# FILED
July 24, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk THE COU RT OF A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

EAST ERN SECTIO N

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES C REDIT ) SULLIVAN CIR CUIT UNION, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee ) NO. 03A01-9703- CV-00085 ) v. ) ) HON. JOHN S. McCLELLAN , III RHONDA SAN DERS, ) ) Defendant/Appellant ) AFFIRMED

Dean Greer, K ingsport, for Appellant William K. Rogers, Ki ngsport, for A ppellee

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION INMAN, Se nior Jud ge
The General Sessi ons and Circ uit Courts held the appellant liable to the appellee for a ser ies of credit card charges incurred ov

er a period of tw

o years by virtue of a VI SA Credit C ard issued j ointly to the appellant and he r now-dec eased husband. She appe als, insisting that she did not sign the application f or the card and hence cannot be l iable. The appellant’s hus band made applicati on for a credit card and sig ned the appellant’s name togeth er with his, on the application, which was approved. Each was iss ued a card, w ith the same number, although the ap pellant’s ca rd was retained by

her husband. Her husband used the card f requently and monthly statements were regularly mailed to them. Pay ments were mademonthly and, o n one occasion, the appellant and her husband obtai ned a loan to pay jointly incurred c redit card d ebts. On another occasi on, the appellant used the card to pay for a subst antial purchas e at a Sears store. After his death on December 12, 1994 th e balance owing on the credit1 Rule 10. Af fi rmance Withou t Opi nion - Memorand um Opini on. (b) M em ora nd um Op inio n. The Court , wi th t he concurren ce of al l j udges part ici pati ng in t he case, may af fi rm, rever se or modify the act ions ofthe t ri al court by mem orandum opini on when a for mal opini on would have no pr ecedenti al v alue. W hen a case i s deci ded by mem orand um opini on i t sh al l b e desi gnat ed “MEM ORANDU M OP INIO N,” shall not be publi shed, and shall not be cit ed or r eli ed on forany r eason i n a sub seq uen t unre lated c ase . [As a m end ed b y orde r filed A pril 22, 1 992 .] 2 card debt was $3,036.49, for w hich the appell ant denied liabi lity because she had not signed the appl ication for the c redit card. The proof was suff icient to justify a finding that the ap pellant inferentially acquiesced i n the incurrence of these debts. Each signed t he other’s name on business documents over a period o f years and, for a period of two years, monthly invoices for credit card charges were recognized by her. In light of these essentially undisputed facts, we agree w ith the trial judge that th e post-mortem is untenable. Our review is de novo

on the record, accompanied by the presumption t hat the trial court’s findings of fa ct are correct unless the evidence otherwise preponderates. R ULE 13(d), T ENN . R. A PP . P. This case is peculiarly

subject to di sposition by application of R ULE 10, T ENN . R. A PP . P., 1 and the judgment is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.

_____________________________ W illiam H. I nman, Senior Ju dge CONCUR:

_______________________________ Housto n M. Godd ard, Pre siding Jud ge

_______________________________ Charles D. Susano , Jr., Jud ge