### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Fe br ua ry 16, 200 5 S es sio n MARY JOE EARL HEADRI CK v . WI LLI AM H. HEADRI CK, JR.

Appeal f romthe G eneral Sessions Court for Loud on Coun ty No. 7858 William H. Russell, Judge

No. E2004-00730-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MARCH 7, 2005

This appea l arises fro m a divorce in which the husband a ppeals the tria l court’s c lassification of separ ate and marital property as well as t he divi sion of t hese assets. The trial court re serve d the issue of the wife ’s re quest for attorney ’s fee s. Since all issues wer e not a djudicated by the final de cre e, the or de r w a s n ot f

ina l pu rs ua nt t o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 3 (a ). Ac c or din g ly , w e ho ld tha t th is a pp e a l is pr e ma tur e a nddis mis s a ndre ma ndto the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dism issed
S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined. Mary L indsay Abbott a nd Ronald L ee Grimm, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, for the Appellant, Wil liam H. Hea drick, Sr.
Terry Vann, L enoir City , Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llee, Mary

J oe Ea rl Hea drick.
OP IN ION This appea l beg an on D ece mber 22, 1999, whe n Mary J oe Ea rl Hea drick (he reina fter r efe rre d to as “Wife”) filed a c omplaint for divorce seeking , int e r a lia , a di vo rc e , a div isi on of

a sse ts, alimony , and attorne y

fee s. Wil liam H

. Hea drick, J r. (her einaf ter ref err ed to a s “Husband” ) filed a n answe r on January 1 2, 2000, and an a mended a nswer on January 29, 2000. Although the re is no indication in the rec ord of a hearing be ing c onducted, a n "O rder ", w hich was in the f orm of a f inal decr ee, w as for war ded to the trial c ourt on Marc h 30, 2001, by Wife' s counsel, with a c ertificate of service to Husband’s attorney and with a letter reque sting that the trial court enter the order without the sig nature of Husband' s counsel, which the trial court did on April 2, 2001. Husband then filed a “Motion to Amend Judgment” on A pril 26, 2001, attempting to ma ke numerous corr ections to the order enter ed on April 2, 2001. The pa rties enter ed into an Ag ree d Orde r on Nove mber 26, 2001, vacating the O rder

of April 2, 2001 and se tting the matter for tria l.-2-

The c ase w as hea

rd Jul y 29 and 30, 2002 and the trial court e ntere d a “F indings of F act a nd Op ini on of

the Cou rt ” on Se pte mbe r 2 3, 20 02 , w hic h p ro vid e d in pe rt ine nt p art : These pa rties sepa rate d and li ved apart for more than 20 y ear s without g e tti ng a div or c e . The y

div ide d th e ir

pe rs on a l pr op e rt y

a t th a t ti me but did not mak e an y resoluti on conce rning their re al estate . The husband has made c erta in support pay ments to wife during this period of sepa ration. The pa rties purc hased a trac t of land in Marc h of 1971 (Exh. #2) from J ohn McL ean and wife, from which the parties convey ed a portion ther e o f to w if

e f o r h e r s e p ar a te p r o p e r ty

. T h e r e ma in in g p o r ti o n of that tr a c t is sti ll b e ing he ld by the pa rt ie s a s te na nts in e nti re ty , a ndis de e de d a s ma

ri ta l pro pe rt y
. Th e re ma ini ng po rt ion s of s a id p ro pe rt y s h a l l b e s o l d a n d t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y b e t w e e n t h e p ar tie s. The pa rties may ag ree to place the property with a realtor for six (6) months. I f they cannot ag ree , the property will be sold by the Clerk of the Court at public auction.
The wife , in Febr

uary 1982, purcha sed a tract of land from the Clerk
a ndMa ste r o f the Cha nc e ry Cou rt fo r 4 .9 02 a c re s w hic h a

pp are ntl y joins the tract ori g inally

purcha sed by

both parties. Althoug h the husband cla ims thi s was a pur chase by b o t h parties, the pr oof
e sta bli sh e d th a t th e wi fe ma de the pu rc ha se fo r he rs e lf

. Th e pa rt ie s’ son attempted to show by his testimonythat he had pur ch as ed the tr a c t. H is t e st im on yis n ot i n a ny way be lie ve d b y

the Cou rt , b ut i s no t mate ri a l t o th e fi nd ing s in thi s c a se . A s f ar a s th is c a se is
c o n c e r n e d , t h e a d d i t i o n a l a c r e a g e w a s t h e w i f e ’ s s o l e p r o p e r t y. The pa rties have sugges t ed to the Court methods of continuing support to the wife by the husband. My trial notes are not c lea r on this point and if the parties cannot ag ree on this, please sche dule a r earg ument for c larification on this part a nd any other y ou wish.
On Se pte mbe r 29 , 20 03 , Hu sb a nd fi le d a Mo tio n re qu e sti ng a he ari ng to “ de te rm ine a n a pp ro pr ia te Final De cre e of D ivorce to be enter ed in this cause.”
Acc ording to the rec ord, another hearing took place on O ctober 3, 2003, in a furthe r attempt to enter a f

in a l d e c r e e
. F in a ll y , o n F e b ru ar y 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , th e tria l c o u r t e n te r e d a F in a l D e c r e e of Divorce awa

rding the divorce to Wi fe a nd d i v iding the pa rties’ a ssets. Howeve r, par ag raph e ight (8) of the dec ree expressly

res erves “[t] he issue of attorney fee s and the pe nding Petition for Contempt.” Although not a t issue here , the petition for conte mpt does not a ppear in the rec ord and-3-

Wife’s counsel state d at o ral arg ument that the petition had not been f iled. No furthe r orde r wa s enter ed re solving the issue of attorney ’s fee s. Husband filed his notice of appe al on Marc h 19, 2004.

Ba sed upon a c are ful revie w of the re cord be fore us, we hold that the orde r appe aled f rom is not a final order a nd, there fore , this appeal is pre mature. We a re g uided by

Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a) , wh ic h p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art :

I n civil actions eve ry

final j udg ment enter ed by a trial c ourt from wh ic h a n a

pp eal li es to th e Sup re me Cou rt or Cou rt of Ap pe a ls i s appea lable as of rig ht. Ex cept a s otherwise pe rmitted in Rule 9 and in Rule 54.02 Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedure , if multipl e parties
or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, any order that ad ju di cat e s fe we r th an all

the c lai ms o r

th e r ig h ts a n d li ab il it ie s of fe we r tha n a ll the pa

rt ie s is not enforce able or a p p ea l a ble a ndis subject to revisio n at an ytime before entry of a f inal judgme nt a dju dic a tin g a ll the c la ims , r ig hts , a ndliab il ities of a ll p art ie s. (Emphasis adde d)

Rul e 54 .0 2 o f the Te nn e sse e Rul e s of Civi l Proc e du re a lso a dd re sse s th is i ssu e a s f oll ow s:
W hen more than one claim for relief is present in an action , whether
as a c laim, counterc laim, cross-c laim, or third party cl aim , or whe n multipl e parties are involved, the Cou rt , w h e t h e r a tl a w o r i n e q u i t y, may direct the e ntry of a final j udgment as to one or more but fewer tha n a ll of t

he c lai ms or

pa rt ie s only upon an ex

press determination that there is not just reason for de lay and upon an expre ss direction for the entry of judgme nt. In the absenc e of such de termination and dire c tio n, an

y or de r or other form of dec ision , howeve r desig nated, tha t ad jud ic ate s fe we r th an all

the c lai ms or the rig hts and liabiliti es of fe we r tha n a ll the part ie s shall not t erminate the ac tion as to any of the c lai ms or pa rti e s, an d t he o rd e r or other f orm of dec ision is subject to revision at any ti me b ef ore the e ntry of the judgment adjudication all t he claims and the rights and liabili ties of all t he pa rti e s. (Emphasis adde d)

Our Supreme Court ha s held that “[a]n order made final pursua nt to rule 54.02 must be made disposi t i v e o f an entire cla im or party .” Baybe rry Assocs. v. J ones, 783 S.W .2d 553, 558 (Tenn. 1990).-4-

Sin c e the tr ia l c ou rt ha s re se rv e d the iss ue of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, wh ic h is a c la im b y on e or bo th pa rt ie s in thi s la ws uit , th e re is n o f ina l or de r a

pp e a la ble a t th is t ime . Thi s Co urt is a wa re that th is divorce has bee n pending for over five (5) y ear s. The recor d is replete w ith dueling or ders be tween counsel a nd reve als an inability to rea ch a consensus on many issues. Whil e we desire to assist the parties in bring ing muc h neede d closure to this matter , an awa rd of attorney ’s fee s is tre ated a s an awa rd of a limony , Sullivan v. Sullivan , 107 S.W .3d 507, 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), and the trial court ha s not made a r

uling on this issue. Our holding in no wa y should be construe d as an indication that the trial court should or should not gra nt the wife’ s reque st for attorney ’s fees, but only that the issue of attorne y ' s fee s must be resolved by the trial court before our re view of the issues in this case.

For the fore g oing r easons, we dismiss this appeal a nd rema nd to the t rial court for disposition of the e ntire c la im a ndfo r c oll e c tio n o f c os ts b e low . T he c os ts o f the app e a l are a sse sse d e qu a lly betwee n Mary

J oe Ea rl Hea drick a nd Wil liam H. Hea drick.

__________________________________ S H A R O N G

. LE E , J.