1 Rule 10 (Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee). Affirmance Without Opinion . --

(a) The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by or

der without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appe al: (1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary

implication by the trial cou rt. (2 ) t he re is ma te ri al ev id en ce to su pp or t t he ve rd ic t o f t he ju ry. (3) no reversible error of law a ppears. 

# FILED

June 4, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr

. App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTI ON AT JACK SON

ANNE ADA MS HURDLE, By and ) From the Circuit Cou

rt through her Attorneys-In-Fact, ) for Shelby County , Tennessee WALKER HA RDY HURD LE, III and ) WILLIAM F . HURDLE, a nd WALKER ) The Ho norab le Rob ert A. Lanier, J udge HARDY HURDLE, III and WILLIAM F. ) HURDLE, Individually, ) Shelby County Circuit No. 30171 ) Appeal No. 02A01-9502-CV-00023 Plaintiffs/Appellees ) ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED v. ) ) William W. Dunlap, Jr. WALKER HARDY HURDLE, JR. ) G. Rice By ars, Jr. and Wife, MA RY ANN HU RDLE ) Memphis, Tennessee ) Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellee s Defendants/Appellants ) ) Hal Gerber ) Lewi e R. Po lk , III ) Memphis, Tennessee ) Attorney s for Def endants/ Appellan ts

RULE 10 ORD ER AND OP INION
This matter appears appropriate for conside ration pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. 1 In this case, appellant, Walker Ha rdy Hurdle, Jr,. and Appe llee, Anne Adams Hurdle, were divorced in 1973. They entered into a property

settlement agreement which was incorporated into the divorce decree. The property settlement a

greement required Mr. Hurdle , inter alia , to make a

will leaving half

his estate upon his de ath to the

parties’ two sons a

nd to
convey c ertain properties to an alimony trust. Mr. Hurdle subsequently r emarried and children were borne of the second marria ge. Appellees filed this lawsuit alleging that Mr. Hurdle was making h uge g ifts of as sets to his s econd wi fe and th eir child ren, diss ipating

the esta te that wo uld be left to the sons of

Mr. Hurd

le and Ap pellee u nder Mr. Hurdle’ s will. Mr. Hurdle d enied thi s allega tion, arg uing tha t the divor

ce decr ee requ ired only that he ha

ve a will l eaving

half his e stateto the par

ties’ sonsand that h

e had co mplied with

this requirement. Mr. Hurd le also a rgued that, despite gifts to his second wife and their children, his estate, including the alimony trust, is now larger than it was at the time of the divorce de cree, so there was no dissipation of his estate. The trial court issued a temporary injunction against Mr. Hurdle, restraining him from making further conveyances or transfers of assets for less than substantially equivalent value. The trial court also denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Mr. Hurdle’s Application for I nterlocutory Appe al pursuant to Tenn.R.App. P. 9. Permission for interlocutory

appeal u nder Rule 9 was subs equently

granted by

this Court. On appeal, Mr. Hurdle raises no issue concer ning the temporary

injunction. He argues that the trial court erred in deny ing his Motion for Summary Judgment. Our r eview of the trial
court’s denial of

Mr. Hurd

le’s Motio n for Summa

ry Judgment i s de novo on the record before this Court, with no presumption of correctness. Carvell v. B otto ms , 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995). From our review of this case law, including Ashley v. Volz , 218 Tenn. 420, 404 S.W.2d 239 (Tenn. 1966) and

Owens v. Church , 675 S.W.2d 178 (Tenn. App. 1984), and our review of the record in this cause, it appears that there a re material disputed facts that require the consideration of evidence and testimony . Therefore, the denial of Mr. Hurdle’ s Motion for Summary Judgment is affirmed. Accordingly , the order of the trial court is hereby affirmed in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a

), and the matter is remanded to the tri al court for fur ther pro ceeding s. Costs in this cause are taxed to Appellants, for which execution may issue if necessary

.

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

CONCUR:

W. FRAN K CRAWF ORD, P. J., W.S.

DAVID R. FARMER, J.