Mark Scott Smith v. Faith Horne Smith

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedMarch 1, 1996
Docket03A01-9411-CH-00413
StatusPublished

This text of Mark Scott Smith v. Faith Horne Smith (Mark Scott Smith v. Faith Horne Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mark Scott Smith v. Faith Horne Smith, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED March 1, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

MARK SCOTT SM TH I ) KNOX COUNTY ) 03A01- 9411- CH- 00413 Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) v. ) HON. SHARON J . BELL, ) CHANCELLOR ) FAI TH HORNE SM TH I ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

M CHAEL A. NOLAN OF KNOXVI LLE FOR APPELLANT I

MARK SCOTT SM TH, Appe l l e e , Pr o Se I

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

Appe l l a nt Fa i t h Hor ne Smi t h a ppe a l s a di vor c e de c r e e

e n t e r e d by t he Cha nc e r y Cour t f or Knox Count y whe r e i n s he r a i s e s

t h e f o l l owi ng f our i s s ue s :

1. Di d t he t r i a l c our t e r r i n t he a mount a nd t e r m of a l i mony gr a nt e d t o De f e nda nt .

2. Di d t he t r i a l c our t e r r i n t he a wa r di ng of j oi nt c u s t ody of t he pa r t i e s mi nor c hi l dr e n r a t he r t ha n a l l owi ng De f e nda nt s ol e c us t ody a nd/ or t he f r e e dom t o r e l oc a t e wi t h t he c hi l dr e n t o a not he r s t a t e wi t h l i be r a l e xt e nde d v i s i t a t i on a wa r de d t o Pl a i nt i f f .

3. Di d t he t r i a l c o ur t e r r i n t he di vi di ng ma r i t a l a s s e t s i n s uc h a ma nne r t ha t De f e nda nt ha d l i t t l e or no l i qui d a s s e t s t o pa y bi l l s or a t t or ne y f e e s .

4. Di d t he t r i a l c our t e r r i n r e f us i ng t o gr a nt a t t or ne y f e e s t o De f e nda nt .

Appe l l e e M r k Sc ot t Smi t h i n hi s r e pl y br i e f a l s o a

r a i s e s a n i s s ue :

Di d t he t r i a l c our t e r r i n r e f us i ng t o modi f y t he Re f e r e e ' s Opi ni on t o r e duc e t he t e mpor a r y s uppor t pa i d t o De f e nda nt .

Our r e a di ng of t he r e c or d a nd t he Cha nc e l l or ' s f i ndi n g

o f f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w pe r s ua de us t hi s i s a n a ppr opr i a t e

c a s e f o r a f f i r ma nc e unde r Rul e 10( a ) of t hi s Cour t .

Be f or e c onc l udi ng, we not e t ha t t he t r i a l c our t i s

a c c or d e d wi de di s c r e t i on a s t o t he ma t t e r s r a i s e d by M s . Smi t h r

i n i s s u e s one , t hr e e a nd f our .

W r e c ogni z e t ha t a s t o t he f i r s t poi nt r a i s e d i n i s s u e e

t wo , j o i nt c us t ody ha s be e n c r i t i c i z e d by a numbe r of our c a s e s ,

i . e . , M l one v. M l one , 842 S. W 2d 621 ( Te nn. App. 1992) ; Dodd v . a a .

Do d d, 7 37 S. W 2d 286 ( Te nn . App. 1987) . . Howe ve r , we be l i e ve unde r

t h e u n i que c i r c ums t a nc e s o f t hi s c a s e , whi c h a r e poi nt e d out i n

t h e Ch a nc e l l or ' s me mor a ndu m opi ni on, s uc h a n a r r a nge me nt i s

a ppr opr i a t e . As t o t he s e c ond poi nt r a i s e d i n i s s ue t wo, we a l s o

2 b e l i e v e , a s ma y be i nf e r r e d by our a f f i r ma nc e unde r Rul e 10( a ) ,

t h a t t h e e vi de nc e doe s not pr e ponde r a t e a ga i ns t t he Cha nc e l l or ' s

f i n d i n g r e l a t i ve t o r e l oc a t i ng t he c hi l dr e n.

As t o t he i s s ue r a i s e d by M . Smi t h r e l a t i ve t o r

p e n d e n t e l i t e a l i mony pa yme nt s , i t woul d a ppe a r hi s c ompl a i nt i s

t h a t M s . Smi t h ove r e s t i ma t e d he r e xpe ns e s a t t he he a r i ng be f o r e r

t h e Re f e r e e , a s s hown by h e r t e s t i mony gi ve n a t t r i a l . W ar e e

d i s i n c l i ne d t o di s t ur b t he Re f e r e e ' s de t e r mi na t i on i n l i ght of

t he f a c t t ha t t he t r a ns c r i pt of t he t e s t i mony a t t ha t he a r i ng i s

n o t p a r t of t he r e c or d a nd t he f ur t he r f a c t t ha t M . Smi t h a gr e e d r

f o r t h e mos t pa r t t o t he a mount a wa r de d.

For t he f or e goi n g r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l

Co u r t i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or c ol l e c t i on of c os t s

b e l o w. Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d one - ha l f t o t he Appe l l a nt

Fa i t h Hor ne Smi t h a nd one - ha l f t o t he Appe l l e e M r k Sc ot t Smi t h . a

_______________________________ Hous t on M Godda r d, P. J . .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________________ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________________ Do n T. M M r a y, J . c ur

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Malone v. Malone
842 S.W.2d 621 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)
Carroll v. Gross
37 S.W.2d 286 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark Scott Smith v. Faith Horne Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-scott-smith-v-faith-horne-smith-tennctapp-1996.