# FILED June 4, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N THECOUR

TOFAPPEALS

C HR I STOPHER

BR I AN M I NNI C H, ) KNOX C I R C UI T ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9612- C

V - 00384 ) Pl a i ntif f - A pp e lle e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. BI LLSW ANN ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) NANC Y GR AVESR OBER S ON, ) AFFI R M ED AND R

EM ANDED ) D

e f e nda nt - A

ppe l l a nt )

J EAN M UNR OEa n dLAUR

A R ULEHENDR

I CKS , Kn o x v i l l e , f or App e l l a nt . S C H A R LETTA . BEA TY , K n o x v ille , for A

pp e lle e

O PI 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 udgm

e nt of t he t r i a l c our t gr a nt i n gj oi nt c us t ody of t he pa r t i e s ' m i nor c hi l dr e n t o t he2

p a r tie s , w

iththe hus ba nd ha vi ng pr i m a r yr e s i de nt i a l c us t ody. For r eas o n s h e r e i n a f t e r s t a t e d , w e a ffi r m

t he j udgm

e nt of t he t r i a l c our t . PRO CE DURAL H I ST O RY Th e or i gi na l di vor ce com p l a i nt w

a s f i l e di nt hi s cas e o n Fe br ua r y 23, 1994. A n a ns w e r a nd c ount e r - c om pl a i nt w

e r e f i l e d on J une 2, 1994. A

n a ns w e r w a s f i l e d t o t he c ount e r - c om pl a i nt on J une 13, 19 94 . O

n D e c e m be r 12, 1994, a n a gr e e d or de r w a s f i l e d di s pos i ngof t he pa r t i e s ' m a r i t a l a s s e t s . O

n J a nua r y 20, 1995, the wi f e fi l e da m

o t 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 . O n Fe br ua r y 24, 1995, anor de r w

a s ent e r e dr e f l ect i n gt h a t a pr e t r i a l c o nf e r e n c e wa s he l d. A

t t h e pr e t r i a l co nf e r e n ce, t h e t r i a l w a s s c he du l e df 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 p a r tie s s tipu l a t e dth a t the ys h a ll h a v e j oi n t l e g a l c us t ody of t he i r t hr e e m i nor c hi l dr e n, w

i t h t he hus ba nd ha vi ng c o- pa r e nt i ng t i m e w i t h t he c hildr e ni n e xc e ss o f t ha t w hi c h i s nor m

a l l y c ont e m pl a t e d by t he gui de l i ne s . OnM a 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 w hi c h r e c i t e d t he f ol l ow i ng: 1. Th e p a r tie s s h a ll s h a r e jo i nt le g a l c us t ody of t he i r m

i nor c hi l dr e n w

i t h t he c o- pa r e nt i ng t i m e t o3 be a s f ol l ow

s : The hus ba nd e xe r c i s e s c o- pa r e nt i ng t i m e w i t h t he pa r t i e s ' m i nor c hi l dr e n be gi nni ng on t he f i r s t Sunda y f ol l ow i ng t he f i r s t f u l l w eeko f t he m ont h a t 1: 00 p. m

. t hr ough Tue s da y a t 2: 30p. m . Ont h e r e m

a i ni n gt hr ee w

e e ke nd s of t he m

ont h, t he hus ba ndex e r c i s e s co - p a r e nt i n gt i m e w i t ht h e p a r - tie s ' m

i nor c hi l dr e n f r om S a 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 w

i l l ha ve t hr e e w

e e ks va c a t i on t i m e w i t h t he c hi l dr e n dur i ng t he s um

m e r . A f i na l he a r i ng w

a s he l d on J a nua r y 2, 1996. I n t he f i na l j udgm e nt e nt e r e d t he r e a f t e r , bot h pa r t i e s w e r e gr a nt e d a di vor c e . Th e p a r tie s w

e r e aw a r de dj o i nt l e g a l cu s t o dyof t he c hi l dr e n. The hus ba ndw

a s gi ve npr i m

a r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t odyw iththe w

i f e h a v i n g s p e c i f i c c o - p a r e nt i n gti m e a n ds p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o npr i vi l e g e s . A m o tio nt o a l t e r or a m e nd t he f i na l j udgm e nt w a s f i l e d by t he w

i f e . The m ot i on w

a s de ni e d. Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d. I SSU E S Th e wi f e pr e s e nt s t he f ol l ow i ng i s s ue s f or our c ons i de r a t i on: W he t he r th e tr i a l c o ur t a b u s e dits di s c r e t i on by f i ndi ngt ha t t he or de r a w a r di ng t he m

o t h e r p r i m

a r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody w a s not a f i na l or de r ? W he t he r th e tr i a l c o ur t a b u s e dits di s c r e tio nb y a w a r di ng pr i m

a 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 ow i ng a ddi t i ona l i s s ue :4 W he t he r t he c our t e r r e d i n a w a r di ng the p a 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?

S i n c e th e l a s t i s s u e o f t h e 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 h e ap p e l l ee ar e b a s i cal l y t h e s a m e , w e w i l l co n s i d e r t h e m t o g e t h e r . S TA N D A R D O FR EV I EW
We w i l l first d i s c u s s o u r s t a n d a r do f re v i e w . O u r s t a n d a r do f r e v i e w i n n o nj u r y cas e s i s co n t r o l l e dby R u l e 1 3 ( d ) , Te n n e s s ee R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e Pr o ced u r e i . e . , "[ u ] n l e s s o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e db y s t a t u t e , r e v i e w o f f i n d i n g s o f f act b y t h e t r i a l co u r t i n ci v i l act i o n s s h a l l b e 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 m p a n i e d by a p r e s u m p t i o n o f t h e co r r ect n e s s o f t h e f i n d i n g , u n l e s s t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e ev i d e n ce i s o t h e r w i s e . " DI S CUSSI O

N T. C. A . §36- 6- 101 pr ovi de s a s f ol l ow s : D ecree f o r cus t o dyands uppo r t o f chi l d- E nf o rceme nt - Juve ni l e c o ur t j ur i s di c t i o n - Pr e s um pt i o n o f pa rent al f i t ne s s - E duc at i o nal s e m

i na r s . —

(a ) (1 ) Ina s ui t f or a nnul m

e nt , di vor c e or s e pa r a t e m a i nt e na nc e , w he r e t he c us t ody of a m i nor c hi l d or m

i nor c hi l dr e n i s a que s t i on, t h e co u r t m a y , . . . aw

a r dt h e car e , cu s t o dy a n dc 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 p a 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 in s t a n c e of j o i nt c us t ody or s ha r e d pa r e nt i ng, . . . as t h e w e l f a r e an d i nt e r e s t of t he c hi l d or c hi l dr e n m a y de m a nd, a nd t he c our t m

a y de c r e e t ha t s ui t a bl e s uppor t be m a de byth e na t ur a l pa r e nt s or t hos e w ho s t a nd i n t he pl a c e of t he1Wenote tha t subsec tion (a)(2) of T.C.A. § was enacted in 1996 and became

effectiveon May 15, 1996, after theentry 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 presumptionfor or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody ors ole custodyisestablished, but the court shall have the widest discretion to order a custodyarrangement that is in the best interest of the child. Unless thecourt findsby clear andconvincing evidence to the contrary, thereis a presumption that jointcustody is in the best interest of aminor child wherethe parents have agreed tojoint custody or so agree in open court at a hea ring for the purpose of determiningthe custody of the minor child. For thepurpose of assistingthe court inmaking a determination whether an award of joint custody is appropriate, the courtmay direct that an investigation be conducted. The burden of proof necessary tomodify an order of joint custody at a subsequent proceeding shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 n a 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 m a i n w ithi nt 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 m

o di f i c a tio nas t h e exi g e n c i e s o f t h e case ma y r e qui r e . 1

W e ha ve e xa m

i 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 h a 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 w a r di ng j oi nt c us t odyof t he c hi l dr e n t ot he pa r t i e s . The c our t e xpr e s s l yf ound t h a t bot h pa r e nt s w e r e s ui t a bl e pa r e nt s but t ha t the lif e s t y l e o f t he hus ba nd a nd t he c ondi t i ons of hi s hom e a s oppos e d t o t hos e of t h e w i f e di c t a t e dth a t it w a s inthe b e s t int e r e s t o f the c hildr e n t h a t pr i m

a r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody be w i 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 w a r di ng j oi nt c us t ody. I t is a w

e ll- s e ttle dpr i n c i p l e o f la w th a t the pr e s u m

p tio no f c or r ect n e s s w

hi 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 na 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. A

pp. 1988) . A d ditio n a lly , tr i a l c o ur t s a r e v e s t e dw ithw i de di s c r e tio nin ma t t e r s of c hi l d c us t ody a nd r e vi e w i ng c our t s w

i l l not i nt e r f e r e6

e xc e pt upon a s how i ng of a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. G r a nt v. G

r a nt , 39 Te nn. A

pp. 539, 286 S . W

. 2d 349 ( 1954) . T. C. A . § 36- 6- 10 6 s e t s f or t ht 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 m i n a tio nof c us t ody. I t i s c l e a r f r om t he m e m or a ndum

opi ni on of the tr i a l c o ur t th a t the s e f a c t or s w e r e dul y c on s i de r e d . W e f i nd no a bus e of di s c r e t i on. Th e f i r s t is s u e pr e s e nt e d by t he w i 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 m i na t i on t ha t t he c hi l d c us t ody or de r of M a y 30, 1995, w

a s not a f i n a l or de r . Th e a pp e lla nt a r g u e s th a t it is a w e ll- s e ttle dp r i n c i p l e o f l a w t h a t w

h e r e a decr ee h a s b eenent e r e d a w a r di n gc us t ody of c hi l dr e n, t he i s s ue i s r e s j u di cat a a nd w i l l not b e r e litig a t e da s tothe f a c t s e x i s tin ga t the tim e o f its pr onounc e m

e nt . W

oodw a r d v. W

oodw a r d , 783 S . W

. 2d 1 88 ( Te nn. A

pp. 1989) ; G

r i f f i nv . S t o n e , 834 S . W . 2d 300 ( Te nn. A

pp 1992) . " A

s l ong a s th e f a c t s r e m

a i nth e s a m

e a c o ur t w

ill no t ' r e v i s it' the is s u e of c us t ody. O

nc 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 m a t e r i a l a nd s ubs t a nt i a l c ha nge of ci r c um

s t a nc e s . " I d . W

e not e , how

e ve r , t ha t r e s j u di cat a a ppl i e s onl yt o f i na l j udgm e nt s . " The t e r m

' r e s j u di cat a ' i s de f i ne d a s a ' r u l e th a t a f i na l j udgm e nt r e nde r e d by a c our t of c om pe t e nt j ur i s d i c tio non t he m e 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 p a 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 m e c l a i m

, de m a nd or cau s e o f a c t i o n... ." R i c ha r ds on v. Te nne s s e e Bo a r do f D e ntis t r y ,7

913 S . W

. 2d 446 ( Te nn. 1995 ) . Thu s , a s tothi s is s u e , th e di s p o s itiv e que s t i on i s w he t he r t he M

a y30, 1995, or de r w a s a f i na l or de r f or t he pur pos e s of r e s j u di cat a . W e h o l dth a t it w

a s n o t . Ru l e 54. 02, Te nne s s e e R ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e i s c ont r ol l i ng on t h e la c ko f f i n a lityo f th e M a y30, 1995, or de r . The or de r w a s not ma de fi n a l unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 54. 02a nd t hus w a s s ubj e c t t or e vi s i on a t a ny t i m e be f or e a l l t he c l a i m s a nd r i ght s of t he p a r tie s ha d be e n l i t i ga t e d. O bvi ous l y, a s of t he da t e of t he or de r i nqu e s tio n , th e r e w e r e s till r i g ht s o f the p a r tie s tob e a dj u di - c a t e d . W

e f i n dn om

e r it inthi s is s u e .

CO NCL USI O N Th e ju d g m

e nt o f th e tr i a l c o ur t is a f f i r m e dina ll r e s p e c t s . Co s t s o f t hi s app eal ar e as s e s s e dt ot h e app e l l a nt an dt hi s cas e i s r e m a nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t .

______________________________ D on T. M

c M ur r a y, J udge CONC UR:

___________________________________ H ous t on M

. G odda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge

___________________________________ H e r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J udgeI N THECOUR TOFAPPEALS

C HR I STOPHER

BR I AN M I NNI C H, ) KNOX C I R C UI T ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9612- C

V - 00384 ) Pl a i ntif f - A pp e lle e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. BI LLSW ANN ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) NANC Y GR AVESR OBER S ON, ) AFFI R M ED AND R

EM ANDED ) D

e f e nda nt - A

ppe l l a nt )

J UDG M E NT Thi s a p p eal ca m

e on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he C i r c u i t C

our t of K

nox C ount y, br i e f s anda r gum e nt of c ouns e l . U pon c ons i de r a t i ont he r e of , t hi s C our t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e w a 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 . Th e ju d g m

e nt o f th e tr i a l c o ur t is a f f i r m e dina ll r e s p e c t s . Co s t s o f t hi s app eal ar e as s e s s e dt ot h e app e l l a nt an dt hi s cas e i s r e m a nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t . PER CU RI A M