13, 2018 Session
from the Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County No.
2016-PF-5150 Larry Michael Warner, Judge
appeal arises from a final decree of divorce. Mother appeals,
contending the trial court erred in designating Father as the
Primary Residential Parent and awarding the majority of
parenting time to Father; she also challenges the division of
the martial property. Because the trial court made no
findings of fact and the statement of the evidence is
inadequate, we have determined that we cannot conduct an
appropriate appellate review of the issues raised.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated and
this matter is remanded for the trial court to, inter
alia, comply with the mandate in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01,
which states that "the [trial] court shall find the
facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of
law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment."
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Probate and
Family Court Vacated and Remanded
Coleman, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chrissy M.
R. Bryant, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jacinto
G. Clement Jr., P.J., M.S. delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which D. Michael Swiney, C.J., and Thomas R.
Frierson II, J., joined.
G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.
6, 2016, Jacinto Machic ("Father") filed for
divorce against Chrissy Machic ("Mother") on the
grounds of inappropriate martial conduct. A trial on this
matter was held on June 5, 2017. The trial court entered a
Final Decree of Divorce and a Permanent Parenting Plan on
June 27, 2017.
Final Decree of Divorce contains no findings of fact or
conclusions of law and there is no transcript of the evidence
because there was no court reporter present at trial. There
is, however, a statement of the evidence which reads as
As there was no court reporter present there is no transcript
provided of the testimony. The recollection of Appellee's
counsel and Appellee is that the Husband testified regarding
the length of time that the parties were married and the
birth of the parties' children. There was testimony
regarding the Wife's extramarital affair where during
those times she had left the children in the care of the
Father. The Father also testified that he had been primarily
caring for the children. The Husband testified regarding the
real property of the parties as well as personalty. There
does not appear to be a big discrepancy regarding the
parties' testimony of the real and personal property. The
Wife's testimony admitted that she differed from the
Husband regarding primary care of the children and there was
testimony regarding the real and personal property that was
similar to the Husband's testimony. The Wife admitted to
at least one (1) extramarital affair during the time of the
marriage. Counsel made closing arguments and stated the
reasons for their respective requests. Following closing
arguments, the Court then made its final ruling which was
incorporated into the Order which is a part of the appellate
record. There was no request made by the Defendant/Appellant
for findings of fact and no request for conclusions of law
and no request for any clarification made at any time by the
appeal followed. Mother contends the trial court erred in
designating Father as the Primary Residential Parent and
awarding the majority of parenting time to Father. She also
challenges the division of the martial assets and an
evidentiary ruling related to Father's fitness as a
Rule of Civil Procedure ...