ÿWPCœ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ ¬ 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9U6wB)­DCÖ B AM6U*ƒ­ D3ÆšùÓ“ 0@fv~¦vÓ$ AO÷ÆF 0D  D/P B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ v w Ex y Dz { | D} ~ D Ó€Úƒç"3|xŠ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd d€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAugust€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓòòÔ€#Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€relating€to€farmingÏexpenses€is€contained€in€the€father's€testimony€and€an€exhibit€prepared€by€himÏpurporting€to€itemize€the€expenses.€€There€are€no€actual€bills€nor€receiptsÏfor€any€farm€expenses.óóÌ ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€#ÔòòWe€have€before€us€the€father's€income€tax€returns€for€the€years€1991Ïthrough€1995.€€Since,€however,€the€income€earned€during€these€years€isÏatypical€because€of€non„recurring€income€and€one„time€capital€gains,€theÏreturns€are€of€little€assistance€in€establishing€obligor's€income€or€incomeÏpotential.óóÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ ¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ÆXXdðdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€')%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌDEBORAH€LORRAINE€BROOKS,€€€€à à)€POLK€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9703„CV„00087Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€œEARLE›€G.€MURPHYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœRICKEY›€LAMAR€BROOKS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellee€à à)€REMANDEDÌà àÌÌÌÌBARRETT€T.€PAINTER,€Bell€&€Associates,€P.C.,€Cleveland,€forÏAppellant.ÌÌD.€MITCHELL€BRYANT,€œJenne›,€Scott€&€Bryant,€Cleveland,€forÏAppellee.€ÌÌÌÌÌòòà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌóó€€ÌÌÓÓà€ àMcMurray,€JudgeÌÌà àIn€this€post€divorce€proceeding,€Deborah€Lorraine€BrooksÏ(mother)€filed€a€petition€to€increase€child€support€and€to€modifyÏthe€visitation€schedule€œas€set›€œout›€in€the€final€decree€of€divorce.€ÏDefendant€Rickey€Lamar€Brooks€(father)€filed€a€counter€petitionÏasking€that€the€mother€be€required€to€pay€one„half€of€the€cost€ofÏtheir€child's€private€schooling€and€for€increased€visitation.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€mother's€petition€for€increased€childÏsupport,€required€the€father€to€continue€paying€for€the€child'sÏeducation,€and€made€minor€adjustments€in€the€visitation€schedule.€ÏThe€mother€appealed.€€We€modify€the€judgment€and€affirm€asÏmodified.ÌÌà àThe€wife's€issues€in€this€case€are:€€whether€the€court€erredÏby€refusing€to€increase€child€support;€whether€the€court€erred€inÏdeviating€downward€from€the€amount€of€child€support€required€byÏthe€Child€Support€Guidelines;€and€whether€the€wife€is€entitled€toÏincreased€child€support€because€of€the€father's€higher€standard€ofÏliving,€greater€assets€and€financial€resources.€€The€husbandÏquestions€the€court's€action€in€requiring€the€husband€to€payÍschool€expenses€and€asks€for€an€award€of€attorney's€fees€for€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€divorced€on€August€24,€1990.€€At€that€time,Ïthe€mother€was€awarded,€among€other€things,€the€parties'€residenceÏand€two€office€buildings€which€the€parties€owned.€€The€father€wasÏawarded€various€items€of€personal€property,€his€IRA€account,€twoÏvehicles€and€$175,000€in€cash.€€The€parties€shared€joint€legalÏcustody€of€their€son,€who€was€then€four€years€old.€€The€father€wasÏgranted€visitation€one€night€a€week,€on€alternate€weekends€andÏalternate€major€holidays.€€The€court€later€modified€the€visitationÏschedule€to€allow€the€father€to€have€visitation€for€two€months€inÏthe€summer.€€The€parties€agreed,€and€the€court€ordered,€that€theÏfather€would€pay€$400€per€month€child€support€and€maintain€aÏhealth€insurance€policy€on€the€child.€€ÌÌà àIn€1991,€the€mother€sold€the€residence€and€used€part€of€theÏproceeds€to€finance€her€law€school€education.€€The€father€boughtÏsome€property€in€Benton,€in€1991,€using,€among€other€things,€theÏmoney€he€was€awarded€in€the€divorce.€€He€built€a€Conoco€gasÍstation€and€convenience€store€œon›€part€of€the€property.€€The€storeÏwas€successful€and€the€father€œsold€the€store€in€1994€and€made€aÏsubstantial€profit€from€the€sale.Ì€€Ìà àThe€father's€adjusted€gross€annual€income€in€1992€wasÏ$60,966.00,€and€$100,795.00€in€1993.€€In€1994,€he€engaged€inÏseveral€profitable€real€estate€transactions,€and€sold€part€of€theÏproperty€he€had€purchased,€including€the€Conoco€store.€€As€aÏresult,€his€adjusted€gross€annual€income€for€1994€was€$435,880.€€ÌÌà àAfter€he€sold€the€store,€the€father€devoted€his€time€toÏfarming€his€172„acre€property,€which,€by€virtue€of€his€1994Ïincome,€he€then€owned€debt„free.€€He€testified€that€he€wants€toÏget€into€the€registered€Angus€cattle€business€and€has€been€workingÏto€build€such€a€business.ÌÌà àFirst,€we€note€that€the€father's€income€for€the€years€1991Ïthrough€March€27,€1995€(the€date€the€petition€for€an€increase€wasÏfiled)€is€not€susceptible€to€being€used€as€the€basis€for€increasedÍchild€support€for€those€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(5)€providesÏin€pertinent€part€as€follows:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAny€order€for€child€support€shall€be€a€judgmentÏentitled€to€be€enforced€as€any€other€judgment€of€a€courtÏof€this€state€and€shall€be€entitled€to€full€faith€andÏcredit€in€this€state€and€in€any€other€state.€€òòSuchÏjudgment€shall€not€be€subject€to€modification€as€to€anyÏtime€prior€or€any€amounts€due€prior€to€the€date€that€anÏaction€for€modification€is€filed€and€notice€of€theÏaction€has€been€mailed€to€the€last€known€address€of€theÏopposing€partiesóó.€(Emphasis€added)ÌÌÓÓà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà àIt€seems€clear€from€the€above€provisions€that€any€increase€inÏchild€support€that€might€have€otherwise€been€available€to€theÏmother€has€been€lost€for€the€years€1991€through€March€27,€1995,Ïthe€date€of€the€filing€of€the€petition.€€Child€support€isÏmodifiable,€however,€from€the€filing€of€the€petition€providedÏthere€has€been€demonstrated€a€significant€variance,€as€defined€inÏthe€child€support€guidelines.€€The€child€support€guidelines€(1994Ïrevised)€at€€Rule€1240„2„4„.02(3)€define€a€significant€variance€asÏ"at€least€15%€if€the€current€support€is€$100.00€or€greater€perÏmonth€...."€€It€is,€therefore,€incumbent€upon€the€courts€toÍascertain€the€obligor's€income€at€the€time€the€petition€is€filedÏor€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€and€apply€the€guidelines€to€thatÏincome.€€There€is€an€exception,€however.€€Rule€1240„2„4„.03(3)(d)Ïprovides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIf€an€obligor€is€willfully€unemployed€or€underÏemployed,€child€support€shall€be€calculated€based€on€aÏdetermination€of€potential€income,€as€evidenced€byÏeducational€level€and/or€previous€work€experience.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€this€case,€the€father€is€a€college€graduate€and€was€self„employed€both€at€the€time€the€petition€was€filed€and€the€hearingÏwas€held.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€the€father€testified€thatÏhe€€was€employed€as€a€farmer€and€trying€to€build€a€successfulÏbusiness.€€As€of€July€10,€1995,€he€had€revenues€of€$18,838.57€fromÏinterest€on€approximately€$500,000€he€has€in€the€bank.€€He€claimedÏfarming€expenses€of€$12,735.19.€€Accepting€the€farming€losses€asÏaccurate,€his€gross€income€is€reduced€to€$6,103.38.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àUnder€the€peculiar€circumstances€of€this€case€and€after€dueÏconsideration€of€the€father's€education,€past€work€experience€andÏincome,€we€believe€that€the€father€is€voluntarily€under€employedÏand€is€clearly€capable€of€earning€a€substantial€income.€€We€mustÏnow€determine€the€amount€to€which€the€child€support€guidelinesÏmust€be€applied.ÌÌà àRule€1240„2„4„.03(3)(f)€provides€that€"when€cases€withÏestablished€orders€are€reviewed€for€adjustment€and€the€obligorÏfails€to€produce€evidence€of€income€(such€as€tax€returns€for€priorÏyears,€check€stubs,€or€other€information€for€determining€currentÏability€to€support€in€prior€years),€and€the€court€has€no€otherÏreliable€evidence€of€the€obligor's€income€or€income€potential,€theÏcourt€should€enter€an€order€to€increase€the€child€supportÏobligation€by€an€increment€not€to€exceed€ten€percent€(10%)€perÏyear€for€each€year€since€the€support€order€was€entered€or€lastÍmodified."× ƒ, ××  ×€€We€believe€that€under€the€peculiar€circumstances€ofÏthis€case,€the€father's€present€income€has€not€been€reliablyÏestablished€and€that€Rule€1240„2„4„.03(3)(f)€should€be€called€intoÏplay€and€child€support€calculated€accordingly.€€At€the€time€of€theÏentry€of€the€prior€order€of€support€(October€1990),€the€fatherÏwas,€among€other€things,€ordered€to€pay€$400.00€per€month€childÏsupport.€€Unfortunately,€we€do€not€have€the€factual€basis€uponÏwhich€the€trial€court€based€its€original€award.€€In€any€event€theÏtrial€court€was€under€a€duty€to€examine€stipulations€andÏnegotiated€settlements€to€ascertain€that€the€child€support€orderedÏwas€in€accordance€with€the€guidelines€or€otherwise€give€hisÏreasons€for€allowing€a€deviation.€€We€are€not€at€liberty€toÏpresume,€even€in€the€absence€of€an€express€ruling,€that€the€trialÏcourt€overlooked€a€viable€issue€or€failed€to€do€his€duty€in€theÏcase.€€A€public€official,€in€the€absence€of€proof€to€the€contrary,Ïis€presumed€to€do€his€duty.€òòSeeóó€òòState€ex€rel.€Biggs›€v.€Barclayóó,Í188€Tenn.€26,€216€S.W.2d€711€(Tenn.€1948).€Therefore,€we€mustÏpresume€that€the€trial€judge€correctly€and€adequately€consideredÏall€issues€properly€presented€and€that,€absent€a€showing€to€theÏcontrary,€the€judgment€is€complete€in€every€respect.€€òòRichards€v.ÏTayloróó,€926€S.W.2d€569€(Tenn.€App.€1996).à àUnder€the€mandates€of€theÏchild€support€guidelines€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€previousÏorder,€the€trial€court€was€under€a€duty€to€use€the€guidelines€inÏreviewing€the€adequacy€of€the€child€support.€€Thus€we€presume€thatÏthe€child€support€of€$400.00€per€month€ordered€in€the€originalÏdecree€was€correct.€€Reviewing€the€œguidelines›€(October€1989Ïrevised),€the€gross€income€that€would€yield€$400.00€per€monthÏwould€be€approximately€$2,500.00€per€month.ÌÌà àInvoking€Rule€1240„2„4„.03(3)(f)€(1994€revised)€andÏincreasing€the€child€support€payments€at€a€rate€of€ten€percentÏ(10%)€per€year€for€each€year€since€the€support€order,€the€maximumÏincrease€in€child€support€would€be€fifty€percent€(50%).€€ApplyingÏthe€fifty€percent€increase€to€the€1990€award€of€$400.00,€the€childÏsupport€would€be€increased€to€$600.00€per€month€œ(if€the€increasesÏwere€compounded,›€child€support€would€be€increased€to€645.00).€€TheÍtrial€court€did€not€choose€to€increase€the€monthly€child€supportÏaward€in€cash€but€did€order€the€father€to€pay€the€child's€tuitionÏat€a€private€school.€€The€tuition€is€approximately€$3,000.00.€ÏSince€we€consider€the€private€school€tuition€to€be€child€support,Ïthe€total€support€ordered€by€the€court€was€$7,800.00,€per€year.€ÏExtrapolating€gross€income€from€the€guidelines€(1994€revised),Ïchild€support€of€$7,800.00€per€year€or€$650.00€per€month€wouldÏresult€from€a€gross€monthly€income€of€approximately€$4,300.00.€€WeÏconsider€this€amount€of€income€to€be€within€the€earning€potentialÏof€the€father.ÌÌà àAs€noted€above,€the€mother€sought€increased€child€supportÏbased€upon€the€father's€œunder€employment,›€higher€standard€ofÏliving,€and€greater€assets€and€financial€resources.€€The€fatherÏresponds€to€this€argument€by€noting€that€the€child€supportÏguidelines,€Tenn.€œComp›.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03,€which€governÏthe€analysis€of€this€case,€(òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€&€(e)(1)),Ïprovide€that€child€support€payments€of€$400€per€month€correspondÏto€a€yearly€gross€income€that€is€considerably€higher€than€hisÏdemonstrated€present€gross€income.ÌÌà àThe€mother€counters€by€asserting€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€taken€into€consideration€the€father's€substantial€assets,Ïi.e.,€his€debt„free€farm€and€bank€account€of€some€$500,000,€inÏsetting€an€appropriate€child€support€amount.€€In€support€of€thisÏargument,€the€mother€cites€the€following€principle€recentlyÏenunciated€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó,€846€S.W.2d€803,Ï804€(Tenn.1993):€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOne€major€goal€expressed€in€the€guidelines€is€"[œt]o›Ïinsure€that€when€parents€live€separately,€the€economicÏimpact€on€the€child(œren›)€is€minimized€and€to€the€extentÏthat€either€parent€enjoys€a€higher€standard€of€living,Ïthe€child(œren›)€share(s)€in€that€higher€standard."€€Tenn.ÏœComp›.€R.€and€Regs.€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(2)(e).€€This€goalÏbecomes€significant€when,€as€here,€one€parent€has€vastlyÏgreater€financial€resources€than€the€other.€€It€remindsÏus€that€Tennessee€does€not€define€a€child's€needsÏliterally,€but€rather€requires€an€award€to€reflect€bothÏparents'€financial€circumstances.ÌÌId.€at€805.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€mother€argues€in€her€brief€that€"[œd]efendant›'s€assets€areÏvastly€greater€than€[hers]."€€We€do€not€think€the€facts€in€theÏrecord€bear€out€this€assertion.€€Even€if€true,€however,€childÍsupport€is€not€calculated€from€post€marital€assets€but€fromÏincome.€€It€appears€that€the€wife€seeks€to€have€post€divorceÏappreciation€of€the€husband's€property,€not€yet€realized€asÏincome,€included€in€the€calculation€of€child€support.€€There€is€noÏprovision€in€the€guidelines€requiring€or€permitting€unrealizedÏincome€from€post€divorce€appreciation€of€assets€to€be€includableÏin€an€obligor's€gross€or€net€income.€€The€mother€misconstrues€òòNashÏv.€Mulleóó.ÌÌà àThe€child€support€guidelines€(1994€revised),€do€permit€theÏcourt€to€take€into€account€in€determining€child€support,€€valuableÏassets€and€resources€such€as€an€expensive€home€or€automobile€thatÏseem€inappropriate€for€the€income€claimed€by€the€obligor.€Tenn.ÏComp.€R€&€Regs.,€ch.1240„2„4„.04(1)(f).€€We€are€of€the€opinion,€asÏwas€the€trial€court,€that€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€equityÏdoes€not€require€an€upward€adjustment€in€the€amount€of€childÏsupport€based€upon€this€provision.€€The€evidence€in€the€recordÏdoes€not€establish€sufficient€facts€to€bring€the€rule€into€play.€ÏConversely,€the€record€does€establish€that€the€husband€is€livingÏin€a€456€square€foot€renovated€dairy€barn.€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€mother€complains€that€in€July€of€1995,€theÏfather€bought€their€son€a€pair€of€tennis€shoes€for€$85.00,€andÏsubtracted€that€amount€from€his€July€child€support€payment.€€WeÏagree€that€the€deduction€was€unauthorized€and€inappropriate.€ÏAccordingly,€the€father€shall€be€required€to€pay€to€the€wife€theÏsum€of€$85.00€to€compensate€for€the€deduction€in€the€July€childÏsupport€payment.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€deviation€downward€from€the€child€support€mandatedÏby€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€We€find€no€merit€in€any€otherÏissues€presented€by€the€appellant€mother€relating€to€childÏœsupport.›ÌÌà àThe€father€complains€that€he€should€not€be€required€to€bearÏthe€full€expenses€of€the€child's€private€school€tuition.€€We€noteÏthat€both€parties€were€agreeable€to€the€child's€attendance€in€aÏprivate€school.€€In€view€of€our€opinions€expressed€above,€we€findÏthat€the€requirement€that€the€husband€pay€the€full€tuition€isÏjustified€in€all€respects.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà àLastly,€the€parties€each€argue€that€they€should€be€awardedÏattorney€fees€for€this€appeal.€€The€mother's€argument€is€that€theÏfather€should€be€held€liable€for€her€attorney's€fees€and€expensesÏon€appeal,€based€on€the€disparity€in€the€parties'€incomes€andÏfinancial€resources.€€The€father,€for€his€part,€argues€that€thisÏis€a€frivolous€appeal€and€seeks€attorney's€fees€and€costs€onÏappeal.€€We€find€that€this€is€not€a€frivolous€appeal€and€that€bothÏparties€are€capable€of€paying,€and€should€pay,€their€ownÏattorney's€fees.ÌÌà àWe€modify€the€trial€court's€judgment€to€require€the€father€toÏpay€the€sum€of€$85.00€to€the€mother€for€the€inappropriateÏdeduction€from€child€support€for€the€costs€of€a€pair€of€shoes€forÏthe€child.€€In€all€other€respects€the€trial€court's€judgment€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌà àIn€our€discretion,€we€assess€the€costs€equally€between€theÏparties.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€an€entry€ofÏa€judgment€in€accordance€with€this€opinion.Ì€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà€ à___________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌœÇÑ  ÑÑ7€äøXXdéXXdé7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDEBORAH€LORRAINE€BROOKS,€€€€à à)€POLK€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9703„CV„00087Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€EARLE€G.€MURPHYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRICKEY€LAMAR€BROOKS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellee€à à)€REMANDEDÌà àÌÌ›œ€Ìà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Polk€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€modify€the€trial€court's€judgment€to€require€the€father€toÏpay€the€sum€of€$85.00€to€the€mother€for€the€inappropriateÏdeduction€from€child€support€for€the€costs€of€a€pair€of€shoes€forÍthe€child.€€In€all€other€respects€the€trial€court's€judgment€isÏaffirmed.Ìà àIn€our€discretion,€we€assess€the€costs€equally€between€theÏparties.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€an€entry€ofÏa€judgment€in€accordance€with€this€opinion.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM›