Lescarbeau v. Lescarbeau ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
AT KNOXVILLE
FILED
October 30, 1998
BONNIE SUE LESCARBEAU ) GREENE COUNTY Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
) 03A01-9706-CV-00215
Plaintiff-Appellee )
)
)
v. ) HON. BEN K. WEXLER,
) JUDGE
)
LAWRENCE ALFRED LESCARBEAU, JR. )
)
Defendant-Appellant ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
LAWRENCE A. LESCARBEAU, JR., Appellant, Pro Se
LINDA THOMAS WOOLSEY OF GREENEVILLE FOR APPELLEE
OPINION
Goddard, P.J.
Lawrence Alfred Lescarbeau, Jr., appeals a judgment of the Greene County
Circuit Court which granted his wife, Bonnie Sue Lescarbeau, a divorce and custody of their
minor son with the provision that "all visitation exercised by the Defendant shall be supervised
by the Plaintiff until further hearings of this Court."
Mr. Lescarbeau insists on appeal that he was denied due process because he did
not receive notices of the various hearings.
One preliminary matter needs to be addressed. Counsel for Ms. Lescarbeau
moves that we accept her late-filed brief, even though the brief was not filed within an extension
of time granted by this Court. We do not consider the reason counsel advances for not timely
filing her brief sufficient to warrant a suspension of the Rules and counsel's motion to accept Ms.
Lescarbeau's brief is accordingly denied.
Our review of the record discloses that numerous orders were entered in
connection with this case, beginning on February 10, 1995, and ending with the last order on
August 7, 1997. We also note that several judges were involved in signing the various orders--
Judge Wilson, Judge Wexler, Judge Jenkins, and retired Judge Mahood.
Unfortunately, we cannot reach the merits of this appeal because the evidence
adduced below was not preserved by a transcript or statement of the evidence. Under these
circumstances an appellate court must conclusively presume the evidence was sufficient to justify
the judgment. Trane Co. v. Morrison, 566 S.W.2d 849 (Tenn.1978); Daniel v. Metropolitan
Government, 696 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn.App.1985).
We do deem it appropriate to suggest that in the event the parties cannot agree, the
Trial Court entertain a motion by Mr. Lescarbeau to have specific supervised visitation periods
set.
In conclusion, we point out that awards of custody are never final, and are always
subject to be changed as warranted by changing circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the
cause remanded fur such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary and collection of costs
below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Lescarbeau.
2
_______________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
CONCUR:
________________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
________________________________
William H. Inman, Sr.J.
3