Heather Alicia Roach Thomson v. Patrick James Thomson - Concurring
Opinion
I N T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S A T K N O X V I L L E
FILED
August 4, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
H E A T H E R A L I C I A R O A C H T H O M S O N , ) U N I O N C H A N C E R Appellate C ourt Clerk
Y
) C . A . N O . 0 3 A 0 1 - 9 7 0 5 - C H - 0 0 1 6 5 A p p e l l a n t )
)
)
)
)
v s . ) H O N . B I L L Y J O E W H I T E ) C H A N C E L L O R )
)
)
)
P A T R I C K J A M E S T H O M S O N , ) A F F I R M E D A N D R E M A N D E D )
A p p e l l e e )
A . T H O M A S M O N C E R E T , K n o x v i l l e , f o r A p p e l l a n t
F . D . G I B S O N , M a r y v i l l e , f o r A p p e l l e e
O P I N I O N
M c M u r r a y , J .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l f r o m a p o s t - d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g w h e r e i n t h e a p p e l l a n t s o u g h t a c h a n g e i n c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s m i n o r c h i l d o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s j u s t i f y i n g s u c h a c h a n g e . T h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d t h i s a p p e a l r e s u l t e d . W e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
T h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e s h e r i s s u e a s f o l l o w s :
T h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y n o t f i n d i n g a s a m a t t e r o f l a w a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s j u s t i f y i n g a c h a n g e o f c u s t o d y w h e n a c u s t o d i a l f a t h e r e n d a n g e r s t h e h e a l t h s a f e t y a n d w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d b y n e g l e c t i n g t h e c h i l d , e n g a g i n g i n v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r i n f r o n t o f t h e c h i l d a n d c o h a b i t a t i n g [ s i c ] w i t h a n u n r e l a t e d f e m a l e .
W e f i r s t w i s h t o m a k e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e i s s u e a s f r a m e d i s s t a t e d a r g u m e n t a t i v e l y a n d t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r o f l a w a s s e r t e d i s n e c e s s a r i l y b a s e d u p o n f a c t s t h a t m u s t b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t b e f o r e t h e l a w c a n b e a p p l i e d . T h e r e f o r e , w e c h o o s e t o t r e a t t h e i s s u e a s a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e .
O u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s a s f o l l o w s : "Unless otherwise required by statute, review of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise." Rule 13(d), Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In a de novo review, the parties are entitled to a reexamination of the whole matter of law and fact and this court should render the judgment warranted by the law and evidence. Thornburg v. Chase, 606 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. App. 1980); American Buildings Co. v. White, 640 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. App. 1982); Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 36. We note, however, that no such presumption attaches to conclusions of law. See Adams v. Dean Roofing Co., 715 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tenn. App. 1986).
T h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t o n l y o n e c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e h a d o c c u r r e d s i n c e t h e p r e v i o u s h e a r i n g w h e r e i n c u s t o d y w a s e s t a b l i s h e d . T h a t c h a n g e w a s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d s i n c e m a r r i e d . U p o n d u e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a u s e , w e d o n o t f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W e f u r t h e r a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s e s t a b l i s h b y a p r e - p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e f a c t s a s s e r t e d i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s i s s u e . A f i n d i n g o f t h e s e f a c t s w o u l d b e n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e t h e a p p e l l a n t c a n s u c c e s s f u l l y c h a l l e n g e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t . I n e s s e n c e , t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o c a r r y h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f . T h u s , w e f i n d n o e r r o r o n t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
W e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a l l r e s p e c t s .
C o s t s a r e t a x e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h i s c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D o n T . M c M u r r a y , J u d g e
C O N C U R :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H o u s t o n M . G o d d a r d , P r e s i d i n g J u d g e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H e r s c h e l P . F r a n k s , J u d g e
I N T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S A T K N O X V I L L E
H E A T H E R A L I C I A R O A C H T H O M S O N , ) U N I O N C H A N C E R Y ) C . A . N O . 0 3 A 0 1 - 9 7 0 5 - C H - 0 0 1 6 5 A p p e l l a n t )
)
)
)
)
)
v s . ) H O N . B I L L Y J O E W H I T E ) C H A N C E L L O R )
)
)
)
)
P A T R I C K J A M E S T H O M S O N , ) A F F I R M E D A N D R E M A N D E D )
A p p e l l e e )
J U D G M E N T
T h i s a p p e a l c a m e o n t o b e h e a r d u p o n t h e r e c o r d f r o m t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r t o f U n i o n C o u n t y , b r i e f s a n d a r g u m e n t o f c o u n s e l . U p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e o f , t h i s C o u r t i s o f o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
W e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a l l r e s p e c t s .
C o s t s a r e t a x e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h i s c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
P E R C U R I A M
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Heather Alicia Roach Thomson v. Patrick James Thomson - Concurring (Heather Alicia Roach Thomson v. Patrick James Thomson - Concurring) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.