FILED

June 4, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

CHRI STOPHER BRI AN MI NNI CH, ) KNOX CI RCUI T

 ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9612- CV- 00384

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. BI LL SWANN

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

NANCY GRAVES ROBERSON, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

 )

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

J EAN MUNROE a nd LAURA RULE HENDRI CKS, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l a nt .

SCHARLETT A. BEATY, Knoxville , for Appe lle e

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J .

Thi s i s a n a ppe a l f r om t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t

gr a nt i ng j oi nt c us t ody of t he pa r t i e s ' mi nor c hi l dr e n t o t he
2

pa r tie s , with the hus ba nd ha vi ng pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody. For

r eas ons he r e i na f t e r s t a t e d, we a ffi r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l

c our t .

PROCEDURAL HI STORY

The or i gi na l di vor ce compl a i nt wa s f i l e d i n t hi s cas e on

Fe br ua r y 23, 1994. An a ns we r a nd c ount e r - c ompl a i nt we r e f i l e d on

J une 2, 1994. An a ns we r wa s f i l e d t o t he c ount e r - c ompl a i nt on J une

13, 1994. On De c e mbe r 12, 1994, a n a gr e e d or de r wa s f i l e d

di s pos i ng of t he pa r t i e s ' ma r i t a l a s s e t s . On J a nua r y 20, 1995, the

wi f e fi l e d a mot i on a s ki ng t he c our t t o s e t c hi l d a nd s pous a l

s uppor t pe ndi ng f i na l di s pos i t i on of t he c a s e . On Fe br ua r y 24,

1995, an or de r wa s ent e r e d r e f l ect i ng t ha t a pr e t r i a l c onf e r e nc e

wa s he l d. At t he pr e t r i a l conf e r e nce, t he t r i a l wa s s c he dul e d f or

Fe br ua r y 13, 1995. The pr e - t r i a l or de r r e c i t e d t ha t :

3. The pa r tie s s tipul a t e d tha t the y s ha ll ha ve j oi nt

l e ga l c us t ody of t he i r t hr e e mi nor c hi l dr e n, wi t h

t he hus ba nd ha vi ng c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me wi t h t he

c hildr e n i n e xc e ss of t ha t whi c h i s nor ma l l y c ont e mpl a t e d by t he gui de l i ne s .

On Ma y 30, 1995, t he c our t e nt e r e d a s e c ond pr e - t r i a l or de r

whi c h r e c i t e d t he f ol l owi ng:

1. The pa r tie s s ha ll s ha r e joi nt le ga l c us t ody of

t he i r mi nor c hi l dr e n wi t h t he c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me t o
3

be a s f ol l ows : The hus ba nd e xe r c i s e s c o- pa r e nt i ng

t i me wi t h t he pa r t i e s ' mi nor c hi l dr e n be gi nni ng on

t he f i r s t Sunda y f ol l owi ng t he f i r s t f ul l week of

t he mont h a t 1: 00 p. m. t hr ough Tue s da y a t 2: 30 p. m.

On t he r e ma i ni ng t hr ee we e ke nds of t he mont h, t he

hus ba nd exe r c i s e s co- pa r e nt i ng t i me wi t h t he pa r -

tie s ' mi nor c hi l dr e n f r om Sa t ur da y a t 10: 00 a . m

t hr ough Tue s da y a t 2: 30 p. m. Ea c h pa r t y wi l l ha ve

t hr e e we e ks va c a t i on t i me wi t h t he c hi l dr e n dur i ng

t he s umme r .

A f i na l he a r i ng wa s he l d on J a nua r y 2, 1996. I n t he f i na l

j udgme nt e nt e r e d t he r e a f t e r , bot h pa r t i e s we r e gr a nt e d a di vor c e .

The pa r tie s we r e awa r de d j oi nt l e ga l cus t ody of t he c hi l dr e n. The

hus ba nd wa s gi ve n pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody with the wi f e ha vi ng

s pe c i f i c c o- pa r e nt i ng ti me a nd s pe c i f i c vi si t a t i on pr i vi l e ge s . A

motion t o a l t e r or a me nd t he f i na l j udgme nt wa s f i l e d by t he wi f e .

The mot i on wa s de ni e d. Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d.

I SSUES

The wi f e pr e s e nt s t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue s f or our c ons i de r a t i on:

Whe t he r the tr i a l c our t a bus e d its di s c r e t i on by

f i ndi ng t ha t t he or de r a wa r di ng t he mot he r pr i ma r y

r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody wa s not a f i na l or de r ?

Whe t he r the tr i a l c our t a bus e d its di s c r e tion by

a wa r di ng pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody t o [ t he ] f a t he r .

The hus ba nd pr e s e nt s t he f ol l owi ng a ddi t i ona l i s s ue :
4

Whe t he r t he c our t e r r e d i n a wa r di ng the pa r tie s

j oi nt l e ga l c us t ody of t he i r t hr e e c hi l dr e n?

Si n c e the l a s t i s s ue of t he a ppe l l a n t a nd t h e i s s u e pr e s e n t e d by

t he appe l l ee ar e ba s i cal l y t he s a me , we wi l l cons i de r t he m t oge t he r .

STANDARD OF REVI EW

We wi l l first d i s c us s our s t a nda r d of re vi e w. Our s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w i n nonj ur y cas e s i s cont r ol l e d by Rul e 13( d) , Te nne s s ee Rul e s

o f Appe l l a t e Pr ocedur e i . e . , "[ u] nl e s s ot he r wi s e r e qui r e d by s t a t ut e ,

r e vi e w of f i ndi ngs of f act by t he t r i a l cour t i n ci vi l act i ons s ha l l

be de novo upon t h e r e c o r d of t h e t r i a l c our t , a c c o mp a n i e d by a

p r e s u mp t i o n of t he cor r ect ne s s of t he f i ndi ng, unl e s s t he pr e ponde r a nc e

of t he evi de nce i s ot he r wi s e . "

DI SCUSSI ON

 T. C. A. §36- 6- 101 pr ovi de s a s f ol l ows :

Decree f or cus t ody and s uppor t of chi l d - Enf orceme nt - Juve ni l e c our t j ur i s di c t i on - Pr e s umpt i on of

parent al f i t ne s s - Educ at i onal s e mi nar s . — (a ) (1) In a

s ui t f or a nnul me nt , di vor c e or s e pa r a t e ma i nt e na nc e ,

whe r e t he c us t ody of a mi nor c hi l d or mi nor c hi l dr e n i s

a que s t i on, t he cour t ma y, . . . awa r d t he car e , cus t ody

a nd c ont r ol of s uc h c hi l d or c hi l dr e n t o e i t he r of t he

pa r tie s t o t he s ui t or t o bot h pa r t i e s i n t he ins t a nc e of

j oi nt c us t ody or s ha r e d pa r e nt i ng, . . . as t he we l f a r e and

i nt e r e s t of t he c hi l d or c hi l dr e n ma y de ma nd, a nd t he

c our t ma y de c r e e t ha t s ui t a bl e s uppor t be ma de by the

na t ur a l pa r e nt s or t hos e who s t a nd i n t he pl a c e of t he
1

We note that subsection (a)(2) of T.C.A. § was enacted in 1996 and became

effective on May 15, 1996, after the entry of the final decree in this case. T.C.A.

§ 36-101(a)(2) provides as follows:

(2) Except as provided in the following sentence, neither a preference nor a

presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody or sole

custody is established, but the court shall have the widest discretion to order a

custody arrangement that is in the best interest of the child. Unless the court

finds by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that

joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child where the parents have agreed

to joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of

determining the custody of the minor child. For the purpose of assisting the court

in making a determination whether an award of joint custody is appropriate, the

court may direct that an investigation be conducted. The burden of proof necessary

to modify an order of joint custody at a subsequent proceeding shall be by a

preponderance of the evidence.

5

na t ur a l pa r e nt s by a dopt i on. Suc h de c r e e s ha l l r e ma i n

withi n t he c ont r ol of t he c our t a nd be s ubj e c t t o s uc h

c ha nge s or modi f i c a tion as t he exi ge nc i e s of t he case ma y

r e qui r e .

1

 We ha ve e xa mi ne d t he r e c or d a t l e ngt h a nd a r e of t he opi ni on

t ha t t he t r i a l c our t di d not a bus e its di s c r e t i on by a wa r di ng j oi nt

c us t ody of t he c hi l dr e n t o t he pa r t i e s . The c our t e xpr e s s l y f ound

t ha t bot h pa r e nt s we r e s ui t a bl e pa r e nt s but t ha t the lif e s t yl e of

t he hus ba nd a nd t he c ondi t i ons of hi s home a s oppos e d t o t hos e of

t he wi f e di c t a t e d tha t it wa s in the be s t int e r e s t of the c hildr e n

t ha t pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody be wi t h t he f a t he r . We f i nd no

e r r or on t he pa r t of t he t r i a l c our t i n a wa r di ng j oi nt c us t ody.

I t is a we ll- s e ttle d pr i nc i pl e of la w tha t the pr e s umption of

c or r ect ne s s whi c h or di na r i l y a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l j udge ' s f i ndi ngs

i n a be nc h t r i a l a ppl i e s t o i s s ue s of c hi l d c us t ody. Ba h v. Ba h,

s upr a ; Sc a r br ough v. Sc a r br ough, 752 S. W. 2d 94 ( Te nn. App. 1988) .

Additiona lly, tr i a l c our t s a r e ve s t e d with wi de di s c r e tion in

ma t t e r s of c hi l d c us t ody a nd r e vi e wi ng c our t s wi l l not i nt e r f e r e
6

e xc e pt upon a s howi ng of a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. Gr a nt v. Gr a nt ,

39 Te nn. App. 539, 286 S. W. 2d 349 ( 1954) . T. C. A. § 36- 6- 106 s e t s

f or t h t he f a c t or s t ha t t he t r i a l c our t s houl d c ons i de r i n hi s

de t e r mi na tion of c us t ody. I t i s c l e a r f r om t he me mor a ndum opi ni on

of the tr i a l c our t tha t the s e f a c t or s we r e dul y c ons i de r e d. We

f i nd no a bus e of di s c r e t i on.

The f i r s t is s ue pr e s e nt e d by t he wi f e i s t he pr opr i e t y of t he

t r i a l c our t ' s de t e r mi na t i on t ha t t he c hi l d c us t ody or de r of Ma y 30,

1995, wa s not a f i na l or de r . The a ppe lla nt a r gue s tha t it is a

we ll- s e ttle d pr i nc i pl e of l a w t ha t whe r e a decr ee ha s been ent e r e d

a wa r di ng c us t ody of c hi l dr e n, t he i s s ue i s r e s j udi cat a a nd wi l l

not be r e litiga t e d a s to the f a c t s e xi s ting a t the time of its

pr onounc e me nt . Woodwa r d v. Woodwa r d, 783 S. W. 2d 188 ( Te nn. App.

1989) ; Gr i f f i n v. St one , 834 S. W. 2d 300 ( Te nn. App 1992) . " As l ong

a s the f a c t s r e ma i n the s a me a c our t will not ' r e vi s it' the is s ue

of c us t ody. Onc e l i t i ga t e d, t he que s t i on of c us t ody i s ' f i na l '

unl e s s a nd unt i l t he r e ha s be e n a ma t e r i a l a nd s ubs t a nt i a l c ha nge

of ci r c ums t a nc e s . " I d. We not e , howe ve r , t ha t r e s j udi cat a a ppl i e s

onl y t o f i na l j udgme nt s . " The t e r m ' r e s j udi cat a ' i s de f i ne d a s a

' r ul e tha t a f i na l j udgme nt r e nde r e d by a c our t of c ompe t e nt

j ur i s di c tion on t he me r i t s i s c onc l us i ve a s t o t he r i ght s of t he

pa r tie s a nd t he i r pr i vi e s , a nd, a s t o t he m, c ons t i t ut e s a n a bs ol ut e

ba r t o a s ubs e que nt a c t i on i nvol vi ng t he s a me c l a i m, de ma nd or

caus e of a c t i on ... ." Ri c ha r ds on v. Te nne s s e e Boa r d of De ntis t r y,
7

913 S. W. 2d 446 ( Te nn. 1995) . Thus , a s to thi s is s ue , the

di s pos itive que s t i on i s whe t he r t he Ma y 30, 1995, or de r wa s a f i na l

or de r f or t he pur pos e s of r e s j udi cat a . We hol d tha t it wa s not .

Rul e 54. 02, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e i s c ont r ol l i ng on

t he la c k of f i na lity of the Ma y 30, 1995, or de r . The or de r wa s not

ma de fi na l unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of Rul e 54. 02 a nd t hus wa s s ubj e c t

t o r e vi s i on a t a ny t i me be f or e a l l t he c l a i ms a nd r i ght s of t he

pa r tie s ha d be e n l i t i ga t e d. Obvi ous l y, a s of t he da t e of t he or de r

i n que s tion, the r e we r e s till r i ght s of the pa r tie s to be a dj udi -

c a t e d. We f i nd no me r it in thi s is s ue .

CONCLUSI ON

The judgme nt of the tr i a l c our t is a f f i r me d in a ll r e s pe c t s .

Cos t s of t hi s appeal ar e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt and t hi s cas e i s

r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t .

______________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J udge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge

___________________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J udge
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

CHRI STOPHER BRI AN MI NNI CH, ) KNOX CI RCUI T

 ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9612- CV- 00384

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. BI LL SWANN

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

NANCY GRAVES ROBERSON, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

 )

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

JUDGMENT

Thi s a ppeal ca me on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he

Ci r c ui t Cour t of Knox Count y, br i e f s and a r gume nt of c ouns e l . Upon

c ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e wa s

no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

The judgme nt of the tr i a l c our t is a f f i r me d in a ll r e s pe c t s .

Cos t s of t hi s appeal ar e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt and t hi s cas e i s

r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t .

 PER CURI AM