WPCM  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0J9 0T: 0^T:w@: 0h: 0@Z; D3; 0r; 0|?< 0< 0A= 1u=U,F> 0dr>U,>U6?B)8?DCa? AM?U*?+@FA]LCv~Dv'F AOKIL 0DM D/SM BMV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d} $(G.2a$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMSBLANKENSHIPWaggonerBrowderAnkerEllisonCarmack 18thChubb NashMulle2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  '(D)*+D,-.0e1Ӏ26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ("$    GGGG'dxd2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  OQRV[\]^ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 djjjj7Border 1ddWkC << G<  9p`(Arial ! F!  #d#`i  mm   YYY FILEDmX May22,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.mAppellateCourtClerk   F!#d#`i  I$i         Theolderchild,Anker,hadattainedhis18thbirthdayatthetimeofthehearingbelow,and,althoughMs.Browder'spetitiondidseekanincreaseinhischildsupportuntilhereachedthatage,itappearsherappealisdirectedonlytotheactioninsofarastheyoungerchild,Christopher,isconcerned. S F!#d#`i  i       Ms.Browderwithdrewapproximately$25,000fromChristopher'strusttoreimburseherselffortaxesshepaidincidenttothesaleoftheUnionPlanterBankstock.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco WC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . `&hhXd&#hhXd#i    ћ7OXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  j u` ќLlnk;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONCAROLWAGGONERBROWDER@ ) ROANECOUNTY@ ) 03A019510CH00353 PlaintiffAppellant @ )@ )@ ) v. @ ) HON.FRANKV.WILLIAMS,III,̀@ ) CHANCELLOR @ )RHEAR.BROWDER@ )@ )  DefendantAppellee  @ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED DAVIDW.BLANKENSHIPOFKINGSPORTFORAPPELLANTJ.POLKCOOLEYOFROCKWOODFORAPPELLEE@ OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  CarolWaggonerBrowder,formerwifeofRheaR.Browder,filedapostdivorcepetitionseekinganincreaseofchildsupportfortheparties'olderson,Anker,andtheiryoungerson,Christopher.TheTrialCourtfoundthatshehadnotcarriedtheburdenofshowingachangeincircumstance,justifyinganincreaseinthechildsupportaward.  Ms.Browderappeals,insistingthattheTrialCourtshouldhaverecusedhimself,andwithregardtochildsupportastoChristopher, o   ׀raisesthefollowingtwoissues:    II. TheTrialCourterredinfailingtomodifythechildsupportandtoaffirmativelyfindthatthechildsupportwouldbeaspecificamountbasedonthedefendant'sincomeandthatthedeviationfromtheGuidelineswasappropriateforspecificreasons.III. Specifically,theTrialCourtshouldhavemadeafindingoftheexactamountofthechildsupporttobepaid,theamountthatwasactuallybeingpaidandthereasonsforthedeviationfromthechildsupportguidelines.SincetheCourtdidnot,thismattermustbesentbacktotheTrialCourtforthosespecificfindings.      Beforeaddressingthemeritsofthisappeal,wenotethatbothpartieshavefiledmotionsaskingustoconsiderpostjudgmentfacts.Thefactssoughttobemadeapartoftheappellaterecorddonot,inourview,meettherequirementsofRule14oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Allmotionsofthepartiesrelativetheretoaredenied.  Astothefirstissue,Ms.Browderintroducedanaffidavitcontainingthefollowingstatements:     4. IbelievethatthisCourtisbiasedagainstme,baseduponstatementsthatmyformerhusbandhasmadetome. 5. Myformerhusband,RheaBrowder,defendantinthependingactiontoldmethathe(Browder)holdstheCourtinhishandandthatforthejudgetogoagainstaBrowderwouldbetoliterallycommitpoliticalsuicide,asRheaBrowdertoldmethathecontributedheavilytoJudgeWilliams'politicalcampaignforjudge. 6. Mr.BrowdertoldmethatJudgeWilliamsknewbetterthantogoagainstaBrowder. 7. Onanotheroccasion,Mr.BrowdertoldmethathehadtheCourt"inhispocket". 8. Mr.BrowderhasalsomadestatementstomethatJudgeWilliamswouldnotallowRheaBrowdertolosehishome. 9. IbelieveonpersonalknowledgeandinformationthatRheaBrowder'sattorney,PolkCooley,wastheformerlawpartnerofJudgeWilliams. 10. Myformerattorney,RobertSimpson,toldmethatIcouldexpectthisCourttobebiasedagainstmeinthehandlingofmycase.      Mr.Browderfiledanaffidavitdenyingallthestatementsattributedtohim,exceptonerelativetoacontributiontotheChancellor'scampaignaboutwhichMr.Browderstatedthefollowing:     Youraffiantaversthattothebestofhisknowledgeandrecollection,hehasneverbeforemetChancellorFrankV.Williams,IIIuntilaffiantappearedinCourtbeforeChancellorWilliamsonMay7,1993,thedaythathisdivorcetrialwasscheduled,atwhichtimeasettlementwasannouncedtotheCourt.HehasnotseentheChancelloronanyotheroccasionsince,exceptinCourtonmotionsinthetrialofthiscase. Affiantbelievesthattothebestofhisrecollection,someone,whowassolicitingcampaignfundsforChancellorWilliamsonhisfirstpoliticalcampaignfortheofficeofChancellorin1984,calleddefendant'sofficeandsolicitedcampaigndonationstowhichdefendantmailedadonationofnotmorethan$100.00. DefendanthasneverhadanydealingsonanymatterswithChancellorWilliamsexcepttoappearinhisCourtinthiscaseattimesrequired.      TheChancellor,afteracolloquywithcounselforMs.Browder,resolvedtheissueagainsther,statingthefollowing:     MR.BLANKENSHIP:Basically,withallduerespecttotheCourt,thethrustofmyaffidavitisbaseduponstatementsthattherespondentinthiscase,Mr.RheaBrowder,hasmadeoverthecourseoftheseproceedingstomyclient.AndherconcernisnotbasedonanythingtheCourthasactuallysaidordonebutratherstatementsMr.Browderhasmadetoher.Thethrustofourmotionistoremoveanyappearancewhatsoeverofimpropriety,asIunderstandtherules,judicialconduct,aswellasprofessionalresponsibility. THECOURT:ButcouldIberesponsibleforwhatotherpeoplegoaroundsayingaboutmeortheirrelationshipwithme,regardlessoftheaccuracyofit?Imean,ifpeoplegoaroundassumingthatMr.Browderhassaidthethingsthatyouhavesetoutinyourmotionhere,whatwouldthatdo?Imean,ifIhadtostepasideeverytimesomebodywentoutandmadeclaimslikethat. MR.BLANKENSHIP:Well,Idon'tthinktoansweryourfirstquestion,Idon'tthinktheCourtisresponsibleforotherstatementsthataremadebyotherpeople.Ithinkthattherulesofconduct,however,isthereisanappearanceofanimpropriety,thentheCourtτ THECOURT:What'stheappearance?WhathaveIdone? MR.BLANKENSHIP:Well,sheperceivesitasanappearance,andthat'sthethrustofheraffidavit.I'mnotsayingtheCourtdidanything,butwhatI'msayingisthatshehas,throughouttheseproceedings,hadthesestatementsmadetoherandbelievesthatbecauseofthatshecannotgetafairtrialhere.AndI'mboundtobringthattotheattentionoftheCourt. THECOURT:Well,IappreciatethatandIunderstandyourresponsibilitytodothat.I'mgoingtodenythemotionandstatefortherecordthatthereisabsolutelynothingwhatsoeveraboutthisfamilyorthesepartiesthatwouldcausemetobebiasedonewayortheother.AsIrecall,theyenteredintoasettlement.Wasn'tthiscaseresolvedbywayofasettlement? MR.BLANKENSHIP:Itwasatonetime,YourHonor.      WeagreewiththeobservationsoftheChancellorrelativetostatementsmadebyonepartytoalawsuittotheother,andconcludethatuponemployingthetesttobeusedinthesematters,theChancellordidnotabusehisdiscretionindecliningtorecusehimself.Ellisonv.Alley,902S.W.2d415(Tenn.App.1995).  Astotheremainingtwoissues,theChancellorrefusedtoreexaminethebasisofthesettlementagreedtobytheparties,butdidallowprooftoshowanychangeincircumstancefromtheentryoftheoriginalordertothedateoftrial,whichwouldjustifyincreasingchildsupport.  ThepartiesweredivorcedbydecreeenteredonJune14,1993,whichprovidedastochildsupportthefollowing:     (3) ChildSupport .TheDefendant'schildsupportobligationforthetwo(2)minorchildrenshallbesatisfiedthroughtheincomefromtwo(2)existingtrustsknownastheAnkerBrowderTrustAgreementandtheRheaChristopherBrowderTrustAgreementwhichwillbefundedasfollows:  (a) EachtrustcurrentlyhasaprincipalsumofEightyThousandDollars($80,000.00).  (b) TheDefendantownsthirtytwothousandtwenty(32,020)sharesofUnionPlantersBankstock,thevalueofSixHundredThousandDollars($600,000.00)ofwhichwillbesetasideforthePlaintiffasprovidedotherwiseinthisagreement.Thebalanceofthestockshallbedividedbetweenthetwo(2)minorchildrenwithtwothirds(2/3)ofthestocktobeplacedintothetrustforRheaChristopherBrowderandonethird(1/3)oftheremainingstocktobeplacedintothetrustforEdwardCarmack(Anker)Browder.  (c) TheproceedsoftheHeritageFederalSavingsBankAccountNo.6225369shallbedividedequallybetweenthetwo(2)minorchildrenandplacedintotheirrespectivetrustaccounts. TheTrusteeoftheAnkerBrowderTrustandtheRheaChristopherBrowderTrustshallbeaninstitutionaltrusteewhoshallbeselectedbycounselforPlaintiff. TheTrusteeoftheAnkerBrowderTrustandtheRheaChristopherBrowderTrustshallpayouttheincomefromthetrustsmonthlytothePlaintiffforthesupportofthetwo(2)minorchildrenuntileachchildreachesmajoritypursuanttoT.C.A.3411102.AtsuchtimeastheminorchildrenreachtheageofmajoritypursuanttoT.C.A.3411102,thetermsofthetrustswhichareinexistenceregardingthedistributionofthecorpusofthetrustshallremainineffect. ThePlaintiffshallreceiveforthesupportofthechildrenthesocialsecuritybenefitsreceivedbyeachchildduringtheminorchild'sminorityasdefinedbyT.C.A.3411102. ThechildsupportpaymentinthisOrderistheamountsetforthincurrentpublishedTennesseeChildSupportGuidelines,andthepayorofchildsupportisprovidinghealthinsurancecoverageforthechildrenandtheamountofcoparentingtimeofthepayorwiththechildrenisnormalundertheguidelineregulations. Thepartiesheretoaffirmativelyacknowledgethatnoactionbythepartieswillbeeffectivetoreducechildsupportaftertheduedateofeachpayment,andtheyunderstandthatcourtapprovalmustbeobtainedbeforechildsupportcanbereducedormodified,unlesssuchpaymentsareautomaticallyreducedorterminatedunderthetermsofthisAgreementorbyoperationoflaw. .... (8)  LifeInsurance .TheDefendantcurrentlyownsaChubbwholelifeinsurancepolicyintheamountofTwoHundredThousandDollars($200,000.00).TheDefendantshallmaintainthatpolicyfortheremainderofhislifeandshallnamethePlaintiffasafiftypercent(50%)beneficiaryofthepolicyandshallnameeachminorchildasatwentyfivepercent(25%)beneficiaryofthepolicy.IfthetrustsforthebenefitofthechildrenofthepartiesarestillinexistenceatthetimeoftheDefendant'sdeath,thebenefitspursuanttotheChubbwholelifeinsurancepolicypayabletothechildrenshallbepaidintothatchild'strust.      InanearlierpostdivorceproceedingsMrs.BrowdersoughttohavethisjudgmentsetasideunderRule59orRule60oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.TheTrialCourtfoundadverselytohercontentionastothatsuitwhichwasaffirmedbythisCourtinanopinionenteredonApril20,1995.  TheproofinconnectionwiththepresentappealshowsthatatrustwasestablishedforbothchildrenfrommonieswhichwerealreadyintheirnamebyreasonofSocialSecuritybenefitstheydrewincidenttoMr.Browder'sentitlement,pluscertainfundssuppliedbybothparents,butprincipallyfromthesaleofstockofUnionPlantersNationalBank.  WhenthetrustwasestablishedforChristopher,copyofwhichwasnotmadeanexhibittothisproceeding,ittotaledapproximately$196,000.Oneeighthofthisamountwasplacedinnonincomeproducinggrowthassetsasahedgeagainstinflation,andthebalanceinvariousotherinvestments,whichprovidedformostoftheperiodafteritsestablishmenttothedateofthehearingbelow,$969permonthinincome.InadditiontothatthetrustcontinuedtoreceivetheSocialSecuritybenefitstowhichChristopherwasentitledintheamountof$805permonth,whichthetestimonyshowswillcontinueuntilhereachestheageof18.  IncomesuppliedtoChristopherhasbeenforthemostpart$1774permonthduringtheschoolyearandanadditional$378permonthforprivateschooltuitionwhichMr.Browderhasvoluntarilypaid.  Ms.Browderinsiststhatnotwithstandingheragreementinthedivorcedecreethattheamountsetupforchildsupportwasproperandmetthechildsupportguidelinesthenineffect,theTrialCourtdidnotmakeadeterminationofMr.Browder'sincome,ortheamountabovethe$1365permonthmaximumsetoutintheguidelinesthatMr.Browdershouldpay.  AlthoughMr.Browder'stestimonyissomewhatconfusinḡhewas81yearsoldatthetimeoftrialwethinkafairreadingofhistestimonyshows,asfoundbytheChancellor,thathisincomehaddeclinedsincethedateoftheoriginalorder.Moreover,thereisnoproofthatChristopher'sexpenseshaveincreased;thus,wefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheChancellor'sfindingrelativetochangeofcircumstance.  Moreover,thetrusteeofChristopher'strusttestifiedthatthebalanceofthetrustatthetimeofthehearingbelowwas$170,582 p   ׀andshoulditbeconvertedtocashandanannuitypurchaseditwouldpayChristopherforthebalanceofhisminority(sixyearsandfivemonths)aminimumof$1300to$1400permonth.Thetrusteerecognizedthatthisisaroughfigureandprobablyonthelowside.Wesuspectheiscorrectinthatshouldthetrustbeconvertedtocash,andpaidtoChristopherinmonthlyinstallmentsuntilhereachestheageof18,hewouldreceive$2215permonth.This,coupledwithhisSocialSecuritybenefitsof$805andschooltuitionwhichwepresumeMr.Browderwouldwanttocontinuetopay,wouldgiveChristopheranincomeof$3398permonthduringtheschoolyear,and$3020forthemonthshewasnotinschool.Additionally,althoughthedollaramountisnotshownintherecord,ChristopherhasthebenefitofhealthinsurancecoveragesuppliedbyMr.Browder.  Inconclusion,wenoteNashv.Mulle,846S.W.2d803(Tenn.1993),whichaddressestheguidelinesasitrelatestowealthyparentswith"anenormousmonthlyincome."InthatcaseourSupremeCourtconcludesthatthetrialcourtretainsdiscretiononacasebycasebasistomakeanappropriateawardbeyondtheguidelinemaximumwheretheobligor'snetincomeexceeds$6250permonthuponbalancingboththechild'sneedsandtheparent'smeans.NashwasdecidedonJanuary19,1993,somefivemonthsbeforetheagreementastochildsupportwasmadeinthiscaseand,presumably,wasconsideredbythepartiesandcounselpriortotheagreement.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessaryandcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMs.Browderandhersurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.