### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on

Briefs J une 19, 2003 JERRY LEE HARBIN v. CHRIS MARIE HARBIN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 01D303 W. Neil Thomas, Judge FILED JULY 16, 2003 No. E2002-01456-COA-R3-CV

Chris Marie Ha

rbin appe als a judg

ment ente re d b y t he Circuit Court for Hamilton County which decreed that the part ies were divorce d, awar

ded custo dy o f their

three minor children to their father, Jerry Lee Harbin, af

firmed a visitation plan proposed by Mr . Harbin, which she signed, and ordere d Mr. Harbin to pay token a limony ($1.00 per month) to her. She appeals the judg ment of the Court. We affirm. Tenn. R. App.P. 3 Appe al as of Right ; Judgme nt of the Cir

cuit Cour

t Affirme d; Cause Remanded H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., JJ., joined. Chris Marie Harbin, Appellant, Pro Se Barba ra S. Arth ur, Rossville, Geor

gia, fo r the App ellee, Jer

ry Lee Harbin

MEMORAN

DUM OP

INION Ini ti al ly, Ms. Harbin was represented by counsel, but he withdrew prior to the date of the trial. No answer having been filed by Ms. Harbin, a default judgment was taken. She did not attend the trial, although it was reset at her instance fr om an earlier date. On appeal, Ms. Harbin eventually filed what she apparently perceives to be an ap

propria te brief, w hich was prompted

by a n order o f this Court dire cting th at if her brie f was not f

iled within a certain period of time the appeal would be dismissed.-2-

The brief she filed, however, is woefully inadequate. First, it lists no issues on appeal as required by

Tenn. R. App. P. 27, nor does it state what relief she is asking from this Court, except that she be granted custody

of the minor children. Furthermore, the brief contains no statement of facts nor cites any

law in support of her position. To reitera te, the br ief file d by

Ms. Harb in is so infirm t

hat revi ew by

this Court is impossible. Even, ho wever, had she listed issues regarding custody or otherwise it would appear they would most likely be dependent upon the f acts adduced at trial. There is no transcript nor statement of the evidence filed, and under such circumstances we conclusively pre sume the judgment of the Trial Court is supported by the evidenc e introduced. In re Ann e Marie O 'Donohue R ockwell , 673 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). Fi na ll y, we rea

lize that Ms . Harbin

is a ppearin g in this Co

urt pro se , which, a

ccordin g to some cases, e

ntit les her to a degree of def erence relative to certain inadequacies, but certainly not the major ones found in her brief. This Court add

ressed t he questi o n re cently in Paehler v. Union Planters Nat. Bank , 971 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), at page 396: Pa rties who choose to represent themselves are entitled to fa ir and equa l tre atment. Irvin v. City of Clark sville , 767 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn.App.1988 )

. However, they

are not excused from comply ing with applicable substantive and procedural law, and they must follow the same substantive and procedurallaw as the represented party

. Id. (citations omitted). For the foregoing reasons the judg ment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for such fur ther pro ceeding s, if any , as may be nece ssary

and colle cti on of cost s below. Costs of appeal are adjudged ag ainst Chris Marie Harbin.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDI NG JUDGE