APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a divorce case. The trial court awarded the husband sole custody of the parties’ children and ordered the wife to pay child support. Supervised visitation was awarded to the wife, and visitation was also awarded to the maternal grandmother and great-grandmother. The trial court also ordered that the marital home be sold, with the proceeds divided between the parties. We affirm the award of custody to the husband, reverse the award of visitation to the maternal grandmother and great-grandmother, reverse the order that the marital home be sold, and remand.
 

This is a divorce case. The husband is a physician employed by a professional association. The trial court granted the wife the divorce and awarded the wife, inter alia, 50% of the value of the husband’s interest in his medical practice and 45% of the husband’s retirement and profit sharing plans. The wife was awarded alimony in futuro of $6000 per month for 13 years. The husband was ordered to assume responsibility for the parties’ marital debt. The wife’s request for attorney’s fees was denied. The wife appeals the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s interest in the medical practice, the amount of alimony awarded, the division of the retirement and profit sharing plans, and the denial of attorney’s fees. The husband appeals the trial court’s order that he pay the marital debt. We reverse the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s interest in his medical practice, holding that the values set forth in buy-sell agreements executed by the husband are relevant but not binding on the wife in the divorce. The remainder of the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

The appellant, Byron A. Peete, appeals his conviction in the Shelby County Criminal Court of second degree murder. Pursuant to the appellant’s conviction, the trial court sentenced the appellant to thirteen years and six months incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction. Although not clearly articulated, his argument appears to encompass the following specific contentions: (1) the evidence presented at trial concerning his low intellectual quotient (I.Q.) precluded a finding that the killing was knowing as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1) (1997); (2) alternatively, in light of the evidence concerning the appellant’s low I.Q., the record demonstrates the provocation required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-211(a) (1997); or (3) in light of the evidence concerning his low I.Q., the record demonstrates that the appellant killed the victim, Terrance Baker, in self-defense within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(a) (1997). Following a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.