’WPCi& é¶ßEF R1:ŖDkŅeŲ“0:ŖSˆ“^Į%½Y^ä ¤‰ŃÉrēŲ2šxO_óĮ³”MAž•’ŹŽV™ [÷;×8]„ĆŪUE’rJPæŽ ¼z˜#pą4:Hœ˜’ą“eeZøqe(¢\ńņy¬d»Ņ+v’~ßokæ?,zą6»Y'<)N‰ŻĶ7Żra]ׄžé”ZCƒņŅITžók-—s¤Ezh"ē+>*!dddrŠ¦ƒ:!ɝ+ŠāłY8Ūįˆżt<0ytf*Ž¦ 2ėŪH3mŲ: >*›(ēB]ŽÕ–R“ t4s59\j½ž„¾% V,G•’¼£Z­ŪĮūŽģ“s%ŁlYF©t‚½‰¤Lz·ń]Õč~m˜¬7]"€nŠĘõb劭M$T=gŗ¹čo)Oź?`ń`bķ\w®Ä”éŅ¹Į@ĮE€£ ¤wP>öz" ¦ ä”O !]ėóbćk߄© -„9°4ń”“Xż¾e€PTįŲ £¢ėYpp˜~¬²9‘…ųx6ŪģR;ĻŪkŌyƍQY‹*uofqōbķ°),m—ĀM”1w¢vAwU‰$ĶŪ½Ōā >›oR®ib#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U/Næ w 4 z% ŅŸ q € m‚ UN™ Ęē Ę­ ĘsĘ9U >’N=ī??E-ś/ 0 D)lm$ŁŁĶżģŹš¶P£Qjōōōōōōōōōōōōōb^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^!^! 0 ėf!f!f!f! BQ"Q" 0¤n" D3# D-E# 0Kr#r# AS½#Ę$ 0¤Ö$ 0Dz% A«¾%˜HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6ČČČČ0»g¤›3  (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=€M3ź:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ’U‹’ĄĄĄ(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ō\  `‹&Times New Roman  COAHamlinRassasPerkinsonLoudonGuiliano CLEOFrizzellGatlinburgL.L.C.pendenteJOANN šŻ ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌHe€claimed€in€that€filing€and€at€trial€that€the€ņņŌ_ŌpendenteŌ_Ō€liteóó€support€he€paid€under€court€order€should€be€creditedŠ ° Što€him€since€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€provided€that€neither€party€would€be€entitled€to€any€support.€€He€also€asked€thatŠ tÄ Šcertain€credit€card€debt€be€assigned€solely€to€his€wife.(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó bŻ ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌAdditionally,€Mr.€Swift€had€paid€all€expenses€for€care€and€feeding€of€the€horses€during€the€approximatelyŠ ° Šeighteen€months€between€the€partiesšš€separation€and€the€trial,€which€he€calculated€at€$128€per€day. Ż ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś5Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌHe€also€bought€numerous€parcels€in€his€name€only,€and€there€was€no€real€explanation€of€why€some€were€titledŠ ° Šjointly€and€some€separately. ĆŻ ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€proof€indicates€the€car€was€driven€38,000€miles€while€she€had€it. āŻ ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś7Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌShe€requests€that€the€case€be€remanded€with€instruction€that€the€trial€court€include€as€marital€property€š šallŠ ° Šproperty€purchased€in€the€names€of€both€parties€as€well€as€all€assets€coming€into€the€personal€business€account€of€theŠ tÄ Šhusbandšš€and€that€the€court€make€a€more€even€distribution€of€that€marital€estate. Ż ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌAlthough€Mr.€Swift€argues€that€the€debt€he€was€required€to€assume€should€be€credited€in€his€favor€inŠ ° Šconsideration€of€the€property€division,€he€does€not€directly€challenge€the€trial€courtššs€allocation€of€that€debt€to€him.€€WeŠ tÄ Šdo€not€need€to€consider€whether€that€allocation€was€appropriate.€€However,€we€note€that€the€Antenuptial€AgreementŠ 8ˆ Šprovides€that€each€party€shall€be€responsible€for€debts€he€or€she€contracted€during€the€marriage€and€shall€indemnify€theŠ üL Šother€for€the€payment€of€such€debt.€€Since€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€deals€with€apportionment€of€debt€upon€divorce,Š Ą Šit€would€apply€rather€than€general€principles€regarding€the€identification€and€allocation€of€marital€debt. ÷Ż ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś6Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThere€were€also€references€to€another€joint€personal€account,€and€Mr.€Swift€testified€that€the€business€paid€Ms.Š ° ŠSwift€every€week€and€also€paid€him,€all€out€of€the€business€account.€€It€is€difficult€to€determine€precisely€what€accountsŠ tÄ Šthe€parties€are€referring€to€or€what€was€paid€out€of€each.€€Nonetheless,€a€general€pattern€was€shown. ™Ż ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś9Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌIn€arguing€the€need€for€testimony€from€other€witnesses€who€had€not€been€served€with€Ō_ŌsubpeonasŌ_Ō,€counsel€statedŠ ° Šhe€was€not€asking€for€a€continuance€because€the€matter€had€already€been€delayed€and€his€client€needed€to€get€the€divorce. `Ż ƒR»6$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś8Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€tracts€Ms.€Swift€testified€about€were€not€owned€by€the€parties€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€and€not€subjectŠ ° Što€division€under€either€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€or€the€statutes€that€would€otherwise€apply.€€- ł-(|G2»6$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€R”»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōõ©ņ»»Ō d(|3Ēˆ$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€R”»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ēˆ$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€R”»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€R”»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŌ€¼R”»»»ŌŃ8€UXXdģ»»d8ŃŃ  Ńą@ü ü ģąŌ‡ī^Čī»¼R”ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@kk$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼R”»īī^Č #ŌˆŠ Ö& ŠÓ  ÓAugust€19,€2005€SessionŠ üL ŠŌ‡XUX»¼R”ŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼R”»XXUō#ŌJERRY€LYNN€SWIFT€v.€GALE€JOANN€(RITCHIE)€SWIFTŌ‡XUX»¼R”Ōó óŠ śJ ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Stewart€CountyŠ ś J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€02„11„001€€€€€€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeŠ ę 6 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` Aߊ Ŗś  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2004„01501„Ō_ŌCOAŌ_Ō„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€27,€Ō_Ō2005Ō_ŌŠ „õ  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aߊ }Ķ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThis€appeal€involves€the€division€of€property€upon€divorce€where€there€existed€a€valid€AntenuptialŠ xČ  ŠAgreement€that€included€provisions€governing€such€distribution.€€Because€we€find€that€the€trialŠ d“ Šcourtššs€distribution€was€consistent€with€the€terms€of€the€agreement€and€supported€by€the€record,€weŠ P  Šaffirm.Š <Œ ŠÓ«ÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtŠ d ŠAffirmedó óŠ P ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼R”»ąXUh#ŌŌ‡XUX.¼R”ŌPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņWilliam€B.€Cainóó€and€ņņFrankŠ Ų( ŠG.€Clement,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Š Ä ŠĢJerry€W.€Hamlin,€Ashland€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Gale€Joann€Swift.Š œģ ŠĢMark€A.€Rassas,€Julia€P.€North,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Jerry€Lynn€Swift.Š tÄ ŠÓĖÓĢņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼R”»XXUś#ŌŌ‡XUX»¼R”ŌŠ L œ ŠĢņņóóŌ#†¼R”»XXUå#ŌÓ  ÓŌ€XUX»¼R”ŌŌ‡ XUXXXUŌą  ąJerry€Lynn€Swift€and€Gale€Joann€Ritchie€Swift€were€married€September€26,€1997.€€It€was€hisŠ $"t! Šsecond€marriage€and€her€seventh.€€They€had€known€each€other€for€a€few€years€and€had€lived€togetherŠ #`" Šfor€some€time€before€the€marriage.€€Mr.€Swift€had€been€in€the€logging€business€in€Stewart€CountyŠ ü#L# Šfor€many€years,€and€he€continued€that€business€throughout€the€marriage.€€Ms.€Swift€did€some€part„Š č$8 $ Štime€work€for€Mr.€Swiftššs€logging€business€both€before€and€after€the€marriage.Š Ō%$!% ŠĢą  ąThe€day€before€their€marriage€the€parties€entered€into€an€Antenuptial€Agreement.€€The€listsŠ ¬'ü"' Šof€assets€exchanged€as€part€of€the€agreementššs€execution€show€that€Ms.€Swift€owned€about€$25,000Š ˜(č#( Šin€household€and€personal€goods,€while€Mr.€Swift€owned€business€assets€including€land,€timber,€andŠ „)Ō$) Šequipment,€as€well€as€other€assets,€all€totaling€over€$1,000,000.Š p*Ą%* Šā āŠ \+¬&+ż Šą  ąOn€September€12,€2002,Ō#†XUXX XUn #ŌŌ‡ XUXXXUŌ€Mr.€Swift€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce.€€In€an€agreed€bifurcatedŠ ° Šproceeding,€the€trial€court€first€determined€the€validity€of€the€Antenuptial€Agreement.€€The€trial€courtŠ œģ Šruled€on€Ō#†XUXX XUś #ŌŌ‡ XUXXXUŌthe€agreement€was€enforceable€and€binding.Š ˆŲ Šā āĢą  ąThe€parties€stipulated€as€to€grounds€for€divorce,€and€they€were€declared€divorced.€€Trial€wasŠ `° Šheld€on€the€distribution€of€marital€property.€€The€trial€court€identified€the€property€it€deemed€maritalŠ L œ Šand€awarded€some€tracts€of€real€property€and€sixteen€horses€to€Mr.€Swift€along€with€all€otherŠ 8 ˆ Šproperty€in€his€possession.€€The€court€awarded€Ms.€Swift€a€2000€Lincoln€automobile,€€personalŠ $ t Šitems,€and€half€of€household€items.€€The€court€also€ordered€Mr.€Swift€to€pay€a€balance€ofŠ  ` Šapproximately€$9,330€in€credit€card€debt€incurred€by€Ms.€Swift€after€the€partiesšš€separation.Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swift€has€appealed€from€the€final€order€distributing€the€property.€€Without€going€intoŠ Ō$  Šmore€detail€about€the€basis€of€her€appeal€at€this€point,€suffice€it€to€say€that€she€thinks€she€should€haveŠ Ą  Šgotten€more€property.Š ¬ü  ŠĢņņņ ņÓ  ÓI.€€The€Antenuptial€Agreementó óóóŠ „Ō  ŠÓpÓĢą  ąMs.€Swift€does€not€appeal€the€trial€courtššs€ruling€that€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€is€valid€andŠ \¬ Šenforceable.€€Consequently,€any€review€of€the€distribution€of€property€must€begin€with€the€relevantŠ H˜ Športions€of€that€document:Š 4„ ŠĢą8  ąThe€parties€agree€that€in€the€unfortunate€circumstances€that€proceedings€are€broughtŠ  \ Šfor€absolute€divorce,€divorce€from€bed€and€board,€for€separate€maintenance€or€anyŠ ųH Šother€domestic€remedy,€then€regardless€of€which€party€is€granted€relief,€andŠ ä4 Šregardless€of€fault,€they€will€be€bound€by€the€terms€of€this€Agreement€and€seek€noŠ Š  Šother€recourse€from€any€Court.€€In€such€event€the€parties€agree€that:Š¼ Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(A)ą0` Š Š ąSeparate€Property.Š”ä` Š ` Š  ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąAll€Separate€Property,€as€defined€in€this€Agreement,€including€theŠ l¼ Šappreciation€and€income€thereof,€will€remain€the€Separate€Property€of€the€respectiveŠ X Ø Šparties.€€Each€party€agrees€he€or€she€will€assert€no€claim€of€any€type€or€kind€to€suchŠ D!” ŠSeparate€Property€of€the€other.Š0"€ Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(B)ą0` Š Š ąJoint€Property.Š$X"` Š ` Š  ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąAll€Joint€Property€will€be€divided€so€that€each€party€receives€one„half€of€theŠ ą%0!$ Šproperty€or€proceeds,€if€owned€in€equal€shares,€or€receive€the€appropriate€ownershipŠ Ģ&"% Šshare,€if€owned€differently.€€If€any€party€has€contributed€to€the€jointly€held€propertyŠ ø'#& Šwith€his€or€her€Separate€Property,€he€or€she€shall€be€credited€with€the€value€of€thatŠ ¤(ō#' Šproperty€before€the€Joint€Property,€or€the€proceeds€thereof,€are€divided.Ō#†XUXX XU#ŌŠ)ą$(Š Š  Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) Šą  ąAntenuptial€agreements€are€valid€and€enforceable€in€this€state€as€long€as€they€are€entered€intoŠ ° Šā āfreely,€knowingly,€and€without€duress€or€undue€influence.€€ņņPerkinson€v.€Perkinsonóó,€802€S.W.2d€600,Š œģ Š603€(Tenn.€1990).€€Specific€statutory€authority€exists€for,€and€courts€are€bound€by,€an€antenuptialŠ ˆŲ Šagreement€concerning€property€owned€by€either€or€both€spouses€before€marriage.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Š tÄ Ššš€36„3„501.€€Additionally,€parties€may€agree€prior€to€marriage€on€the€division€at€divorce€of€propertyŠ `° Šacquired€during€the€marriage.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€36„4„121(g);€ņņPerkinsonóó,€802€S.W.2d€at€603.€Š L œ ŠCourts€are€specifically€authorized€to€incorporate€such€agreements€on€the€division€of€property€intoŠ 8 ˆ Ša€divorce€decree.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€36„4„121(g).€€Where€an€antenuptial€agreement€is€valid€andŠ $ t Šenforceable,€having€been€shown€to€meet€the€prerequisites,€the€terms€of€that€agreement€regardingŠ  ` Šdistribution€of€property€upon€divorce€will€be€applied€instead€of€the€statutory€definitions€of€maritalŠ ü L  Šand€separate€property€or€general€principles€regarding€an€equitable€distribution.€€ņņPerkinsonóó,€802Š č 8  ŠS.W.2d€at€603„04.Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąBecause€the€trial€courtššs€holding€that€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€between€the€parties€wasŠ ¬ü  Šenforceable€has€not€been€appealed,€our€task€is€to€enforce€the€terms€of€the€agreement€in€light€of€theŠ ˜č  Šfacts€in€the€record.€€Antenuptial€agreements€are€treated€as€any€other€contract,€ņņMinor€v.€Minoróó,€863Š „Ō  ŠS.W.2d€51,€54€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Consequently,€the€general€rules€regarding€contractŠ pĄ Šinterpretation€apply.€Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąš šThe€central€tenet€of€contract€construction€is€that€the€intent€of€the€contracting€parties€at€theŠ 4„ Štime€of€executing€the€agreement€should€govern.šš€€ņņPlanters€Gin€Co.€v.€Fed.€Compress€&€WarehouseŠ  p ŠCo.,€Inc.óó,€78€S.W.3d€885,€890€(Tenn.€2002).€€The€purpose€of€interpreting€a€written€contract€is€toŠ  \ Šascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€contracting€partiesšš€intentions,€and€where€the€parties€have€reducedŠ ųH Štheir€agreement€to€writing,€their€intentions€are€reflected€in€the€contract€itself.€€ņņId.óó;ņņ€Frizzell€Constr.Š ä4 ŠCo.€v.€Gatlinburg,€L.L.C.óó,€9€S.W.3d€79,€85€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ō‡XUXXXUŌš šThe€intent€of€the€parties€is€presumed€toŠ Š  Šbe€that€specifically€expressed€in€the€body€of€the€contract€.€.€.€.šš€€ņņPlanters€Gin€Co.óó,€78€S.W.3d€at€890.€Š ¼  ŠŌ#†XUXXXU­%#ŌTherefore,€the€courtššs€role€in€resolving€disputes€regarding€the€interpretation€of€a€contract€is€toŠ Øų Šascertain€the€intention€of€the€parties€based€upon€the€usual,€natural,€and€ordinary€meaning€of€theŠ ”ä Šlanguage€used.€€ņņŌ‡XUXXXUŌGuiliano€v.€CLEO,€Inc.óó,€995€S.W.2d€88,€95€(Tenn.€1999)Ō#†XUXXXUŗ'#Ō;€ņņBob€Pearsall€Motors,€Inc.óóŠ €Š Šņņv.€Regal€Chrysler„Plymouth€Incóó.,€521€S.W.2d€578,€580€(Tenn.€1975).€€Š l¼ ŠĢą  ąWhere€the€language€of€the€contract€is€clear€and€unambiguous,€its€literal€meaning€controls€theŠ D!” Šoutcome€of€contract€disputes;€but,€where€a€contractual€provision€is€ambiguous,ņņ€i.eóó.,€susceptible€toŠ 0"€  Šmore€than€one€reasonable€interpretation,€the€partiesšš€intent€cannot€be€determined€by€a€literalŠ #l! Šinterpretation€of€the€language.€€ņņPlanters€Gin€Co.óó,€78€S.W.3d€at€890.€€€In€that€situation,€courts€mustŠ $X" Šresort€to€other€rules€of€construction,€and€ņņóóonly€if€ambiguity€remains€after€application€of€the€pertinentŠ ō$D # Šrules€does€the€legal€meaning€of€the€contract€become€a€question€of€fact.€€ņņId.ó󀀀However,€a€strainedŠ ą%0!$ Šconstruction€may€not€be€placed€on€the€language€used€by€the€parties€to€find€or€create€ambiguity€whereŠ Ģ&"% Šnone€exists.€€ņņId.óó€at€891.Š ø'#& ŠĢŌ‡XUXXXUŌą  ąŌ#†XUXXXUj,#ŌThe€question€of€interpretation€of€a€contract€is€a€question€of€law.€€ņņGuilianoóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€95.€Š )ą$( ŠTherefore,€the€trial€courtššs€interpretation€of€a€contractual€document€is€not€entitled€to€a€presumptionŠ |*Ģ%) Šof€correctness€on€appeal.€€ņņIdóó.;€ņņAngus€v.€Western€Heritage€Ins.€Co.óó,€48€S.W.3d€728,€730€(Tenn.€Ct.Š h+ø&* ŠApp.€2000).€€This€court€must€review€the€documents€ourselves€and€make€our€own€determinationŠ ° Šregarding€their€meaning€and€legal€import.€€ņņHillsboro€Plaza€Enters.€v.€Moonóó,€860€S.W.2d€45,€47Š œģ Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swiftššs€objection€to€the€trial€courtššs€distribution€of€the€partiesšš€assets€deals€with€propertyŠ `° Šacquired€after€the€marriage.€€In€the€Antenuptial€Agreement,€the€parties€contemplated€that€someŠ L œ Šproperty€acquired€during€the€marriage€would€be€jointly€owned.€€Ō‡ XUXXXUŌThey€agreed€as€to€how€such€jointŠ 8 ˆ Šproperty€would€be€distributed€if€they€divorced.€€In€pertinent€part,€the€Agreement€provides€that€eachŠ $ t Šparty€would€receive€one€half€of€the€property€or€proceeds€from€the€property,€but€that€the€one„halfŠ  ` Šdivision€would€apply€only€to€the€value€remaining€after€subtraction€of€the€value€of€either€partyššsŠ ü L  Šseparately€owned€property€Ō#†XUXX XU…0#ŌŌ‡ XUXXXUŌthat€was€contributed€toward€the€joint€property.Š č 8  ŠĢŌ#†XUXX XU~2#Ōą@’ ’ ģąņ ņII.€€ņņThe€Trial€Courtššs€Division€of€Propertyóóó óˆŠ Ą  ŠĢą  ąWell€before€trial€Mr.€Swift€filed€a€List€of€Property€Subject€to€Division,€in€which€he€itemizedŠ ˜č  Šproperty€he€deemed€joint€property€under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€as€well€as€making€claims€forŠ „Ō  Šreimbursement€for€certain€items.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Closer€to€trial,€he€amended€the€list€to€reflect€changed€values€dueŠ pĄ Što€market€changes.€€The€property€he€identified€as€joint€included€four€(4)€lots€in€Holiday€Shores,€aŠ \¬ Šfifteen„acre€tract€of€land€identified€as€Leatherwood€Pasture,€and€sixteen€horses.€€He€included€a€listŠ H˜ Šof€household€items€and€equipment€that€he€valued€at€$2,525.€€It€was€Mr.€Swiftššs€position€that€all€theŠ 4„ Šjoint€or€marital€property€listed€was€purchased€solely€with€his€separate€money€or€property,€and€he€laterŠ  p Štestified€to€that.€€Consequently,€he€asserted,€the€property€should€be€divided€according€to€ParagraphŠ  \ Š7(B)€of€the€Antenuptial€Agreement:€his€initial€contribution€to€acquire€the€property€should€beŠ ųH Šsubtracted€from€the€current€value€and€any€remainder€divided€equally.€€The€values€he€assigned€were,Š ä4 Šin€almost€all€cases,€no€greater€than€the€original€cost.Š Š  ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swift€did€not,€prior€to€trial,€dispute€the€list€supplied€by€her€husband€or€submit€a€list€ofŠ Øų Šher€own.€€At€trial€she€presented€and€testified€about€a€list€of€household€items,€including€equipment,Š ”ä Šappliances,€and€furnishings€that€she€wanted€in€the€property€division.€€Mr.€Swift€was€given€theŠ €Š Šopportunity€to€review€the€list,€and€he€marked€those€items€he€disputed€should€be€awarded€to€her.€€Ms.Š l¼ ŠSwift€then€testified€about€the€marked€items.€€Some€she€said€belonged€to€her€before€the€marriage;Š X Ø Šsome€were€gifts;€and€some€she€acknowledged€were€jointly€acquired€during€the€marriage.€€She€alsoŠ D!” Šsometimes€set€values€as€to€particular€items.Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąAt€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€directed€that€Mr.€Swift€divide€the€disputed€propertyŠ $X" Šinto€two€lists€and€that€Ms.€Swift€choose€one€of€the€lists.€€In€the€final€order,€the€court€awarded€Ms.Š ō$D # ŠSwift€all€the€undisputed€property€shown€on€the€list€she€submitted€at€trial€and€š šthe€items€set€out€onŠ ą%0!$ Šone€of€the€two€lists€submitted€to€her,€through€counsel.€€The€specific€list€shall€be€filed€with€this€court.ššŠ Ģ&"% ŠŠ ø'#& Šą  ąNeither€party€appeals€the€trial€courtššs€division€of€the€household€property€or€the€method€used.€Š ° ŠGenerally,€however,€this€court€is€required€to€review€the€trial€courtššs€overall€distribution€of€property,Š œģ Šincluding€classification€and€valuation€determinations,€in€order€to€provide€appropriate€appellateŠ ˆŲ Šreview€of€the€trial€courtššs€duty€to€make€an€equitable€division€of€marital€property,€but€only€maritalŠ tÄ Šproperty.€€As€to€the€disputed€household€items,€the€trial€court€made€no€classification€or€valuationŠ `° Šfindings.€€The€record€before€us€does€not€include€the€final€list€of€items€awarded€to€Ms.€Swift,€as€theŠ L œ Šcourt€ordered.€€Neither€party€has€submitted€a€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€App.€7€tabulation€of€the€property.€€UnderŠ 8 ˆ Šthis€record,€it€is€impossible€to€determine€what€the€overall€distribution€of€marital€property€was.€€InŠ $ t Šmany€cases,€that€would€require€remand€for€specific€findings.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąIn€this€case,€however,€our€task€is€not€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€made€an€equitableŠ č 8  Šdistribution€of€the€marital€estate.€€Instead,€the€questions€before€us€are€whether€the€property€wasŠ Ō$  Šcorrectly€identified€as€joint€property€under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€and,€if€so,€whether€it€wasŠ Ą  Šdistributed€in€accordance€with€the€relevant€provisions€of€that€Agreement.€€Ō‡XUXXXUŌWe€review€the€trial€court'sŠ ¬ü  Šfindings€Ō#†XUXXXUæC#ŌņņŌ‡XUXXXUŌóóof€fact€ņņde€novo,Ō#†XUXXXU=D#ŌóóŌ‡XUXXXUŌ€with€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€factual€findings€of€the€trialŠ ˜č  Šcourt,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Ō#†XUXXXU˜D#ŌŌ‡XUXXXUŌTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)Ō#†XUXXXUoE#ŌŌ‡XUXXXUŌ;€ņņBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60Š „Ō  ŠS.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€Ō#†XUXXXUĒE#ŌŌ‡XUXXXUŌ€Ō#†XUXXXUVF#ŌSince€neither€party€has€directed€us€to€any€perceived€error€in€eitherŠ pĄ Šthe€trial€courtššs€determination€that€certain€property€was€š šjoint€propertyšš€under€the€agreement€or€inŠ \¬ Šthe€trial€courtššs€distribution€of€that€property€as€to€any€of€the€household€items€appearing€on€any€of€theŠ H˜ Šlists€submitted,€we€must€assume€those€items€were€correctly€awarded.Š 4„ ŠĢą  ąThe€next€set€of€items€acknowledged€by€Mr.€Swift€as€marital€property€are€the€horses.€€Mr.Š  \ ŠSwift€provided€a€list€of€the€horses€with€the€purchase€price€and€current€value€of€each€reflected.€€PriorŠ ųH Što€trial,€he€amended€the€values€and€testified€the€value€of€the€horses€had€decreased€in€the€past€fewŠ ä4 Šmonths.€€He€also€presented€a€witness€who€had€bought€and€sold€horses€in€the€area€for€many€years€andŠ Š  Šwho€had€sold€Mr.€Swift€most€or€all€of€the€horses€at€issue.€€The€witness€verified€the€amended€valuesŠ ¼  Šand€testified€as€to€the€recent€decrease€in€values,€especially€for€brood€mares.€€The€total€purchase€priceŠ Øų Špaid€was€$39,150,€and€the€current€value€was€$28,200.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Mr.€Swift€testified€he€had€purchased€all€ofŠ ”ä Šthe€horses€at€issue€with€his€separate€funds.€€Ms.€Swift€disputed€that€to€some€degree,€asserting€thatŠ €Š Šshe€went€with€him€to€purchase€some€of€the€horses€and€that€some€of€her€money€was€also€used€in€theŠ l¼ Špurchase€price.€€Under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement,€Ms.€Swift€would€be€entitled€to€one„half€the€valueŠ X Ø Šof€the€horses€that€exceeded€the€original€amount€of€separate€property€contributed€by€Mr.€Swift.€Š D!” ŠAlthough€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€find€that€Mr.€Swiftššs€separate€property€was€used€toŠ 0"€  Špurchase€the€horses,€that€conclusion€could€be€implied,€and€the€evidence€supports€that€conclusion.€Š #l! ŠIn€any€event,€Ms.€Swift€does€not€contest€the€award€of€the€horses€to€Mr.€Swift€or€point€to€any€errorŠ $X" Šin€any€particular€decision€by€the€trial€court€regarding€the€horses.Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ąAt€the€time€of€the€divorce,€the€parties€held€joint€title€to€four€lots€in€Holiday€Shores€which€hadŠ Ģ&"% Šbeen€logged€and€to€one€fifteen€acre€parcel€of€pasture€known€as€the€Leatherwood€Property.€€AlthoughŠ ø'#& Šthe€Holiday€Shores€lots€had€not€appreciated€in€value€since€the€purchase,€Mr.€Swift€disclosed€that€theŠ ¤(ō#' Šbasis€of€the€lots€had€been€reduced€by€$1,000€by€the€logging.€€Because€he€claims€the€lots€wereŠ ° Špurchased€solely€with€his€separate€assets,€he€claims€that€only€the€$1,000€is€subject€to€equalŠ œģ Šdistribution€under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement.Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąThe€Leatherwood€property€was€originally€a€forty„acre€tract,€but€all€but€fifteen€acres€had€beenŠ `° Šsold€during€the€marriage.€€Mr.€Swift€testified€he€purchased€the€property€with€his€separate€funds,€butŠ L œ Šthat€it€was€jointly€held.€€Through€the€sale€of€parts€of€the€original€tract,€he€had€recovered€his€originalŠ 8 ˆ Šinvestment.€€He€acknowledged€that€the€value€of€the€remaining€parcel€was€joint€property€subject€toŠ $ t Šequal€division€under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€and€valued€the€remaining€tract€at€$22,500.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąThus,€according€to€Mr.€Swift,€the€joint€property€subject€to€equal€division€under€theŠ č 8  ŠAntenuptial€Agreement€totaled€$23,500€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€Accordingly,€each€party€wouldŠ Ō$  Šbe€entitled€to€$11,750.€€However,€Mr.€Swift€also€argues€that€Ms.€Swiftššs€share€must€be€offset€by€theŠ Ą  Švalue€of€the€Lincoln€Town€Car€she€was€awarded€even€though€it€titled€solely€in€his€name.€€He€alsoŠ ¬ü  Šasserts€that€the€credit€card€debt€assigned€to€him€but€incurred€by€her€should€be€considered€in€theŠ ˜č  Šequation€as€well€as€the€$6,600€in€ņņpendente€liteóó€support€he€paid€that€was€not€authorized€by€theŠ „Ō  ŠAntenuptial€Agreement.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swift€valued€the€Lincoln€at€$11,000€to€$14,000€and€testified€that€Mr.€Swift€brought€theŠ H˜ Šcar€to€her€to€use€after€their€separation€since€she€had€no€other€mode€of€transportation.€€Mr.€SwiftŠ 4„ Šargues€she€depreciated€the€car€by€putting€excessive€mileage€on€it€during€her€possession€of€it.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊  p ŠĢą  ąMr.€Swift€argues€the€trial€courtššs€division€of€property€was€more€than€equitable.€€Even€thoughŠ ųH Šhe€does€not€directly€challenge€the€courtššs€division,€he€argues€that€it€resulted€in€Ms.€Swift€receivingŠ ä4 Šmore€than€she€was€entitled€to€under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement.€€Ms.€Swift€does€not€directly€disputeŠ Š  Šthe€courtššs€decisions€regarding€the€specific€property€and€debts€covered€by€the€order.Š ¼  ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€apparently€accepted€Mr.€Swiftššs€itemization€and€valuation€of€joint€property.€Š ”ä ŠOur€review€of€the€evidence€supports€the€same€conclusion.€€However,€the€trial€court€awarded€all€theŠ €Š Šland€to€€Mr.€Swift,€and€the€value€of€that€joint€property,€applying€the€Antenuptial€AgreementššsŠ l¼ Šmethodology,€is€$23,500.€€He€was€also€required€to€pay€$9,330.35€in€credit€card€debt€that€the€courtŠ X Ø Šfound€was€attributable€to€charges€incurred€following€the€partiesšš€separation.׃Tׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Ms.€Swift€was€awardedŠ D!” Šthe€Lincoln€automobile,€which€we€must€assume€the€trial€court€treated€as€marital€or€joint€property.Š 0"€  Šā āŠ #l! Šą  ąUnder€the€Antenuptial€Agreement,€the€only€property€subject€to€equal€distribution€was€theŠ ° Šā āvalue€of€any€joint€property€owned€at€the€time€of€divorce€after€subtraction€of€either€partyššsŠ œģ Šcontribution€to€acquisition€of€the€assets€from€his€or€her€separate€property.€€Because€Mr.€Swift€set€thatŠ ˆŲ Šamount€at€$23,€500€for€the€land,€and€Ms.€Swift€offered€no€countervailing€evidence,€we€accept€thatŠ tÄ Šamount.€€Because€the€court€treated€the€Lincoln€as€joint€property,€its€value,€as€determined€by€theŠ `° ŠAntenuptial€Agreementššs€provisions,€should€have€been€included.€€There€is€little€evidence€from€whichŠ L œ Što€determine€that€amount.€However,€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€that€Mr.€Swift€bought€the€carŠ 8 ˆ Šwith€his€separate€funds€and€that€it€was€paid€for€by€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€It€is€reasonable€toŠ $ t Šconclude€that€its€value€has€decreased€since€its€purchase.€€Consequently,€there€is€no€amount€to€beŠ  ` Šdivided€between€the€parties.€€Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąUnder€the€Antenuptial€Agreement,€Ms.€Swift€was€entitled€to€one„half€of€the€$23,500Š Ō$  Šidentified€as€by€Mr.€Swift,€or€$11,€750.€€She€was€awarded€property€worth,€according€to€herŠ Ą  Štestimony,€between€$11,000€and€$14,000.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtššs€division€of€the€specifiedŠ ¬ü  Šproperty€was€consistent€with€the€partiesšš€agreement€as€evidenced€in€the€provisions€of€the€AntenuptialŠ ˜č  ŠAgreement.€Š „Ō  ŠĢą@ģąņ ņIII.€€ņņMs.€Swiftššs€Argumentóóó óˆŠ \¬ ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swiftššs€objection€to€the€trial€courtššs€division€of€property€does€not€relate€to€the€specificŠ 4„ Šassets€described€above€that€were€owned€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€Instead,€her€argument€is€moreŠ  p Šgeneral.Š  \ ŠĢą  ąAs€stated€earlier,€Mr.€Swift€was€in€the€logging€business€for€more€than€twenty€years€beforeŠ ä4 Šhe€married€Ms.€Swift€and€continued€in€that€business€during€the€marriage.€€As€part€of€that€business,Š Š  ŠMr.€Swift€frequently€bought€land€with€standing€timber,€cut€the€timber,€had€it€sawn€into€lumber,€soldŠ ¼  Šthe€lumber,€and€then€resold€the€land.€€The€intent€in€purchasing€land€was€to€re„sell€it€quickly€afterŠ Øų Štimber€was€removed.€€He€made€many€such€transactions€during€the€course€of€the€marriage,€and€inŠ ”ä Šsome€situations€had€the€land€titled€in€both€his€and€Ms.€Swiftššs€names.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś5Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€In€those€cases,€Ms.€SwiftŠ €Š Šsigned€the€documents€transferring€the€land€to€the€new€buyers€upon€re„sale.€€Ms.€Swift€testified€aboutŠ l¼ Ša€few€of€these€jointly„held€properties.€€Her€position€was€that€š šheršš€share€of€profits,€if€any,€from€theŠ X Ø Šsales€was€used€to€purchase€other€property.€€Essentially,€she€believed€that€the€money€that€continuedŠ D!” Što€be€used€in€sequential€transactions€was€half€hers.Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąThe€proceeds€from€the€land€sales€were€deposited€into€Mr.€Swiftššs€business€account.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś6Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀Š $X" ŠSimilarly,€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€timber€logged€off€those€tracts€were€also€deposited€in€thatŠ ō$D # Šaccount.€€The€business€paid€Ms.€Swift€$200€per€week€both€before€and€during€the€marriage€for€herŠ ą%0!$ Špart„time€work.€€She€maintained€a€personal€checking€account€and,€although€at€some€time€she€addedŠ ° ŠMr.€Swiftššs€name€to€that€account,€he€never€wrote€any€checks€or€made€other€withdrawals€on€it.€€ThereŠ œģ Šwas€no€testimony€or€other€evidence€as€to€the€amounts€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€in€any€of€theŠ ˆŲ Šaccounts€referred€to.Š tÄ ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swift€testified€that€it€was€not€possible€for€her€to€give€the€court€a€number€or€value€of€whatŠ L œ Šshe€was€entitled€to.€€She€has€not€been€more€specific€on€appeal.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś7Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Her€arguments€are€subject€to€severalŠ 8 ˆ Šinterpretations.Š $ t ŠĢą  ąIf€Ms.€Swiftššs€position€is€interpreted€as€an€argument€that€she€acquired€some€interest€in€theŠ ü L  Šbusiness€or€its€profits,€we€find€no€support€for€that€argument€in€either€the€Antenuptial€Agreement€orŠ č 8  Šthe€facts€in€the€record.€€Under€the€Antenuptial€Agreement,€Mr.€Swiftššs€premarital€business€assetsŠ Ō$  Šremained€his€separate€property,€as€did€any€income€from€those€assets.€€The€Agreement€cannot€be€readŠ Ą  Što€give€Ms.€Swift€any€interest€in€the€business€or€its€profits,€even€if€those€profits€were€incomeŠ ¬ü  Šgenerated€during€the€marriage.€€Ms.€Swift€did€not€dispute€that€the€tracts€of€land€she€testified€aboutŠ ˜č  Šwere€bought€for€use€in€the€business.€€Further,€Ms.€Swift€did€not€prove€the€value€of€the€business,Š „Ō  Šwhile€Mr.€Swift€produced€tax€returns€showing€a€decline€in€profits€during€the€marriage.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąAnother€way€to€interpret€Ms.€Swiftššs€argument€is€that€she€is€entitled€to€a€share€of€the€profits,Š H˜ Šif€any,€generated€by€land€titled€in€both€names,€even€though€the€land€was€no€longer€owned€by€theŠ 4„ Šparties€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.׃!Üׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś8Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€In€opening€statements,€that€is€the€argument€made€by€her€attorney.€Š  p ŠEssentially,€he€argued€that€when€profits€were€made€on€land€titled€in€both€names,€those€profits€wereŠ  \ Šmarital€property,€but€that€Mr.€Swift€deposited€those€profits€into€his€business€account€and€used€themŠ ųH Što€invest€in€some€other€property.€€The€attorney€stated€that€evidence€relevant€to€the€acquisition€ofŠ ä4 Šassets€and€use€of€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€joint€property€would€be€presented.€€š šWhat€did€theyŠ Š  Šearn€off€of€those€assets,€off€of€that€joint€investment?€€Was€his€initial€investment€under€the€agreementŠ ¼  Šrepaid?€And,€then,€what€happened€with€the€profits?ššŠ Øų ŠĢą  ąHowever,€the€attorney€also€acknowledged€that,€although€he€had€been€provided€withŠ €Š Švoluminous€records€from€Mr.€Swiftššs€business,€it€was€impossible€to€reconstruct€the€transactions€inŠ l¼ Šprecise€detail€without€testimony€from€an€accountant,€which€he€did€not€have.€€Counsel€requested€thatŠ X Ø Šthe€court€refer€the€financial€matters€to€a€special€master€with€accounting€skills€to€trace€all€the€assets€Š D!” Šacquired€and€disposed€of€during€the€marriage.׃ ,ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś9Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€The€court€did€not€then€appoint€a€special€master,€butŠ 0"€  Šrather€took€proof.€€In€its€final€order,€the€trial€court€stated€it€did€not€believe€a€special€master€couldŠ #l! Šspecifically€determine€any€profit€received€from€any€sales€of€property€that€had€been€held€in€jointŠ ° Šnames€because€of€the€manner€of€operation€of€the€business€and,€consequently,€appointment€of€aŠ œģ Šmaster€would€not€be€beneficial,€š šparticularly€since€it€had€not€been€asked€for€previously,€the€first€timeŠ ˆŲ Šit€was€requested€was€during€the€trial€in€this€cause.ššŠ tÄ ŠĢą  ąMs.€Swift€simply€did€not€prove€that€profits€were€actually€generated€from€the€sale€anyŠ L œ Šparticular€tracts€of€land€that€were€titled€jointly.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Ms.€Swiftššs€š šclaims€forŠ 8 ˆ Šinterest€in€property€that€was€acquired€in€joint€names€during€the€marriage,€the€majority€of€which€hadŠ $ t Špreviously€been€disposed€of,€only€considered€gross€values€and€did€not€include€costs€and€expensesŠ  ` Šof€business€operations€and€therefore€her€values€and€claims€were€not€supported€in€fact.šš€€The€evidenceŠ ü L  Šdoes€not€preponderate€against€this€finding€that€Ms.€Swift€failed€to€prove€any€profits€were€generatedŠ č 8  Šfrom€jointly€titled€property.€€Additionally,€she€did€not€prove€how€any€such€profits€were€used,€whetherŠ Ō$  Šthey€still€existed,€or€tie€them€to€any€subsequent€transaction.€€There€was€similarly€no€proof€as€to€theŠ Ą  Švalue€of€Mr.€Swiftššs€business,€the€balance€in€his€business€or€other€accounts,€or€the€value€of€any€otherŠ ¬ü  Šproperty€he€owned€at€divorce.€€Consequently,€this€argument€fails€for€lack€of€proof.Š ˜č  ŠĢą  ąOn€appeal,€Ms.€Swift€argues€most€strongly€that€Mr.€Swiftššs€treatment€of€his€separate€propertyŠ pĄ Šand€the€partiesšš€joint€property€resulted€in€commingling€of€those€assets€and€transmutation€of€hisŠ \¬ Šseparate€property,€his€business€account€specifically,€into€martial€property€subject€to€an€equitableŠ H˜ Šdivision.€€Ō‡XUXXXUŌShe€argues€that€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€joint€property€€were€deposited€in€Mr.€SwiftššsŠ 4„ Šbusiness€account€or€in€the€marital€account€and€that€family€expenses€were€paid€from€both€accounts.€Š  p ŠMs.€Swift€argues€that€this€commingling€of€marital€property€with€separate€property€resulted€in€theŠ  \ Štransmutation€of€both€accounts€into€marital€property.Š ųH ŠĢą  ąNot€only€does€this€argument€suffer€from€the€same€lack€of€specific€proof€that€any€profits€wereŠ Š  Šgenerated€from€jointly„held€property,€it€is€also€inconsistent€with€the€Antenuptial€Agreement.€€WhileŠ ¼  Šthe€Agreement€recognizes€that€the€parties€might€acquire€š šjoint€property,šš€it€also€anticipates€thatŠ Øų Šš šjoint€propertyšš€may€be€owned€in€different€shares.€€Any€š šjoint€propertyšš€held€at€divorce€is€to€beŠ ”ä Šdivided€according€to€the€appropriate€ownership€shares,€but€only€after€Ō#†XUXXXU ƒ#ŌŌ‡XUXXXUŌeach€party€is€credited€with€anyŠ €Š Šcontribution€from€separate€property€made€toward€the€jointly€held€property.€€These€provisions€are€inŠ l¼ Šdirect€contradiction€to€the€concepts€of€commingling€and€transmutation.€€The€Antenuptial€AgreementŠ X Ø Šestablished€the€methodology€for€division€of€property€acquired€during€the€marriage,€and€that€is€theŠ D!” Šmethodology€that€must€be€applied.€Š 0"€  ŠĢņņņ ņÓ  ÓIV.€Conclusionó óóóŠ $X" ŠĢÓ'‰Óą  ąThe€trial€courtššs€division€of€property€was€consistent€with€the€terms€of€the€AntenuptialŠ ą%0!$ ŠAgreement€and€with€the€evidence€in€the€record€and€is,€therefore,€affirmed.€€We€note€that€even€if€theŠ Ģ&"% Šusual€rules€of€property€division€were€applied,€based€on€the€record€before€us,€we€could€affirm€theŠ ø'#& Šdivision€ordered€by€the€court.€This€was€a€marriage€of€relatively€short€duration,€and€the€parties€wereŠ ¤(ō#' Šreturned€to€essentially€the€same€relative€financial€position€they€enjoyed€prior€to€the€marriage.€€Š )ą$( ŠŌ#†XUXXXU1‡#ŌŌ‡ XUXXXUŌThroughout€the€marriage,€Mr.€Swift€provided€the€financial€support€for€the€couple,€paid€or€contributedŠ |*Ģ%) Što€the€costs€of€Ms.€Swiftššs€custody€battle€with€a€former€husband,€paid€or€contributed€to€child€supportŠ h+ø&* Šshe€owed,€and€provided€financial€support€to€members€of€her€family.€€Ms.€Swiftššs€only€income€wasŠ ° Šthe€$200€per€week€she€received€from€Mr.€Swiftššs€company.€€The€parties€spent€during€the€marriageŠ œģ Šfor€mutual€benefit,€and€there€is€no€proof€regarding€exactly€how€much€they€owned€at€divorce.€Š ˆŲ ŠŌ#†XUXX XUė‹#ŌŌ‡XUXXXUŌĢŌ#†XUXXXU„Ž#Ōą  ąThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,Š `° ŠGale€Joann€Swift.Š L œ ŠĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą____________________________________Š ü L  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEŠ č 8  Š