### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE D ec em be r 9, 200 4 S es sio n SA N D R A JA N E L aG U A R D IA v. M IC HA EL J. La GU A R D IA Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Washin gton County No. 7727 G . Richard Johns on, Jud ge

No. E2004-00822-COA- R3-CV - F ILED JULY 6, 2005

C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J., c on c ur ri ng in p art

a nddis se nti ng in p art

.

I concur in all aspec ts of the majority opinion ex cept ( 1) the majority ’s treatment of the trial court’s de cre e pertaini n g t o Wife’s rig ht, for a pe riod of time, to the exclusive possession and occupancy

of the former marital residenc e; and ( 2) the majority ’s handling of the i ssue of whether thea sse ts o f H us ba nd ’s la w p ra c tic e arema ri ta l a sse ts.
I do not believe the trial court a bused its discretion when it dec ree d that Wife, as the primary re sid e nti a l pa

re nt, ha s the op tio n, po st- div or c e jud g me nt, of re ma ini ng wi th h e r t wo min or , auti sti c children in the f

ormer ma rital reside nce until the point in time whe n they are no longe r consider ed min or s. Th is i s n ot t o s a y that, h a d I

be e n th e tria l c ou rt , I

wo uldha ve a llo we d Wif e to r ema in i n the house. I

do not know whether I would have or not. H oweve r, it is clear bey ond any

doubt that what I would have done is not t h e cr i t er i a b ywhich the tria l court’s de cision is to be judge d. See Eldridge v. Eldridge , 42 S.W .3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (“The abuse of discre tion standard does not permit the appe llate court to substi tute its judgment for that of the trial c ourt.”).
I n decr eeing as it did, the trial court made a dec ision which is, at the same tim e, b o th a de c isi on be ari ng on thec are of min or c hil dr e n a nda

jud g me nt pe rt a ini ng to mari ta l pr op e rty . B oth of the se matte rs de a l with iss ue s tha t addre ss the mse lve s to the so un d disc re tio n of the tria l c ou rt

. See Sut tles v. Sutt les, 74 8 S.W.2 d 427 , 4 29 (T e nn . 1 98 8) ; Batson v. Batson , 769 S.W .2d 849, 859 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). On appeal, s uch decisions must be affirmed unless the evidenc e re flec ts that the trial court abused its discretion. Sut tles , 7 48 S.W. 2da t 42 9; Batson , 769 S.W .2d at 859. The trial c ourt applied a

“[] corr ect leg al standar d,” see Cl in a r d v . Bl a c k wood , 46 S.W .3d 17 7, 18 2 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) , w he n it pe rm itt e d Wif e to re ma in in the re sid e nc e , e ve n th ou g h s he ow ns le ss than 100% of the interest in this property

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121( d) (Supp. 2004) has long pr ov ide d a s f

oll ow s:T en n. C o d e A nn . § 3 4

- 1

- 1 0 2 (b ) p ro vid es a s fo l l o w s: 1

P ar ent s s hal l cont i nu e t o be r es po ns i bl e f or t he s uppo r t of ea ch chi l d f or w hom t hey a re re sp o n sib le a fter the c h ild re a c h e s e ig h te e n (1 8 ) ye a rs o f ag e if the c h ild is i n hi gh s cho o l

. T he d ut y of supp o rt s hal l co nt i nue unt i l t he chi l d graduates f rom hi gh s chool or t he cl as s of

wh i ch t he chi l d i s a mem ber whe n t he chi l d at t ai ns ei gh t een (1 8 ) ye a rs o f ag e gr a d u a te s, w h ic h e v e r o c c u rs fi rs t. -2- The c ourt may

awa rd the familyhome and household effe cts, or the ri g ht t o li ve the re in andus e theho us e hold eff e c ts f or a re a so na ble p e r io d , to e ith e r

party , b ut shall gi ve spe cial consideration to a spouse having physic al custody of a child or children of the marriage. (Emphasis adde d). Thus, the leg islature has pr ovided that the public policy of this state rec og nizes that c ir c ums ta nc e s in a

div or c e c a se ma y be su c h a s to pe rs ua de a tria l c ou rt , inthe e xer c ise of its discretionary

function , t o l eave a c ustodian, i.e. , a primary residential pa

rent, in possession of a residenc e, eve n though heor she owns le ss than 100% of the f ee simple title. I

bel i eve, however , that continued possession is not w ithout limitation. Gene rally speaking , it should notextend bey ond the t ime when the children are no longe r l eg ally entitled to child support. See, e .g. , Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-102( b)(2001)

. 1
I n prac tice, it is not uncommon for a divorce court, unde r Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121( d), to permit a primary

residential pa

rent , whose c hildren do not have any serious phy sical or menta l dis abil iti e s, to re ma in in the fo rm e r mari ta l re sid e nc e fo r a sub stanti a l period of tim e po st-

jud g me nt. Her e, the c hildren ar e autistic and the trial court f ound that the childre n need “s am eness and c on sis te nc y .” Th e re is some support in the rec ord for this latter finding

. I rec og nize that neither of the experts “testified that it was in the best interest of the children to either move from or stay in the marital residenc e.” I also rec og nize that continued joint owne rship of the residenc e for a long period of tim e ma y

le a d to pr ob le ms. But hav in g s a id a ll o f this , I sti ll b e lie ve re a so na

ble min ds c ou ld differ as to whethe r Wife should be permitted to stay in the residenc e for an extended period of time, a s f ou ndby thetr ia l c ou rt , o r the pr op e rty sh ou ld be so ld in tw o y e ars , a s d ir e c te d b y the ma jority opinion. This being the c ase, I do not find a prope r leg al or fa ctual pre dicate f or holding that the trial court a bused its discretion.
Th e trial court “ hinted” that it might be w illing to continue Wife’s oc cupanc y bey ond the c hil dr e n’ s mi no ri ty

a s d e fi ne d inTe nn . Co de An n. § 3 4- 1- 10 2( b) . I wo uldde le te the re fe re nc e in the trial court’s opinion alluding to Wife’s rig ht to file a pe tition t o stay in the residenc e bey ond the children’ s mi n o ri t y . I would do so beca use I do not believe, in the c ase at bar, that it would be “re asonable ,” see Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 4-121 (d) , to de prive Hu sb a ndof his e qu ity

in the ho us e bey o n d t h at point. I

believe the trial court a

bused its discretion in adding the lang uag e pertaining to the filing of

a petition. I n my opinion, the “default” positi on should be that Wife’s exclusive rig htI r ecogn i ze t hat a c our t ca n e xt end a par ent ’ s s uppo r t obl i gat i on bey ond mi nor i t y i n t he eve nt a c hi l d under 2

a c h ild su p p o rt o rd e r is se v e re ly d isa b le d a t t h e ti m e su p p o rt w o u ld o the rw ise ter m ina te

. See T en n . C ode Ann

. § 36- 5- 1 0 1 (p ) (S u p p . 2 0 0 4 ); see a l so I n r e C onser vat ors hi p of Jon es , N o. M 2004- 00173- CO A- R3- CV , 2004 W L 2973752, at * 13 ( T en n . Ct

. App. M

. S. , f i l ed D ec embe r 22, 2004)

. H owe v er , i n t h e ca s e at ba r , t h e ch i l dr en ’ s di s abi l i t i es a r e n ot so severe as t o be l i eve t hat i t wo ul d be reasonab l e t o ext end t he d ep ri vat i o n of H usband ’ s ri ght t o enjoy hi s shar e o f t he e q u ity in th e ho u se b e yo n d the c h ild re n ’s m ino rity.

T en n. C o d e A nn . § 3 6

- 4

- 1 2 1 (b )(1 )(A ) p ro vid es, i n p erti ne nt p art, as fo l l o w s: 3

“M ari t al pro p ert y ” m eans al l real and pe rs o nal pr o p ert y , bo t h t angi b l e and inta n gible , a c q u ire d b y e ithe r or b oth spou se s d u rin g the c ou rs e of t h e m a rr ia ge . . . . -3- to possession ends when Husband no longe r has a n obligation to support his children unde r Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1- 102(b). 2
Wit h respe ct to the issue of Husband’ s law pra ctice, I believe the assets of that pr actice , save his law license, a

re ma rital assets bec ause H usband starte d the pra ctice of law af ter the date of the parties’ marria g e. See Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 4- 12 1( b) (1 )( A)

. Th e re fo re , I wo uld c la ssi fy thea sse ts 3 of the law prac tice as ma

rital property

. Furthermore , there is no harm in doing so. Wife does not contend th at she should share in those assets and, in any event, I do not believe that Husband’s rete ntion of them rende rs the division of the marital e state inequitable.
Ac c or din g ly , I

c on c ur in p art a nd , r e sp e c tf

ull y , d iss e nt i n p art

.



### ______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE