John T. Boy d, C hie f Just ic e ( Ret .) , Se v enth Co u rtof Appea ls , s itti ng by 1 ass ig nment. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. §7 5.002( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. 1 NO. 07-06 -014 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL E OC TOBER8, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MAT T ER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOHN W ESL EY M CLAIN III AND ELI ZABET H BAKER-MCLAIN AN D IN THE IN TERES T OF JOH N W ESLEY M CLA IN IV, GENEVA ELI ZABET H MC LAI N AND BENJAMIN MA RC US M CLA IN , C HI LDR EN

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 O F W IL L IA MS ON COU NT Y;

NO. 05-24 4-FC2; HON. TI M L. W RIGHT , PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., CAMPBEL L, J. an d BOYD, S.J. 1 ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON In this appeal, El iz abeth Bake r- Mc Lai n ( El iz abeth) ch all eng es a dec re e ter minat ing her m arriage to John W esley M cLain , III (W esley). In doin g so, she raises f iv e issues in
w hic h s he as ser

ts the t ri al cour

t er re d i n: 1) appoi nti ng both par ti es as jo in t managi ng cons er v ators of the three mi nor ch il dren bor n to the mar ri ag e, be caus e the re i s u ndi sput ed ev ide nce that W esl ey

has a his tor

y of committi ng famil y

vi ole nce; 2) appoint ing W esl ey as2

pr imar y j oin t manag ing co nser v ator of the c hil dren c ontrar

y to the e v ide nce that she w as thei r pr imar

y ca re g iv er ; 3) fail ing to make a fair and eq uit abl e di v is ion of the c om m u n ity est ate i n reg ard to the ri g hts of the p arti es and t he need s o f the c hil dren; 4 ) maki ng bi ased state me nts againsther in regard to her having a me nta l illness and disreg arding W esley’s conf lic t in g testim ony; and 5) sig ning a f inal divorce decree th at did not accu rately ref lect the j udg ment rendered. W e modi fy the j udg ment, and, as modified , affirm it

. Back ground T he p arties w ere m arried on Februa ry 12, 20 00, in Fairfield , Ohio, w here Eliz abe th’s parents and si bli ng s resi de. Sev eral months l a te r, the co upl e mov ed to Aus ti n s o tha t W esl ey co uld tak e a job w it h D ell

. Ov er the next t hree y ears, El iz abeth g av e bi rt h to three chi l d re n , tw o b o y s a n d a g i r l

. S h e s t a y e d h o me t o c a re fo r t h e m. I n F ebr uary2005, W esley filed suit for div orce. On Septe mb er 14, 200 6, the trial court ent ered the divorce decree g iv ing r is e to thi s a ppeal

. In t he dec re e, t he co u rta p p o in ted t he par ti es as joi nt manag ing co nser

v ators o f the c hil dren w it h W esl ey hav ing t h e r igh t to de si g nate the chi ldren’ s p ri mary

resi dence

.

Issu es 1 and 4 -

F amil y Vio len ce In her firs t iss ue, Eli z abeth ass erts there w as “u ndi sput ed ev ide nce of the i ntent ion al use of abusi v e force by W esl ey ag ain st El iz abeth from September 2000 to Febr uar y 2005"
w hic h rebuts the presumpt ion thatthe appoi ntment o f b o th p arents as j oin t manag ing cons er v ators i s i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil dren. The tr ial cour

t has cons ide ra ble di sc re ti on i n det er mini ng the besti nterestof minor chi ldren. Gillespie v. Gillespie , 644 S.W .2d 4 49, 4 51 ( Tex . 198 2) ; In re Marriage of Stein ,El iz abeth and her si ste r als o tes ti fied abou t an actof v iol ence ag ain st the s is ter that 2 all eg edl y i nv olv ed c hoki ng the si ste r after she had pull ed th e k ey s o ut of a v ehi cl e W esl ey was d rivin g. 3 153 S. W .3d 4 85, 4 88 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2004, no pet .)

. Ev en so, the tri al cour t may not appoi nt joi nt manag ing conser v ators if there is credi ble ev ide nce of a hist or y or patt er n of pa s t or p res en t ph y s i c al a bu s e di recte d by o ne p aren t to w ard th e ot he r p aren t. Te x . F am . Cod e Ann. §153. 004( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2006)

. There is al so a rebutt abl e presumpt ion that the a ppoi ntment of a parent a s t he c onser v ator w ho has the ex cl usi v e r ig ht t o det er mine the p rimary residen ce of a ch ild is notin t he bestin teresto f t he ch ild if such abu se exists. Id. In mak ing i ts deci si on, t he tr ial co urt s houl d c onsi der any su ch abuse thathas oc cur re d
w it hin a tw o- y ear

per iod precedi ng the sui t or durin g t h e pendency of the s uit

. Id. §153.00 4( a)

. If there i s s uch e vide n ce , but the ev ide nce is co nflicti ng and nothi ng undi sput edl y

sh ow s a histo ry

or patter n of

vi ole nce, i t i s w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on to re sol v e the co nflict i n fav or of the person to w hom it ul ti matel y makes i ts aw ard. Burns v. Bur ns , 116 S.W .3d 916, 921 (Tex . App.–D all as 2003, no pet .) ; Lowth v . Lowth , N o. 14 -0 3- 0061- CV , 200 3 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 0715 at 14- 15 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14 D is t.] D ecember th 23, 200 3, pe t. de nied ). In t his ca se, at the M arch 3, 2004 heari ng on temporar y orders, El iz abeth tes ti fied as to tw o acts of phy si cal abus e tha t W esl ey had commi tted ag ain st her

. Sh e av er re d tha t 2
one s u ch act oc cur re d w hen s he w as preg nant w it h her first chi ld and W esl ey ch arg ed toward the f ront do or and knocke d the breath out of her. Th e oth er occurred whe n the ir son w as tw o months ol d and W esl ey threw her to the flo or . In respon se, W esl ey deni ed tha t he ha d ever to uche d he r ex ceptin self defense . He did, howev er, adm it he ha d hit4

“t hin g s” and that he had y ell ed ather

. He desc ri bed one such inc ide nt as oc cur ri ng w hen El iz abeth w as tr

y ing to dest ro y

computers he used and sai d he ste pped be tw een her and the c omputers w hic h c aused her to fall. W esl ey als o tes ti fied that El iz abeth w oul d tr y to blo ck hi m int o corn ers and, as he w alk ed past, she w oul d scratc h him. There w as further tes ti mony

thati n Febr uar

y 2005, El iz abeth cal led l aw enforc ement officers a nd s aid that W esl ey had a book

on s ail boats w hic h al so cont ain ed a code setti ng out a method of ki ll ing or har ming her. On that occ asi on, an of ficer dete rmi ned El iz abeth needed further mental evaluation and she w as com mitt ed to a me nta l hospita l fo r sev eral days. At a su bseq uent hear ing on J une 17, 2005, El iz abeth testi fied to a t hird act of phy si cal abus e tha t as ser tedl y occ ur re d in Febr uar y 2005 w hen, she sai d, W esl ey threw and hi t her

w it h headp hones and a telev is ion remote. Al thoug h thi s a ct occ ur re d pr ior to the i nit ial hear ing , s he di d notmenti on i t atthatti me. E li z abeth’ s s is ter also tes ti fied th at in September

2000, W esl ey pushe d El iz abeth w hic h caus ed her to fall

. The record i s n ot cl ear w hether

thi s was the s ame act abo ut w hic h El iz abeth had t est ified at the p ri or h e a rin g. Al thoug h the all eg ati on w as not made unti l someti me betw een t he J une 17, 2005 hear ing and the fin al hear ing on September 14, 2005, El iz abeth ass erted t hat h er daug hter infor med her

thatW esl ey

w oul d tou ch her

“ pr iv ates .” Sh e al so sai d she had noted br uis ing on her y oung estso n from hi s t hig h to his kn ee and she noti ced that he had a c ut l ip. Sh e submi tted photog ra phs of her son’ s bru ising as w ell as phot og ra phs of brui ses on h er d a u gh t e r’ s b o t t o m a n d in n e r t h ig h a n d o f a “b ru is e d ” li p . T h e s e a ll e ga t io n s r e s u lt e d in two re por ts bei ng made by

El iz abeth to C hil d Protecti v e Ser v ic es. W e sle y d e n ied hav ing5

cause d an y

o f t he bruises on the ch ildren and a v erred tha t his son had t ripped at a pa rk and c ut hi s l ip and t hat h is daug hter ’s cu t l ip did not occ ur i n hi s c are. A C hil d Protecti v e Ser

v ic es employ ee tes ti fied th at t he s ex ual abus e i nv est ig ati on had bee n c los ed bec ause there w ere no phy si cal findi ng s i n the ca se and t he c ase w or ker did not g et a “s oli d out cr y ” from the chi ld. The wor ke r a lso t est ified that , al thoug h the inv est ig ati on had not y et be en c los ed, n o c oncrete fin din g s h ad been made that W esl ey had br uis ed th e c hil dren or been phy si cal ly abusiv e to them. Chil d Prote cti v e Serv ic es had deter mined that both pare n t s foug ht ov er v is it ati on w it h the ch il dren and re commended that the y both repea t a pare nting class. T he trial cou rt fo und thatEliz abe th ha d “ma de t e s t im o nial allegation s of abu se ag ain st [W esl ey]; how ev er , [ El iz abeth] di d notpresentcredi ble ev ide nce to s uppor t her all eg ati ons, and sai d al leg ati ons w ere refuted by[W esl ey ’s ] t est imony .” There i s s uff ic ien t e vide n ce in th e rec o rd to su p p o rtth is f in d in g. The record c ontai ns all eg ati ons of three acts of phy si cal abus e ag ain st El iz abeth. How ever, the record also shows W esley denied having ev er touch ed Elizabeth ex ceptin sel f defense and denied hav ing throw n a t ele v is ion remote atEl iz abeth. O ur rev iew of the re cord al so shows t hat i t c annot be s aid there i s u ndi sput ed ev ide nce of phy si cal or se x ual abuse of the chi ldren. It is ax iomat icthat a tr ial courtis in a better posit ion to ev alu ate t he cl aims of the p arti es and t o bel ieve o r dis bel iev e the ir tes ti mony . Stu cki v. Stucki , 222 S.W .3d 1 16, 1 24 ( Tex

. App.–Ty ler 2006, no pet.) As the tr ier of fact , the tr ial jud g e i s t he deter minantof the c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce and the w eig ht to be g iv en to i t. Colem an v. Colem an , 109 S.W .3d 108 , 111 (Tex. App. –Au stin 20 03, no pe t.). Th at b eing so, this6

re cord does not suppo rta c oncl usi on that the t ri al jud g e abus ed i ts dis creti on i n appoi nti ng the parties as jointman aging conse rv ato rs. In he r fourth is sue, El iz abeth addi ti onal ly co mplai ns that the tr ial courterred i n r uli ng in fav or of W esl ey

by di sreg a rd ing her

ev ide nce about not h av ing a ment al il lne ss and d is r e g a r d i n g i n c o n s is t e n c ie s sh e b e li e ve s t o e xis tin W e s le y’s t e s t im o n y. As we h a ve n o te d , whe n there is co nflicti ng ev ide nce, as the fact finder , i t i s t he tr ial co urt’ s d uty to re sol v e c onfli cts i n ev ide nce, and an appe ll ate c our t may not subs ti tute it s deci si on for that of the tr ial co urt. I t was a lso for the tr ial co ur

t t o w eig h the ev ide nce in the record w it h re g ard to El iz abeth’ s ment al heal th. In thatregard, w e no te th e trial court in it ia ll y a p p ointe d Eliz abe th th e prima ry ma naging conservator of the childre n even tho ugh it had e v iden ce be fore it of Eliz abe th’s temporar

y co mmitmentto a mental heal th f a ci li ty , an ind ic ati on th at i t di d notl et t hat ev ide nce prev ent i t from findi ng her fit to c are for the c hil dren. It w as not u nti l a s econd hea ring and ev iden ce tha t Eliz abe th had n ot bee n coop erative in allowi ng W esley access to th e children thatthe trial court na me d W e s le y as the p rimary ma naging conservator. The record does not show an a buse of dis creti on on the p art of the tr ial co urt. Issu e 2 - Pr imar y C are Giver In he r second issue, Eliz abe th com plains th at th e trial court fa iled to acco rd suf f icient w eight to he r testimo ny and it erred in appo inting W esley as t h e p ri m arycare g iv er . In s uppor

ti ng thatproposi ti on, E li z abeth poi nts out t h a t t h roug hout the mar ri ag e, s he
w as the p arent w ho s tay ed home, ca re d for the chi ldren, and “had t he s trong er emoti onal ti es to the chi ldren.” In cons ide ri ng her arg ument, iti s a x iomat icthatthe besti nterestof7

the c hil dren i s t he pr imar y consi derati on in deter mini ng the is sues of cons er v atorshi p and posse ssion of , and access to, the childre n. T ex. Fam

. Code A nn. §15 3.0 02 (Ve rnon 200 2). Ev en th oug h the re i s e v ide nce tha t a mother has been the p ri mary ca re g iv er

of the chi ldren, the tri al ju dg e is enti tl ed to consi der all the ev ide nce, and it s fail ure to appoi nt t he mother as manag ing co nser v ator does not automati cal ly demon st rate an abuse of dis creti on. See R oss en v . R oss en , 792 S.W .2d 2 77, 2 78 ( Tex . Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 D is t.] st 1990, no pet.) (fin din g no er ro r in appoi nti ng the father as sol e manag ing co nser v ator ev en thoug h the re w as ev ide nce the mot her had been t he pr imar

y ca re g iv er .) In its initial tem po ra ry

order, the trial court app ointe d Eliz abe th as th e prima ry manag ing co nser

v ator of the c hil dren. How ev er , at the l ater hear ing on J une 17, 2005, the cour t had before itev ide n ce that El iz abeth had bee n unc ooperati v e i n al low ing W esl ey acc ess to t he c hil dren, n amely 1) sh e c ut ou t hi s mi dw eek v is it ati on after M arch 2005, 2) she h ad informe d him he was not allowed to take the childre n f rom th e ho use d uring his
v is it ati on per iod s, 3) w hen he tr ied to hav e tel ephone v is it ati on, s he ei ther di d notans w er the p hone or

sh e moni tored hi s t ele phone c onv ersat ion s w it h the chi ldren, and 4) w hen he cal led to make a rrang ements to tak e the ch il dren to sp eci fic e v ents , he was tol d tha t El iz abeth and t he c hil dren w ere bus y until the temporar

y orders e nded. Addi ti onal ly , t he tr ial co urt made a s peci fic fin din g thatduri ng the pendency of the matter , “ [El iz abeth] has eng ag ed i n a course of conduct ai med at ali enati ng the Peti ti oner [W esl ey] and the chi ldren f rom e ach oth er.” T hatf inding is su ppo rted by the e v iden ce. Unde r the evidence before the tr ial cour

t, w e canno t s ay

thatthe chang e i n the pr imar y manag ing co nser

v ator w as not in the bestinterestof

the chi ldren. See A llen v . M anci ni , 170 S.W .3d 1 67, 1 71 ( Tex . Ap p.– East lan d 2005, pet. deni ed) ( findi ng a c hang e i n the pr imar y manag ing co nser

v ator w as8

not e rror w hen t here w as ev ide nce the mot her had eng ag ed i n al ien ati on of the chi ldren f rom th e fath er). Iss ue 3 - Div ision of the C ommunity Estate In he r third i ssue, Eliz abe th arg ues there i s no ev iden ce to suppo rt the trial court’s si g ned di v is ion of proper ty bec ause “ w hen an oral ju dg ment is not rendered on communi ty ass ets

. . . , the for mer spous es become te n ants i n c ommon w it h a r ig ht of par ti ti on.” Paren the tically , the t rial cou rt’s division o f prope rty w ill notbe reversed abse nt an abu se of di sc re ti on. Mu rf

f v . Mur ff , 615 S.W .2d 696, 698 (Tex . 1981). W hil e i t i s t ru e tha t w hen
a cou rt fa ils to d iv ide portio ns of co mm unity p rope rty , the ex -spou ses be com e ten ant s in common, Harrell v. Harrell , 692 S.W . 2d 876 ( Tex . 198 5) , El iz abeth fa ils t o s p eci fy any par ti cul ar di v is ion of proper

ty to w hic h she obj ect s. Rat her , s he merely obj ect s i n a g eneral manner by as ser ti ng there w as no ev ide nce to s uppor t t he di v is ion

. It is es tabl is hed t hat an appe ll ate bri ef must cont ain clear and conc is e arg uments w it h appropr iat e c it ati ons to author ity and the rec ord to suppo rtthe arg uments

. W hen i t doe s n ot do so , t he c omplai nt is ina deq uatel y br iefed and present s nothi ng for re v iew

. Ma yhew v . D ealey, 143 S. W .3d 356, 368 (Tex . Ap p .– Da lla s 2 004, pet. deni ed)

. Beca use El iz abeth has faile d to adeq uatel y

br ief thi s c ontent ion , w e ov er ru le the i ss ue.

Iss ue 5 - Final Judgment In he r last issue, Eliz abe th con ten ds tha t the f inal judgme nt si gned by the trial court does not c omport w it h it s oral pronounc ement of j udg ment. In buttress ing thatarg ument, she li sts ten ins tanc es in w hic h s he bel iev es the w ri tten jud g ment fail s t o do so.9

In s ub- is sues A, B, C , and D , El iz abeth ass erts er ro rs i n the v isi tation sc hedul e. Res pondi ng , W esl ey

as ser ts thes e matt ers a re moot becau se there i s a pendi ng moti on to modi fy the parent/c hil d re lat ion shi p in w hic h a temporar y order modi fyi ng v is it ati on has been en tered, a nd he has attac hed a c opy of that order

. Y et, an a ppel lat e c our t may not cons ide r document s a ttac hed t o an appella te br ief tha t are notformal ly i ncl uded i n the re cord on appeal

. Bur

ke v. Ins . Au to A uct

ion s C or p., 169 S. W .3d 7 71, 7 75 ( Tex . Ap p.– Dal las 2006, pet. deni ed)

. Mo re ov er , t he fact that temporar y orders modi fyi ng the cons er v atorshi p prov is ion o f t h e f ina l div orce decree hav e been entered does not neces sar il y

render an a ppeal from t he di v orce decree moot becau se th e party se eki ng modific ati on bears t he burden of prov ing a c h a ng e i n c ircums tanc es. Bocke m ehl v. Bock em ehl , 604 S.W .2d 466 , 470 (Tex. Civ . App .–Dallas 1 980 , no wr it). Even so, Eliz abe th’s basis fo r claimin g error w ith respe ct to these matt ers app ears to be a s tatementmade bythe tr ial courtthat it w as “g oin g to approv e the cu rrent v is it ati on sc hedul e tha t y ou two hav e wor ke d o u t

. . . .” That s chedu le, w hic h w as not reduce d to
w riting, allow ed Elizabeth more time w ith the ch ildren tha n ha d be en a llow ed b y tem pora ry orders. H ow ev er , any

di fferences in the v is it ati on sc hedul e betw een the oral re ndi ti on and the e ntr y of the fin al jud g ment may be c onsi dered a modific ati on w it hin the ple nar y pow er of the c our

t. Stal lwor th v . St all wort h , 201 S.W .3d 3 38, 3 49 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all a s 2006, no p et.) ; Cook v

. C ook , 888 S.W .2d 130 , 131 -32 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 1994 , no wr it). El iz abeth does not a ttac k thes e chang es as bei ng an a buse of the tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on. T hatbeing so, w e ha v e no basis upo n w hich to f ind th em erroneo us.W e sl ey does not obj ectto maki ng thes e c hang es if w e c onsi der them to be 3 anythi ng more than m ere grammatic al er ro rs . How ev er , w e do not c onsi der thi s q uest ion to be a s ubst anti v e one re q uir ing acti on by thi s c our

t. 10 I n h e r s u b -i s s u e E , E li za b e t h cl a im s h e r c h il d su p p o rto b li ga t i o n s h o u ld h a ve commenc ed on Janua ry 1, 2006, ins tead of O cto ber 1, 2005, w it hout further ex pli cat ion

. T h a t b e in g so , we f in d th a t s u b -is su e w a ived be ca u se of in a d e qua te bri e f in g. In he r sub- is sues F and G, El iz abet h c o mplai ns that the a ddress es and pho ne numbers l is ted for her and W esl ey i n the di v orce decree are i ncor re ct or are i ncompl ete. How ev er , s he has ag ain fail ed to st ate a l eg al basi s u pon w hic h w e can find er ro r on th e part of t he trial judge. The re is nothin g in the app ellate record tha t supp orts this 3 all eg ati on. In s ub- is sue H, El iz abeth cont ends that the p orti ons of the di v orce decree th at award cash, individual retirem entaccou nts, p ensio ns, an nuitie s, v ariable life insurance benefits and li fe ins urance pol ic ies sh oul d notbe i ncl uded be caus e “t he tr ial co urt di d not deter mi n e t h e r i g h t s o f b o t h s p o u s e s i n a n y p e n s i o n , re t i re me n tp l a n , a n n u i t y , i n d i v i dual retirem entaccou nt, e mp loyee stock opt ion pla n, sto c ko ption , or othe r fo rm of sav ings, bon us, prof it-sharing, or othe r emp loyer plan or fi n a ncial plan of an em ployee or a par ti ci pant. ” In s uppor

ti ng thatpremis e, s he c it es the r ule that“ w hen an oral jud g ment i s n ot re ndered on com m u n it y ass ets , t he former sp ouses bec ome tena nts i n c ommon w it h a ri g ht of par

ti ti on.” How ev er , the r ule to w hic h El iz abeth re fers is not one w hic h appl ies to an “ oral ju dg ment” but is , rather , app li cabl e to ins tanc es in w hic h the tr ial co urt has fail ed t o ma k e a n y d i v i s i o n o f t h e p ro p e rt y . Se e Bus by v. Busby, 4 5 7 S

. W

. 2 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (T e x.11

1970) (st ati ng the ru le that w hen a div orce decree fail s t o di v ide proper ty , t he hus band an d
w ife become tenant s in common as to the c ommunity proper ty ); In re Marri

age of Notash , 118 S.W .3d 868 , 872 (T ex. Ap p.– T exarkana 20 03, no pe t.) (stating that when a cou rt fa ils to divide prope rty

at the time o f

div orce, th e ex-spou s e s b ecom e ten ant s in comm on). Here, the trial court did ma ke a divi sion of the prop erty in its f inal de cree. T here fore, th is compl ain t i s w it hout meri t. In he r sub-issue I, Elizabeth argues thather stud en tloans sho uld no t be he r sole re spons ibi li ty

bec ause the t ri al cour

t had oral ly

stated: “The debt is 50/50 . . . .” I t i s n ot cl ear from t he record w hether the tr ial court ’s 50/50 referenc e w as only to the c ommunity deb ts or w het her it referred to such a divisi on o f all the de bts. Even so, ho w ever, there
w as tes ti mony

i n the record by

W esl ey thatEl iz abeth had come int o the mar ri ag e ow ing stud entdeb ts, and Eliz abe th has not dispu ted tha t fact. T hat bein g so, th e trial court w ould hav e er re d in ass ig nin g that obl ig ati on to the non- inc ur ri ng sp ouse. Love v. Bai ley -L ov e, 217 S.W .3d 33, 35 ( T ex. A p p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 2006 , no pe t.). Th e record th erefore st suppo rt s t he di spos it ion made i n the tr ial co urt’ s fin al w ri tten decree. Fi nal ly , i n her sub- is sue J, El iz abeth av ers that the tr ial cour t er re d i n order ing her to execute a certif icate of t itle and p ower of

a ttorn ey to transfer a mot or v ehicle ina smu ch as she w as nev er li ste d as an ow ner on any of t he car ti tl es to v ehi cl es used by the coupl e. W esl ey ag re es that thi s was the c ase and doe s n ot ob ject t o the rev is ion

. Ac cordin g ly , t he f inal de cree of divorce is reforme d to de lete th at po rtion of it show n on page 31 in which t h e co u rto rd e rs E li za b e t h t o e xe c u t e , h a ve a c k n o wle d ge d , a n d d e li v e r t o W e s le y a cer ti ficat e of ti tl e and pow er of attor ney

to transfer

the v ehi cl e.12

In s ummary , al l of Eli z abeth’ s i ss ues are ov erru le d wit h the ex cept ion of that per tai nin g to the motor

ve hic le and, as refor med, the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

J o h n T

. B o yd Senio r Justice