ÿWPCn { W‰§Æ;Ü“·õŠnJ펂¥â…ݳW.™¢IëZ‘WÒ0r@˜TQÕ,‚þéCú׎dÜ̲íOΡx&*:ÄÁþ"!Å7تš9èá-¾ˆ°)¿eµTÖ;©ÙÂfŸVÌlPªOÓqêõº¾Ë˜Xm ¥Ýôz/PƉqV6ºSum¥±R¼zñÚŸìº?¸4§iZ%žCMIbºpÀ\¶¦Xö‚(9ti™'ÿh€I² òMÁ'$—n¡%¢£‹­¸Í2¼Mø&sV}Yö1pЮS¤ §ûÎX÷̧3“'*·–JDãµ²-Úœ‰›'Ö7Ax+3¦A”päµÑ‹œ%/Ö ÒhJwrëhÂ÷üì³»¨.Í06€5 =ªÞÛ|§F Í1SæIÖ·«Ù.öË×KNˆÍÉJGžidSú]6ÀÏ|VWŠxж6ìã {¿C´–qWä¨a½káXƒKEs¨•öÇHIÞ±–8+ÓkÙÓ_˨+³=,¥±/°ÃN+‡ ®¿_ýù¼_]ÊRí ²mc©º²1ÖÛNŠúwLì·Qû\ :N‡>æá€ì\ _;Ê#¦!ï÷  }锄pë…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0Y¥ 4þ  !! B w@J {(Š f² {Y U:q 0« 0DH!ŒU:­UNçççççççççççççççççççççççç D35 Bhh 0D………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… AOÉÆ 0DÞ D/" BQ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(1Hú$¡¡Ô€NÂeNXXÔÓñûÓD{9&3|x  Ô€ XzIXXXÔÔ€ î̳îX XzIÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ò­î î̳ÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€2,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô*Ò ô ò­ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó î ï Eð ñ ò ó Dô Võ Vö Ó€ ($¡¡ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ(1ô£$¡¡Ô€ûî›ûXXÔÓ…ØÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(M(3Çp$¤¤Ý ƒHú!ÝÔ€Nò;NXXÔÓñûÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô€XzIXXXÔÔ€î̳îXXzIÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ò­îî̳ÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€1,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô*Ò ôò­ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular++++'ÿÿdxd d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒHú!ÝÔ€Nò;NXXÔÓñûÓÝ  Ý›ÔT€ ÔÑ€ †ÑÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X!kXNNò;ÔÑ7€!kXXdìXXdð7Ñò òÓñûÓœñ ññ ññ ññö ñœñö ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E± tt0"H°¨Órßñ ññö ññö ññ ñßt€*>.*jx®ÿ1 `€€@E¾á tt0"ö°¨tß›ñ ñà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òà@åå$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌóóÌPAULA€LYNN€œBARNETT,›à h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ L œ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó óHamilton€Chancery€No.€63302€€€€€Ð $ t Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ  d Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð  P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€03A01„9709„CH„00414ò òÐ ì <  ÐROBERT€McALISTER€BARNETT,€III,à À à)à  àÐ Ü,  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendant/Appellant.à  àò òà h àà À à)Ð ´  Ðà  àó óòòÌóóò òÌÌÌà@@@ìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYˆÐ T¤ Ðà@î î ìàAT€CHATTANOOGA,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌÌà@r r ìàTHE€HONORABLE€L.€MARIE€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà  àà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:òòÐ ´ ÐÌóóDavid€Haines€Rotroff€€à  àà h àà À àSandra€J.€Bott€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ŒÜ ÐChattanooga,€Tennesseeà  àà h àà À àChattanooga,€TennesseeÐ xÈ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌò òÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àIN€PART,€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð œ)ì$( ÐÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.Ð $/t*. ÐÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÐ  è18-1 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑØØÓÓÑ7€!kXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° Мñó ñÌñó ñÔ‡XÜØXXX!kÔ›à  àThis€is€a€post„divorce€action€to€modify€child€support€and€alimony.€€The€mother€sought€toÐ ˆØ Ðincrease€child€œsupport,›€andÔ#†X!kXXXÜØÌ #ÔÔ‡XÜØXXX!kÔ€the€father€sought€to€terminate€periodic€alimony€payments.Ô#†X!kXXXÜØ¥#ÔÔ‡XÜØXXX!kÔ€€The€trial€courtÐ h¸ Ðgranted€the€motherððs€request€for€an€increase€in€child€support,€with€a€portion€of€the€child€support€toÏbe€placed€in€an€educational€œtrust,›€and€Ô#†X!kXXXÜØ!#ÔÔ‡XÜØXXX!kÔdenied€the€fatherððs€petition€for€modification€of€alimony.€€BothÐ ( x Ðparties€appealed.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€modify.Ìà  àRobert€McAlister€Barnett€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Paula€Lynn€Barnett€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€married€inÏ1972.€€Mother€was€employed€during€the€first€ten€years€of€their€marriage,€while€Father€pursued€aÏmedical€education.€€Father€became€a€general€surgeon€and€Mother€did€not€work€outside€the€homeÏafter€the€partiesðð€children€were€born.€€The€parties€were€divorced€in€1986.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,Ïthe€partiesðð€son€Joshua€was€three€years€old€and€their€daughter€Katie€was€an€infant.€€The€final€decreeÏof€divorce€required€Father€to€pay€$500€per€week€as€child€support€and€$300€per€week€in€periodicÏalimony.€€Father€remarried€shortly€after€the€divorce€from€Mother,€and€has€children€from€his€secondÏmarriage.€€Ìà  àIn€1996,€Mother€filed€a€petition€to€increase€the€awards€of€child€support€and€alimony.€€FatherÏresponded€by€seeking€increased€visitation€with€the€children€and€a€reduction€in€child€support,€as€wellÏas€reduction€or€termination€of€the€periodic€alimony.€€Ìà  àAt€trial,€the€proof€indicated€that€Motherððs€income€is€approximately€$28,000€per€year.€€TheÏpartiesðð€daughter€Katie€was€enrolled€in€a€public€school.€€Their€son€Joshua€is€a€gifted€student€and€isÏenrolled€at€McCallie€School€in€Chattanooga.€€The€annual€tuition€at€McCallie€is€approximatelyÏ$10,500.Ìà  àFatherððs€income€as€a€general€surgeon€is€in€excess€of€$200,000€per€year.€€In€addition,€evidenceÏindicated€that€Fatherððs€current€wife,€employed€as€a€technician€in€Fatherððs€medical€practice,€was€paidÏapproximately€$30,000€per€year€more€than€other€similarly„situated€technicians.Ìà  àAfter€the€partiesðð€son€was€accepted€at€McCallie€School€in€1995,€Father€declined€to€pay€theÏ$10,500€annual€tuition.€€The€evidence€indicated€that€Mother€borrowed€the€funds€for€the€tuition.Ìà  àThe€majority€of€the€trial€was€held€before€Judge€Howard€Peoples.€€However,€toward€the€latterÏpart€of€the€proceedings,€Judge€Peoples€recused€himself.€€The€case€was€transferred€to€Judge€L.€MarieÏWilliams,€who€reviewed€the€transcript€of€the€evidence€heard€by€Judge€Peoples,€heard€additionalÏevidence,€and€conducted€an€in„chambers€meeting€with€the€partiesðð€minor€children.Ð ;X6: Ðà  àJudge€Williams€found€that€the€evidence€indicated€that€the€partiesðð€children€were€treatedÏdifferently€from€Fatherððs€children€with€his€current€wife,€and€that€this€differing€treatment€distressedÏthe€children.€€The€trial€judge€noted€her€belief€that€the€different€treatment€was€unintentional€andÏordered€additional€counseling.€€She€denied€Fatherððs€petition€for€increased€visitation€but€modified€theÏexisting€visitation€arrangement€by€ordering€Mother€to€acquiesce€in€the€childrenððs€reasonable€requestsÏfor€additional€visitation€with€Father.Ìà  àThe€trial€court€found€Fatherððs€annual€income€for€child€support€purposes€to€be€$209,206.€ÏBased€on€this€income,€child€support€was€set€at€$3,700€per€month.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€$3,000Ïper€month€would€be€paid€to€Mother,€with€the€remaining€$700€per€month€to€be€paid€into€anÏeducational€trust€for€the€benefit€of€the€partiesðð€daughter€Katie.€€The€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àIn€setting€the€child€support€at€this€amount,€the€Court€finds€the€tuition€of€Josh€atÏMcCallie€School€is€an€extraordinary€educational€expense€to€be€paid€by€Paula€BarnettÏout€of€the€monthly€child€support€received€by€Paula€Barnett.€.€.€.€€Should€Josh€BarnettÏcease€attending€McCallie€School€or€an€educational€institution€for€which€tuition€isÏcharged,€the€monthly€support€will€be€reduced€to€$2,000.00€and€a€payment€of€$850.00Ïfor€each€child€will€be€made€into€an€educational€trust€by€Dr.€Barnett.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€trial€court€denied€both€partiesðð€petitions€for€modification€of€alimony.€€Mother€wasÏawarded€$15,000€in€attorneyððs€fees€and€other€costs€of€litigation.Ìà  àBoth€parties€appeal.€€Father€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€permitting€himÏto€present€evidence€regarding€the€initial€award€of€alimony,€asserting€that€this€prevented€him€fromÏestablishing€a€change€of€circumstances€to€support€a€reduction€or€termination€of€the€award€of€periodicÏalimony.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petition€to€reduce€or€terminate€theÏperiodic€alimony,€and€in€awarding€Mother€attorneyððs€fees€and€expert€witness€fees.Ìà  àMother€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€amount€of€child€support,Ïin€requiring€that€a€portion€of€the€child€support€be€placed€in€an€educational€trust€for€the€partiesððÏdaughter,€and€in€failing€to€require€Father€to€pay€additional€child€support€for€the€extraordinaryÏeducational€expenses€for€Joshuaððs€private€school€tuition.€€Mother€also€contends€on€appeal€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€denying€her€petition€to€increase€the€payments€of€periodic€alimony,€and€seeksÏattorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal.Ìà  àOur€review€of€this€is€governed€by€T.R.A.P.€13(d),€which€provides€that€review€of€findings€ofÏfact€by€the€trial€court€œshall€be›€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€œñô ñÐ  @837 Ðñô ñpresumption›€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€œò òòòSeeó óóóñë ñÐ ° Ðñë ñT.R.A.P.›€13(d);€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonó óóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).Ð à Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Father€argues€first€that€he€was€precluded€from€introducing€evidence€indicatingÏthat€the€alimony€awarded€in€the€divorce€decree€was€based€on€the€presumption€that€Mother€wasÏunable€to€work.€€Father€asserts€that€he€sought€to€have€witnesses,€including€Mother,€testify€that€priorÏto€the€divorce€Mother€said€that€she€was€mentally€disabled€from€working€because€of€the€divorce,€butÏwithin€months€after€the€divorce€became€final,€Mother€obtained€a€job.€€When€he€sought€to€questionÏMother€on€these€issues,€Father€says€that€the€trial€court€would€not€permit€it,€stating€ð ðWeððre€not€goingÏbehind€the€decree.ðð€€Father€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€in€the€divorce€decree€of€periodicÏalimony,€instead€of€rehabilitative€alimony,€must€have€been€based€on€an€implicit€finding€that€MotherÏð ðwas€not€feasibly€rehabilitable.ðð€€Consequently,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€toÏallow€him€to€present€this€evidence.Ìà  àMother€notes€that€Father€made€no€offer€of€proof€on€the€evidence€he€sought€to€present,€andÏthat€consequently€there€is€no€way€to€determine€from€the€record€whether€the€evidence€would€haveÏbeen€admissible€or€relevant.€€She€argues€further€that€Father€waived€his€right€to€object€to€the€alimonyÏbased€on€Motherððs€employment€because€she€had€been€employed€since€1986€and€Father€filed€noÏpetition€to€reduce€the€alimony€until€Mother€sought€an€increase€in€child€support€and€alimony.€€SheÏalso€notes€that€counsel€for€Father€repeatedly€objected€to€Mother€introducing€evidence€of€events€thatÏoccurred€prior€to€the€divorce,€and€that€Fatherððs€objections€were€sustained,€with€the€trial€judgeÏconsistently€limiting€the€testimony€from€both€parties€to€ð ðmatters€that€have€occurred€since€theÏ[divorce]€decree€was€entered.ððÌà  àÔ#†X}XXX¼–r#ÔThe€trial€court€is€afforded€wide€discretion€in€the€admission€or€rejection€of€evidence,€and€theÐ ,`'* Ðtrial€court's€action€will€be€reversed€on€appeal€only€when€there€is€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€Ïòòò òSee€Otis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€1992);òòò ò€Davis€v.€Hallóóó ó,€920Ð À/+. ÐS.W.2d€213,€217€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€Ô‡X¼–XXX}Ô€Ô#†X}XXX¼–ü-#ÔÔ‡X¼–XXX}ÔÐ ˜1è,0 Ðà  àIn€this€case,€Father€argues€that€the€original€award€of€alimony€must€have€been€premised€onÏan€implicit€finding€that€Mother€was€unable€to€work.€€The€record,€however,€contains€ample€reason€Ïfor€an€award€of€periodic€alimony€in€the€absence€of€such€an€implicit€finding.€€There€is€an€obviousÏdisparity€in€the€partiesðð€earning€capacity,€education€and€needs,€even€when€Motherððs€currentÐ 89ˆ48 Ðemployment€is€considered.€€Coupled€with€Fatherððs€failure€to€seek€a€decrease€in€the€periodic€alimonyÏuntil€Mother€sought€an€increase€in€child€support€and€alimony,€some€ten€years€after€Mother€becameÏemployed,€the€record€contains€a€clearly€sufficient€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€permitÏeither€party€to€delve€into€evidence€of€events€prior€to€the€divorce€decree.€€The€trial€courtððs€decisionÏon€this€issue€is€affirmed.€Ìà  àBoth€parties€sought€modification€of€the€alimony€award€and€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÏnot€to€modify€the€alimony.€€As€noted€above,€Father€asserts€on€appeal€that€the€original€alimony€awardÏwas€based€on€the€assumption€that€Mother€was€unable€to€work.€€Since€Mother€has€been€employed€forÏnearly€ten€years€and€now€makes€approximately€$28,000€per€year,€Father€contends€she€no€longerÏneeds€the€$300€per€week€periodic€alimony.€€In€addition,€Father€maintains€that€Mother€is€ð ðwasteful,ððÏcriticizing€expenditures€such€as€Motherððs€sale€of€the€marital€home€and€purchase€of€another€home,Ïincreasing€her€monthly€house€note€from€$348€per€month€to€approximately€$600€per€month,€MotherððsÏtrade„in€of€her€1984€automobile€for€a€newer€automobile,€her€$15,000€retirement€account,€herÏexpenditures€for€visits€to€the€veterinarian€for€the€family€dogs,€her€expenditures€for€ð ðan€inordinatelyÏlarge€amount€of€prescription€medicine€bills,ðð€and€payments€for€checking€account€overdraft€charges.Ìà  àMother€contrasts€her€income€of€$28,000€per€year€with€Fatherððs€income€of€over€$200,000€perÏyear,€plus€his€wifeððs€income€from€his€medical€practice€of€over€$50,000€per€year.€€She€points€to€hisÏfarm€with€a€five„bedroom€house€and€a€pool,€his€five€vehicles,€his€interest€in€a€Florida€condominium,Ïand€his€nearly€$500,000€retirement€account.€€Mother€argues€that€the€purchasing€power€of€the€original€Ïaward€of€$300€per€week€in€periodic€alimony€has€been€reduced€since€the€divorce€decree€and€theÏamount€of€periodic€alimony€should€be€increased.Ô#†X}XXX¼–?.#ÔÐ 0*€%( Мñë ñò òó óñë ñÔ‡X¼–XXX}Ô›à  àOur€review€of€the€trial€court's€decision€regarding€whether€to€modify€alimony€is€òòde€novoóó€withÐ ,`'* Ða€presumption€of€correctness€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€requires€otherwise.€€ò òòòSeeÐ ð-@), ÐJones€v.€Jonesóóó ó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€A€modification€of€alimony€requires€"aÐ Ð/ +. Ðsubstantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances."€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1997).ÏThe€burden€is€on€the€party€seeking€the€modification€to€prove€a€material€change€of€circumstances.€ò òòòSeeÐ 3à.2 ÐElliot€v.€Elliotóóó ó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€90€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€Ô#†X}XXX¼–#8#ÔÐ p5À04 ÐÔ‡X¼–XXX}Ôà  àClearly,€Father€has€not€demonstrated€that€a€decrease€in€alimony€is€warranted.€€Indeed,Ð P7 26 ÐFatherððs€scrutiny€of€Motherððs€expenditures€appears€oppressive€and€his€criticisms€border€on€silliness,Ð 09€48 Ðparticularly€when€Motherððs€expenditures€are€contrasted€with€Fatherððs€affluent€lifestyle.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€apart€from€expenditures€more€pertinent€to€child€support,€Mother€did€not€demonstrate€anÏincreased€need€for€alimony.€€On€the€whole,€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏrefusing€to€modify€the€award€of€periodic€alimony.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue€isÏaffirmed.€€Ô#†X}XXX¼–;#ÔÐ 0 € Ðà  àMother€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€child€support€award€of€$3,700€per€month,€with€$700€of€thatÏmonthly€amount€placed€in€an€œeducationñî ñañî ññï ññî ñkñî ññï ññð ñlñð ñ›€trust€for€Katie.€€Mother€argues€that€under€the€child€supportÏguidelines,€once€the€trial€court€found€the€private€school€tuition€to€be€an€extraordinary€educationalÏexpense,€it€was€required€to€increase€the€child€support€award€to€provide€for€these€expenses.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.Ð ˜è ÐComp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.02(5).€€Since€a€portion€of€the€child€support€was€to€be€placed€in€anÏeducational€trust,€Mother€contends€that€the€practical€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€left€Mother€withÏless€monthly€income€for€the€childrenððs€current€needs€since€she€is€now€obligated€to€pay€Joshððs€tuitionÏat€McCallie€and€cannot€utilize€the€portion€that€goes€into€a€trust€fund€to€pay€it.€€ÌÔ‡X¼–XXX}Ôà  àThe€child€support€guidelines€provide€as€follows:Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†X}XXX¼–pA#ÔÔ‡NRUNXX}ÔÓÓà  à1240„2„4„.04€€Criteria€for€Deviation€from€Guidelines.Ð ° ÐÌà8  à(1)€à8` Ð Ð àSince€these€percentage€amounts€are€minimums,€the€court€shall€increaseÐ | Ì Ðthe€award€calculated€in€Rule€1240„2„4„.03€for€the€following€reasons:Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€€Extraordinary€educational€expenses€and€extraordinary€medicalÏexpenses€not€covered€by€insurance€òòshall€be€addedóó€to€the€percentageÐ ú$J # Ðcalculated€in€the€above€rule.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà@YY)ìà***ˆÌÌà8  à(3)à8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€When€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€exceeds€$10,000€per€month,Ð x)È$( Ðthe€court€may€consider€a€downward€deviation€from€the€guidelines€if€theÏobligor€demonstrates€that€the€percentage€applied€to€the€excess€of€theÏnet€income€above€$10,000€a€month€exceeds€a€reasonable€amount€ofÏchild€support€based€upon€the€best€interest€of€the€child€and€theÏcircumstance€of€the€parties.€€The€court€may€require€that€sums€paidÏabove€the€percentage€applied€to€the€net€income€above€$10,000€beÏplaced€in€an€educational€.€.€.€trust€fund€for€the€benefit€of€the€child.€€Ô‡NÆ NNNRUÔÔ#†X¼–X NNÆB#ÔÐÂ/+/` x` x ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€Ô#†X}XXX¼–áF#ÔÔ‡NRUNXX}Ô1240„2„4„.04€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€under€the€guidelines,€once€the€trialÐ ˜1è,1 Ðcourt€finds€that€the€child€has€extraordinary€educational€expenses,€those€expenses€ð ðshall€be€addedðð€toÏthe€ordinary€guidelines€percentages.€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó;€òòò òÔ#†X}XNNRUG#Ôsee€also€Dwight€v.€Dwightó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€945,€950€(Tenn.Ð X5¨05 ÐApp.€1996)òòò ò€óóó ó(citingò òòò€Economides€v.€Economidesó óóó,€No.€02A01-9109-CV-00189,€1994€WL€95870Ð 07€27 Ð(Tenn.€App.€Mar.€24,€1994)€(ordering€obligor€to€pay€$2,500€per€month€in€child€support,€the€guidelineÐ 9X49 Ðamount€for€three€children,€and€pay€the€additional€sum€of€$1,465€per€month€for€private€school€tuitionÏand€fees);€€ò òòòBostick€v.€Bostickóóó ó,€€No.€02A01-DH-00043,€1993€WL€90363€(Tenn.€App.€Mar.€30,€1993)Ð ˆØ Ð(declining€to€deduct€private€school€tuition€payments€made€by€obligor€from€the€minimum€percentageÏset€forth€in€the€guidelines);òòò ò€€Carter€v.€Carteró óóó,€No.€03A01-9210-CH-00380,€1993€WL€17128€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐApp.€Jan.€28,€1993)€(requiring€obligor,€whose€income€exceeded€the€income€scale€provided€in€theÏguidelines,€to€pay€the€amount€set€forth€in€the€œñì ñGñì ññí ñgñí ñuidelines›€as€well€as€private€school€tuition€andÏexpenses€for€the€children)).Ô‡NRUNXX}Ô€€While€the€guidelines€provide€that€the€trial€court€may€order€a€downwardÐ À  Ðdeviation€from€the€guideline€amount€in€situations€in€which€the€obligorððs€net€income€exceeds€$10,000Ïper€month,€such€a€downward€deviation€is€based€on€a€showing€by€the€obligor€that€the€guideline€amountÏð ðexceeds€a€reasonable€amount€of€child€support€based€on€the€best€interest€of€the€childðð€and€the€partiesððÏcircumstances.€€ò òòòId.óó€€ó óÔ‡NÆ NNNRUÔÔ#†X¼–X NNÆÛL#ÔWhere€the€trial€court€orders€a€deviation,€the€trial€judge€must€make€writtenÐ üL Ðfindings€that€if€the€child€support€guidelines€were€applied,€the€result€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriateÏunder€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòò òSee€óóó óTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.02(7);ò òòò€see€also€Smith€v.€Smithóóó ó,Ð Ø( ÐNo.€01A01„9609„CH„00404,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€218€(Tenn.€App.€Mar.€27,€1997).ò òòò€€ó óóóThis€is€trueÐ ¸ Ðregardless€of€whether€the€deviation€is€€upward€or€downward.€€òòò òSee€State€ex€rel.€Smith€v.€Mooreóóó ó,€No.Ð ˜è Ð03A01„9705„JV„00190,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€866€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€5,€1997).€€€Ô#†X}XXX¼–´N#ÔÐ x È ÐÔ‡NRUNXX}Ôà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€awarded€approximately€the€guideline€amount€of€child€support,Ð X"¨  Ð$3,700€per€œmonthññ ñ,ññ ñ›€and€ordered€that€$700€of€that€amount€be€placed€in€an€educational€trust€for€theÏpartiesðð€daughter€Katie.€€No€additional€amount€was€awarded€for€the€extraordinary€educational€expenseÏfor€their€sonððs€private€school€tuition.€€The€trial€court€did€not€state€in€its€findings€that€it€was€orderingÏa€downward€deviation€from€the€guideline€amount.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€finding€thatÏapplying€the€guideline€percentages€to€Fatherððs€income€level,€including€the€amount€exceeding€$10,000Ïper€month,€ð ðexceeds€a€reasonable€amount€of€child€support,ðð€considering€the€best€interest€of€theÏchildren€and€the€partiesðð€circumstances.€€The€trial€court€did€not€state€its€reason€for€requiring€that€$700Ïper€month€be€placed€in€an€educational€trust€fund€for€œKatie.Ô‡NÆ NNNRUÔÔ#†X¼–X NNÆÑQ#Ô€€›Of€the€$3,700€monthly€child€supportÐ ¸0,0 Ðaward€in€this€case,€approximately€$500€of€the€total€child€support€award€is€attributable€to€Fatherððs€netÏincome€exceeding€$10,000€per€month.€€In€the€absence€of€evidence€supporting€a€downward€deviationÏand€a€specific€finding€thereof,€the€guidelines€provide€only€that€the€portion€of€child€supportÏattributable€to€net€income€over€$10,000€per€month€may€be€paid€into€an€educational€trust.€œñõ ñÐ  L8œ38 Ðñõ ñAccordingly,›€we€find€that€the€trial€court€only€had€authority€to€order€$500€of€the€child€support€awardÏto€be€placed€in€an€educational€trust€fund€for€Katie.€€€€€€€ÌÔ#†X}XXX¼–ŒU#ÔÔ‡NRUNXX}Ôà  àUnder€these€circumstances,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€add€an€appropriateÐ pÀ ÐaÔ‡NÆ NNNRUÔÔ#†X¼–X NNÆqX#Ômount€to€the€guideline€percentages€to€account€for€Joshððs€extraordinary€educational€expense.€Ð < Œ ÐProvided€an€appropriate€amount€is€added€to€the€child€support€for€Joshððs€private€school€expense,€weÏfind€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€requiring€that€œupñò ñ€toñò ñ›€$500€of€the€child€support€be€placed€in€anÏeducational€trust€fund€for€Katie.€€The€amount€that€can€be€directed€into€an€educational€trust€fund€inÏthis€case€is€limited€to€$500€per€month.€€We€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€an€award€ofÏadditional€child€support,€based€on€Joshððs€extraordinary€educational€expense,€and€a€reduction€of€theÏamount€to€be€placed€in€an€educational€trust€fund€to€no€more€than€$500.ÌÔ#†X}XXX¼–Y#Ôà  àFather€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€attorneyððs€fees€and€expenses€toÐ pÀ ÐMother.€€Father€argues€that€such€awards€are€appropriate€only€when€the€spouse€seeking€them€lacksÏsufficient€funds€to€pay€her€own€legal€expenses.€Trial€courts€have€wide€discretion€in€awardingÏattorneyððs€fees,€and€an€appellate€court€will€not€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decision€unless€there€has€beenÏa€clear€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€òòò òGarfinkel€v.€Garfinkeló óóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€App.€1996)Ð Ð  Ð(citing€òòò òSmith€v.€Smithó óóó,€02A01-9109-CH-00209,€1993€WL€90378,€at€*6€(Tenn.€App.€1993)).€€FromÐ ¨ ø Ðour€review€of€the€record,€there€has€been€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€award€of€attorney's€fees€toÏMother.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.€€€Ô‡X¼–XXX}ÔÐ X$¨" Ðà  àMother€also€seeks€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.€€We€find€it€appropriate€to€award€Mother€herÏattorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal,€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€theÏappropriate€amount.Ìà  àIn€sum,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€limit€the€evidence€from€both€parties€to€mattersÏoccurring€since€the€original€decree€of€divorce.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€modify€theÏaward€of€periodic€alimony.€€We€modify€the€award€of€child€support€to€require€an€additional€amountÏfor€the€partiesðð€sonððs€extraordinary€educational€expense,€and€remand€for€a€determination€of€theÏappropriate€additional€amount.€€We€also€modify€the€amount€to€be€placed€in€an€€educational€trust€fundÏto€no€more€than€$500€per€month€and€remand€for€a€reduction€to€that€amount.€€In€all€other€respects,Ïthe€award€of€child€support€is€affirmed.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€to€require€Father€to€pay€$15,000Ïtoward€Motherððs€attorneyððs€fees€and€other€costs€of€litigation€is€affirmed.€€Father€is€also€required€toÐ ð8@48 Ðpay€Motherððs€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏdetermination€of€the€appropriate€amount.Ìà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€modified€and€remandedÏas€set€forth€above.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòòà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÔ#†X}XXX¼–Ž_#ÔÐ ð@  Ðòòà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àò òóóà h àà À àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð à0  Ðó óà  àò òÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ h¸ ÐALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÐ T¤ ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð h Ðóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÐ T Ð