William Wayne Bray v. Wanda Lee Jones Bray

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: October 25, 1995
• Docket: 01A01-9506-CV-00228
• Status: Published

Opinion

WILLIAM WAYNE BRAY, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9506-CV-00228 VS. ) ) Clay Circuit e ) No. 1227 WANDA LEE JONES BRAY, )

Defendant/Appellee. ) ) FILED Oct. 25, 1995

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY AT CELINA, TENNESSEE

THE HONORABLE JOHN TURNBULL, JUDGE

E. GUY HOLLIMAN WILLIAM JOSEPH BUTLER FARRAR & HOLLIMAN 102-A Scottsville Highway P. O. Box 280 Lafayette, Tennessee 37083 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant

JAMES D. WHITE, JR. 101 Green Street Celina, Tennessee 38551 Attorney for Defendant/Appellee

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE

CONCUR: TODD, P.J., M.S. LEWIS, J. MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In this case the husband has appealed the trial judge's award of $14,750

to the wife as her share of the marital property. The trial judge made the following

findings: that the husband's property had increased in value during the marriage in

the amount, when added to the value of some property acquired by the parties, of

$34,000; that the cattle acquired by the parties had a negative value of $4,500,

leaving a net value of $29,500; that the wife had made a contribution to the

preservation and appreciation of the property; that the wife had a greater need than

the husband; and that the husband had a greater ability to produce income in the

future. Taking the net increase in the marital estate of $29,500 the trial judge then

awarded half of it to the wife.

We find from the record that the evidence does not preponderate

against the trial judge's findings of fact. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment

and tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.

_____________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

_______________________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

1 Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals reads as follows:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by mem orandum opinion when a form al opinion would have no pre cedentia l value. W hen a case is decided by mem orandum opinion it sha ll be designated "ME MO RA ND UM OP INIO N," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.

-2-