FILED

February 25, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

AT KNOXVILLE

JAMES WEIFU LEE ) ANDERSON COUNTY

 ) 03A01-9807-CH-00209

Plaintiff-Appellee )

)

)

v . ) HON. WILLIAM E. LANTRIP, 

) JUDGE

)

RENYI ZHAO )

 )

Defendant-Appellant ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

RENYI ZHAO, Appellant, Pro Se

W. BRIAN STARNES OF KNOXVILLE FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 

Renyi Zhao appeals a judgment of the Chancery Court for

Anderson County which granted her husband, James Weifu Lee, a

divorce, divided the parties' marital property, which included an

interest in the proceeds of Mr. Lee's pension plan, awarded her

"primary/residential custody" of the parties' minor child, Joanna

Junying Lee (d.o.b. 5/12/92) and $600 per month as support for

Joanna.
2

Although Ms. Zhao was represented by counsel at trial,

she thereafter discharged her counsel and prosecutes this appeal,

including the filing of her appellate brief, pro s e .

At the outset we note that there are two motions to

dismiss--one filed by counsel for Mr. Lee and one filed by Mr.

Lee individually, which counsel adopts. The motion to dismiss by

counsel insists that it is proper to dismiss the appeal because

no transcript of the proceedings below have been filed. The

motion that Mr. Lee filed individually merely reiterates the

grounds he asserts which entitle him to a divorce. 

As to the former, even though there is no transcript,

this Court has the obligation to review what was formerly known

as the technical record and determine whether there is some

infirmity requiring reversal of the judgment entered. As to Mr.

Lee's motion, it does not raise any grounds for dismissal and,

consequently, both motions are overruled.

Turning to the merits of the case, we find we are

unable to address any issues raised by Ms. Zhao as none are set

out in her brief, which also fails in a number of particulars in

meeting the requirements of Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of

Appellate Procedure relative thereto.

The only complaint Ms. Zhao raises in oral argument is

that she did not want the divorce granted. Even if an issue had
3

been raised by her as to this point, we would be unable to review

the propriety thereof because, as already noted, no transcript of

the evidence has been filed. Under such circumstances this Court

conclusively presumes that the evidence adduced justified the

judgment entered. Vanderbilt University v. Steely , 566 S.W.2d

853 (Tenn.1978); Leek v. Powell , 884 S.W.2d 118 (Tenn.App.1994). 

Before concluding, we note that the final order

contains the following:

11. That the Defendant is awarded 1/2 of the

Plaintiff’s retirement, pension, etc. plan proceeds

accrued during the period of time that the parties have

been married while the Plaintiff (i.e., from date of

employment through June 3, 1998), with the Defendant

being obligated to preparing and submitting appropriate

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders relative to same

for approval and subsequent entry herein.

In light of the fact that Ms. Zhao is without counsel

and it is doubtful whether she would be in a position to follow

the Chancellor's directive relative to the foregoing, we modify

the judgment to require that this order be prepared and submitted

by counsel for Mr. Lee, an obligation that counsel when

questioned in oral argument agreed to assume.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial

Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for such further

proceedings, including entry of the qualified domestic relations

order, as may be necessary. Costs of appeal are adjudged against

Ms. Zhao.
4

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.