R ule 1 0 o f t he R ules o f

t he C o urt o f

A p p ea l s o f

T en ne ssee st ates: 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i a l v a l u e
. W h e n a c a s e i s de c i de d b y me mo r a n du m o pi n i on i t s h a l l be de s i g n at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ” , sh a ll no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any re a so n in a n y un re la te d c a se
. 

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

AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 13, 200 5
KENNET H EDWARD WI NN v. HALL IE JO NES WI NN An Appeal f

romthe Circ uit Court for Cum berland Coun ty No. CV 003905 John A. Turnb ull, Ju dge

No. E2004-01057-COA- R3-CV - F ILED AUGU ST 8, 2005

This is a divorce case
. The husband filed a petition f or divorce afte r five y ea rs o f m ar ri ag e. Following a trial, the trial court e ntere d a fina l decr ee de tailing the e quitable distribution of the pa rt ie s’ pr op e rt y . T he wi fe fi le d a mot ionto a lte r or a me nd the de c re e , a rg uin g , a mon g oth e r thin g s, that some of the pr operty

awa rded to the husba nd was not marital property . The trial c ourt denied that motion. The wife now appea ls. We aff irm, noting that, in the absence of a tra nscript or a statement of the evidence , we must presume that the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling s relate d to the e q u i t ab l e d i s tr i b u t i o n o f

t h e p ar t i e s ’ p r o p e r t y. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Aff irm ed
H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.
Br andy Boy d Slay

baug h and Nor

bert J. S lovis, Knox ville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Hallie J ones Winn.
Melane y G. Made well, Cookeville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, K enneth Edw ard Winn.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 Plaintiff/Appell ee Ke n n et h E d wa rd W i n n (“ Hu s b an d ”) an d De fe n d an t / Ap p el l an t Hallie J ones Winn (“Wi fe” ) we re ma

rried on June 12, 1998. At that time, Husband wa s forty -eig ht y ear s old and Wife was six ty

y ear s old. No children we re born of the mar riag e.-2-

On May7, 200 3 , H u s b a n d f il e d a p e ti ti o n f

o r d iv o r c e in th e tria l c o u r t b e lo w , a ll e g in g as g rounds irre concilable differ ence s and cr uel and inhuman tre atment by Wife. On May

16, 2003, Wife fi le d an a ns we r anda

c ou nte rc la im f

or div or c e . Wif

e a dmi tte d th a t th e pa

rt ie s h a d ir

re c on c ila ble differ ence s, but denied that she wa s g uiltyof cr uel and inhuman treatment. She asserte d that Husband had bee n g uiltyof inappropriate marital conduct, which H usband later denied.
The be nch trial wa s held on Dec ember 9, 2003. The a

ppellate r ecor d includes neither a transcript of the testimony nor a certified statement of the e vidence under Rule 24( c) of the Tenne ssee Rul e s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e du re . T he re c or d in c lud e s o nly the techn ica l reco rda ndthe e xhibi ts int ro du c e d in to e vid e nc e a t tria l.
On J anuary

14, 2004, the t rial court enter ed a final decree of di vorce
. The decre e set out t he equitable distribution of the parties’ prope rty , based on the “stateme nts of counsel, testimony of the parties a nd witnesses, [and] a review of the record as a whole.” I n the decree , howeve r, the trial c ourt rese rved a n issue on the owner ship of three life insuranc e policies insuring the life of Wife.
On Fe bruary

13, 2004, Wife filed a motion to alter or amend the fina l decr ee, c halleng ing the trial court’ s char acte rizatio n o f certain prope rty as marital pr operty

and submitting supplemental documentation to support her arg u m en t s
. On M arc h 17, 2004, Husband filed a motion seeking an order holding W ife in contempt of court, claiming that Wife ref used to g ive him certain property and destroy ed or da mag ed other property that was a war ded to him in the final decr ee. After a hea ring , on May 6, 2004, the trial court entere d an orde r denying Wife’ s motion to alter or amend, but re serving for a later he aring Husband’s pe t i t i o n for c ontempt. Wi fe a ppeale d that order

to this court. The appea l was dism i s s ed as p remature, howe ver, be cause the trial court had not y et ruled on the owner s h i p of the insura nce policie s. On Dec ember 20, 2004, the trial court entere d an “A mended Final De cre e,” r esolving the issues reg arding th ein s u r an c ep o li c ie s and re confirming the orig inal final decr ee. Wife now appea ls the trial court’s de cision.
On app e a l, Wi fe c ha llenges se ve ra l of the tr ia l c ou rt ’s ru lin g s r e la tin g to the e qu ita ble distribution of the parties’ pr operty , as set out in the final decr ee. She arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in (1) dete rmining H usband’s portion of the equity in the marital home; (2) determining that a 1984 Chevy truck wa s marital prope rty ; (3) dete rmining that a 1987 C hevy truck wa s marital prope rty ; (4) de te rm ini ng that c e rt a in r e a l pr op e rt y on L ake Ta nzi w a s ma

ri ta l pr op e rt y ; ( 5) de te rm ini n g th a t c e rt a in trac ts of undevelope d rea l property on Turkey Blind R oad constit uted m arital property and that Wife had dissipated the pa

rties’ a ss et s b y

g iving a way

this property

to members of he r fa mily ; and (6) de nying Wif

e ’s mot ion to a lte r o r ame ndthe div or c e de c re e or g rant a ne w t ri a l.
The trial c ourt’s finding s of fact are re viewed de novo on the re cord, w ith a presumption that those finding s are corr ect unless the e vidence preponde rate s otherwise. Te nn
. R. App. P. 13(d). Howeve r, in the abse nce of a tra nscript of the pr ocee dings be low or a stateme nt of the evide nce, w e are unable to re view the e vidence to determine w here the prepondera nce lies. “Since a ny issues as to the equitable division of marital prope rty are fac tually

driven, we conclusively presume that evidenc e supports the Trial Court’s division of marital property , since no evidentiary rec ord has be en-3-

prese nted to this C ourt.” Gr e e ne v . G re e ne , No. E2002-02611- COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 22409454, a t *1 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . O c t. 2 2, 20 03 ); se e als o V ac c are lla v . V

ac c are lla , 49 S.W .3d 307, 315 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); She rro d v . W ix , 849 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 0 , 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Irvin v. City of Cla rk sv ill e , 767 S.W .2d 649, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). I n this c ase, all issues raised in this appea l relate to the trial court’s decisions reg arding the equitable division of the parties’ prope rty , and all of Wife’s arg uments are bas ed o n the pre mise that the trial court’s conclusions ar e contr ary to the preponde rance of the evidenc e. Without a transcript of the pr ocee dings or a stateme nt of the evidenc e, we have no c hoice but to pre sume that the t rial court’s determinations were supported by the testimony

and the other

evidenc e at tria l. Acc ording ly , the trial court’s Amended F inal Dec ree must be aff

irmed in its entirety

. Th e de c isi on of

the tr ia l c ou rt is af

fi rm e d. Cos ts on ap pe a l ar e to be ta xed to A pp e lla nt H a lli e J ones Winn, and her sure ty , for whic h execution may issue, if nec essary
.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE