Heather Alicia Roach Thomson v. Patrick James Thomson - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided August 4, 1998·No. 03A01-9705-CH-00165·Published

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).

2 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

3 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, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

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.

Related

Adams v. Dean Roofing Co., Inc.
715 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1986)
Thornburg v. Chase
606 S.W.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1980)
American Buildings Co. v. White
640 S.W.2d 569 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1982)