m arket value, dates, metal content, condition, etc. of any of the coins. No appraisal had ever been made. The appellee test

ified that from

an inheritance of $ 11,000.00, she invested $9,000.00 in the collection which she later adjusted to $4,000.00, as nearly as m

ay be apprehend

ed, but she had no extr

insic or documen

tary proof of this investment,

not even a single rec

eipt. Sisters of the appe

llee testified that

the appellant told the

m the collectio

n was worth between $40,0 00.00 and $60,000 .00, which the appella nt denied. The appellant’s

son by a form

er marriage

thought the collection was worth between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00. The trial court de

clared that “as compensation to the wife for he r interest in the coin collection

which the Court fin

ds to be marital

property, the

husband shall pay the wi

fe the sum of $25 0.00 per month f or 48 months,” a

fter a finding that Mrs. Bickfor

d had contributed at le

ast $10,000.00 of her

own funds towards the purcha

se of the coins, sta

ting to Mr. Bickfor

d that “you’ re going to pay her as part

of a division of m

arital property

$250.00 per month

for the next 48 months. That totals $ 10,000.00.” Since $250.00 tim

es 48 equals $12,000.0

0, we are uncer

tain of the intendment of the

Court, but the arit

hmetic is not cr

ucial in light of our vi

ew of the preponderance of the evidence, w hich we find supports a finding that the coin collection was in part the appellant’s separate estate and in part marital proper ty.Our review of the findings of fact ma

de by the trial Court

is de novo upon the record of the tr

ial Court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctnes s of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T ENN . R. A PP . P., R ULE 13(d). In accordance with our review, we find the evidence preponderates agai

nst the finding that the

appellee contribute

d $10,000.00 to the coin collection,

or that her com

pensable interest in

the collection is $12,00 0.00. We f ind th at a por tion o f the co in coll ection is marita l prope rty, and that the appellee

is entitled to recove

r $4,000.00 theref

or, at the rate of $250.00 per month for 16 months, without interes t. See, Fisher v. Fisher, 648 S.W.2d 244 (Tenn. 1988). The second ary issue of t he proprie ty of the calc ulation o f the appel lee’s share of the appella

nt’s militar

y retirem ent pay has been resolved by the pa rties, who agree that disa

bility benefits s

hould be excluded from

consideration. The judgment is accordingly modified. Costs are assessed to the parties equally and the case is remande d for all appropria

te purposes.

_______________________________ William H.

Inman, Senio

r Judge CONCUR:

_______________________________ Henry F. T

odd, Judge

_______________________________ Ben H. Cantrell , Judge