ÿWPC" …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ýw@ 4Y m | 0D„ 0vÈ 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ U, 0dG B«U,ÈU>ôB)2DC[ AMžU*ë D3!Hƒi 0@ìv~,vÓª AO}ÆÌ 0D’ D/Ö B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman o¿pUqÓ€rstEuvwÓ€Gav (88¦¦¦`3|x(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(-!2Vf$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial####'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌMay€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,€withÏthe€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,Ïreverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinionÏwhen€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€isÏdecided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUMÏOPINION,"€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€forÏany€reason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€õaXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òWILLIAM€MICHAEL€ANDERTON,€ó óà àFROM€THE€FRANKLINÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCOUNTY€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà àà àCOURT,€No.€22482;€THEÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHONORABLE€HENRY€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9510„CH„00489ÌÌò òEVELYN€ADELE€MORGANó óà àà àà àœò òòòREMANDEDóóó ó›Ìò òANDERTON,ó óÌò òà àó óà àà àà àà àà àà àJack€Norman,€Jr.,€of€NashvilleÌà àDefendant„Appellee,à àà àà àThomas€F.€Bloom€of€NashvilleÌÙ€€ÙœßL€(+';+'h|Ué&` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppellantÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGregory€C.€TibbettsÏof€NashvilleÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌ___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ, ××  ×Ì_________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òòòCRAWFORD,€J.ó óóóÌà àÌÓÓà àThe€parties€to€this€appeal,€William€Michael€Anderton€(Husband)Íand€Evelyn€Adele€Morgan€Anderton€(Wife),€were€divorced€by€decreeÏentered€July€24,€1995,€as€supplemented€by€decree€entered€August€30,Ï1995.€€Husband€has€appealed€and€presents€issues€pertaining€only€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€and€child€support.€€Ìà àThe€parties€married€October€27,€1973€in€Kirkland,€Washington€andÏhave€three€children;€Michael,€born€in€1977;€Lisa,€born€in€1979;€and€Kari,Ïborn€in€1981.€€When€they€married,€Husband€was€employed€by€Boeing€as€aÏsheet€metal€worker€and€Wife€had€just€completed€one€year€of€college.€€InÏ1975,€the€parties€became€involved€in€an€Amway€distributorship,€whichÏeventually€became€a€substantial€source€of€the€household€income.€ÏHusband€left€his€job€at€Boeing€and€worked€in€numerous€positions,Ïeventually€becoming€involved€in€sales.€€In€1986,€Husbandððs€œtook›€a€jobÏwith€National€Health€Labs.€€Between€1986€and€1994,€Husbandððs€œannualÏincome›€increased€from€$25,000.00€to€$180,000.00.€€Ìà àWhile€Husband€pursued€his€career€at€National€Health€Labs,€WifeÏcontinued€to€earn€money€through€the€Amway€business.€€She€also€earnedÏan€associateððs€decree€in€1988€and,€at€the€time€of€trial,€May€17,€1995,Ïanticipated€earning€a€bachelorððs€decree€in€August€of€1995.€€Wife€tookÏchief€responsibility€for€raising€the€partiesðð€three€children€andÏmaintaining€the€household.€Ìà àWhen€€the€parties€separated€in€October€of€1993,€HusbandÏvoluntarily€paid€€support€of€$6,000.00€per€month€from€October€of€1993Ïto€August€of€1994,€at€which€point€a€dispute€as€to€the€amount€of€supportÏarose€and€an€agreed€pendente€lite€order€was€entered€requiring€HusbandÏto€pay€$5,500.00€per€month.€€On€February€9,€1995,€Husband€filed€aÏpetition€to€reduce€his€pendente€lite€€support€by€20%€due€to€a€decreaseÏin€his€salary,€and€on€February€€9,€1995,€Husband€unilaterally€reduced€hisÏsupport€œpayments.›€€On€February€10,€1995,€Wife€filed€a€petition€forÏcontempt€based€on€Husbandððs€unilateral€reduction€of€his€pendente€liteÏobligation.€€The€final€decree€divorced€the€parties€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€€ððÏ36„4„129€(1991).Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€weÏreview€the€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absentÏerror€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àHusband€presents€three€issues€for€this€Courtððs€review.€€The€firstÏissue,€as€stated€in€Appellantððs€brief,€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏchancellorððs€findings€of€fact€that€the€HusbandÏwill€earn€in€excess€of€two€hundred€thousandÍdollars€($200,000)€in€the€proceeding€twelve€(12)Ïmonths.ÌÌÓÓThe€finding€of€the€trial€court€concerning€Husbandððs€income€is€critical€inÏmaking€a€determination€of€both€alimony€and€child€support€awards.€ÏT.C.A.€€ðð€36„5„101€(d)(1)€and€(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995).€€Ìà àIn€1991,€Husband€earned€$160,000.00;€in€1992,€he€earnedÏ$162,000.00;€€in€1993,€$170,000.00;€and€in€1994,€$180,000.00.€€InÏ1995,€National€Health€Labs€merged€with€another€company€and€HusbandððsÏbase€salary€decreased€from€$150,000.00€to€$135,000.00.€€Additionally,ÏHusbandððs€maximum€bonus€potential€decreased€to€$67,500.00,€while€theÏquota€for€achieving€the€maximum€bonus€doubled€and€Husbandððs€salesÏforce€decreased.€€Regardless,€it€was€undisputed€at€trial€that,€if€HusbandÏachieved€his€maximum€bonus€potential€in€1995,€his€annual€incomeÏwould€be€$202,500.00.€€From€the€proof,€the€trial€court€made€the€findingÏthat€Husbandððs€income€would€be€in€excess€of€$200,000.00€in€1996.Ìà àBecause€the€trial€court€found€that€Husband€would€earnÏ$200,000.00€for€1996,€this€Court,€by€order€entered€March€28,€1996,Ïallowed€Husband€to€present€post„judgment€facts€regarding€his€1996Ïsalary.€€Husband€submitted€evidence€showing€that€he€earnedÏ$207,835.55€in€1995,€but€that,€effective€February€1,€1996,€his€salaryÍdecreased€to€$95,000.00,€with€a€maximum€bonus€of€$47,500.00,€for€aÏtotal€income€potential€of€$142,500.00.€€Wife€questions€the€authenticityÏof€Husbandððs€proof€and€certainly€this€issue€can€be€addressed€in€the€trialÏcourt€on€remand.€€Ìà àThe€trial€judge€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€the€informationÏprovided€by€Appellantððs€post„judgment€facts€and€thus€made€his€findingÏof€1996€income€based€upon€a€projected€income€for€Husband€which€mayÏno€longer€be€accurate.€€Accordingly,€on€the€€record€now€before€us,€weÏfind€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€Husband€will€earn€in€excess€of€$200,000.00€in€1996.€€Ìà àHusbandððs€second€issue€for€review,€as€stated€in€his€brief,€is€asÏfollows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€chancellor€erred€in€failing€to€set€childÏsupport€according€to€the€guidelines.ÌÌÓÓà àT.C.A.€€ðð€36„5„101€(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€making€its€determination€concerning€theÏamount€of€support€of€any€child€or€children€of€theÏparties,€the€court€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€the€child€support€guidelines€asÏprovided€in€this€subsection.€€If€the€court€findsÏthat€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€thisÏpresumption,€the€court€shall€make€a€writtenÏfinding€that€the€application€of€the€child€supportÏguidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€inÏthat€particular€case,€in€order€to€provide€for€theÍbest€interest€of€the€child(ren)€or€the€equityÏbetween€the€parties.€€Findings€that€theÏapplication€of€the€guidelines€would€be€€unjust€orÏinappropriate€shall€state€the€amount€of€supportÏthat€would€have€been€ordered€under€the€childÏsupport€guidelines€and€a€justification€for€theÏvariance€from€the€guidelines.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Husband€had€gross€earnings€for€theÏpreceding€twelve„month€period€of€$170,000.00.€€The€court€thenÏawarded€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$1,731.00€per€month.€€TheÏparties€concede€that€the€amount€awarded€does€not€comply€with€theÏguidelines€as€required€by€the€statute,€and€that€the€trial€court€made€noÏœfinding€concerning›€the€deviation.€€The€child€support€guidelines€provide€aÏminimum€base€from€which€to€determine€child€support€obligations,€up€toÏa€monthly€net€income€of€$6,250.00.€€In€cases€where€the€obligorððsÏmonthly€net€income€exceeds€$6,250.00€per€month,€the€court€is€notÏlimited€to€the€$6,250.00€cap€set€out€in€the€guideline€table,€nor€is€theÏcourt€bound€to€award€the€full€percentage€of€the€net€income€set€out€inÏthe€guidelines.€€The€court€is€authorized€to€exercise€its€discretion€as€theÏfacts€warrant.€€ò òòòNash€v.€Mulleó óóó,€846€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€theÏcase€at€bar,€the€presumptive€guideline€amount€for€a€net€income€ofÏ$6,250.00€is€$2,811.00,€and€the€trial€court€gave€no€reason€for€deviatingÏfrom€that€amount€in€making€the€award€of€child€support.€€Accordingly,Íthe€case€should€be€remanded€for€reconsideration€of€the€child€support€inÏcompliance€with€T.C.A.€€ðð€36„5„101€(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995).Ìà àHusbandððs€final€issue€for€review,€as€stated€in€his€brief,€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€chancellor€abused€his€discretion€in€awardingÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó€rather€than€rehabilitativeÏalimony€and€in€awarding€alimony€in€excess€ofÏthe€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay.€€ÌÌÓÓIn€her€answer€and€counter„complaint,€Wife€seeks€an€award€of€alimonyÏòòin€futuroóó€based€on€the€duration€of€the€marriage;€Wifeððs€contribution€toÏthe€marriage€in€terms€of€homemaking,€child€care,€career€building€andÏeducation;€Wifeððs€age€and€physical€condition;€and€Husbandððs€financialÏresources.€€€As€an€alternative€to€permanent€alimony,€Wife€seeksÏrehabilitative€alimony€for€a€sufficient€period€during€which€Wife€mayÏdevelop€the€necessary€skills€to€secure€a€reasonable€income.€€à àDuringÏthe€marriage€and€at€present,€Wife€acted€as€primary€caretaker€of€theÏpartiesðð€minor€children.€€Wife€has€not€worked€outside€the€home€for€21Ïyears,€although€she€has€been€involved€in€the€partiesðð€Amway€business.€ÏWife€has€a€two€year€degree€from€an€associatesðð€college,€and€at€the€timeÏof€trial,€anticipated€earning€a€college€degree€by€fall€of€1995.€€WifeÏtestified€that,€regardless€of€having€a€degree,€she€would€not€be€qualifiedÏto€work.€€She€stated€that€the€length€of€time€she€has€been€away€from€theÍworkforce,€her€obligations€with€her€children,€and€her€physicalÏconditions€disqualify€her€from€meaningful€employment€opportunities.Ìà àAll€three€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children€are€involved€in€a€varietyÏof€extra„curricular€activities€which€require€some€transportation€dutiesÏfor€Wife.€€Additionally,€the€children€have€experiencedÏemotional/psychological€problems€œas€a€result›€of€the€partiesðð€œdivorce.€ÏTwo›€of€the€children€were€receiving€professional€counseling€at€the€timeÏof€trial.€€Ìà àAdditionally,€Wife€suffers€from€numerous€physical€conditions.€ÏWife,€€Husband,€and€their€children€have€pronated€ankles.€€As€a€result€ofÏthe€pronated€ankles,€Wife€testified€that€she€is€unable€to€stand€forÏprolonged€periods€and€is€only€able€to€wear€orthopedic„style€shoes€orÏtennis€shoes,€which€Wife€feels€are€inappropriate€for€a€career€woman.€Ìà àSamuel€J.€McKenna,€DDS,€MD,€FACS,€treated€Wife€on€two€occasionsÏfor€€temporomandibular€joint€dysfunction€(TMJ).€€Wife€testified€thatÏshe€has€experienced€varying€degrees€of€jaw€pain€for€fifteen€years.€€Dr.ÏMcKenna€testified€that€TMJ€is€exacerbated€by€talking,€but€he€believesÏthat€Wifeððs€prognosis€is€fair,€and€does€not€think€her€condition€will€getÏworse.€€Ìà àDavid€Joseph€Kapley,€MD,€is€Wifeððs€psychiatrist.€€He€diagnosedÍWife€with€major€depression€without€psychotic€features,€attentionÏdeficit€hyperactivity€disorder,€and€post„traumatic€stress€disorder.€€Dr.ÏKapley€testified€that€Wifeððs€prognosis€is€good,€and€that€with€continuedÏtherapy,€œWife›€should€recover€within€three€to€five€years.€€He€does€notÏthink€that€Wife€should€attempt€to€make€any€significant€career€changesÏnow,€because€major€changes€could€reduce€Wifeððs€confidence€and€herÏchance€of€recovery.Ìà àThe€trial€court€awarded€wife€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€of€$5,500.00€perÏmonth€for€five€years,€and€$5,000.00€per€month€thereafter.€€AlimonyÏawards€are€based€primarily€on€need€and€ability€to€pay.€€ò òòòLoyd€v.€Loydó óóó,Ï860€S.W.2d€409,€œ412›€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€€ò òòòBatson€v.€Batsonó óóó,€769€S.W.2dÏ849,€861€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Husbandððs€income€for€1996€and€hisÏultimate€child€support€obligation€will€affect€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay.€ÏThus,€a€determination€of€the€alimony€award€should€be€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€when€Husbandððs€child€support€obligation€is€established.€€Ìà àThis€Court€is€mindful€of€the€fact€that€Wifeððs€primary€concerns€atÏpresent€are€with€her€children;€however,€there€is€proof€in€the€recordÏthat,€despite€her€health€problems,€Wifeððs€prognosis€for€psychologicalÏrecovery€is€good.€€We€note€that€the€partiesðð€youngest€child€will€reachÏmajority€in€1999,€and€Wife€may€well€be€capable€€of€entering€the€workÍforce€at€that€time.€€Wifeððs€ability€to€earn€is€œevident›€in€the€proof.€€UponÏremand,€the€trial€court€should€consider€the€mandate€of€the€legislatureÏset€forth€in€T.C.A.€Ô€)Ô€œÔ€Ôðð›€36„5„101(d)(1)€regarding€rehabilitative€alimony:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€aÏspouse€who€is€economically€disadvantaged,Ïrelative€to€the€other€spouse,€be€rehabilitatedÏwhenever€possible€by€the€granting€of€an€orderÏfor€payment€of€rehabilitative,€temporary€supportÏand€maintenance.ÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€reconsideration€ofÏthe€child€support€and€alimony€awards€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€TheÏtrial€court€shall€expedite€this€hearing€on€remand,€and€the€presentÏsupport€awards€shall€remain€in€effect€until€the€trial€court€entersÏjudgment€in€the€rehearing.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€equallyÏagainst€the€œparties.ÌÓÓ›œà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó ó›