ÿWPCÎ% ¾# t U: %¹ 0û¿ w@º 4ú  0J 0Tg 0^» 0h  0r‡ù 0| 0†} 0 1u“ 0dU*lB)–DC¿ AM BO¤lÂhÒ¨:v~â D3`vÓ“ 0@f! AO¦!Æõ! 0D»" D/ÿ" B.# 0?K# 0DŠ%˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó~Ð$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ LegalLˆhÐ (Avery 4167 Post Card AØ'ÿ LegalhÐ (Avery 4167 Post CardTÑÔ€Xm¢XXXÔÑ7€¥3XXdìXXdæ7Ñ ÁÂÃÊÄDÅÊÆÊÇÊÈÉÊÊÓ€Úƒç"3|xÕ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔH2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ24,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¸Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¼$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€oldest€boy,€then€17,€resided€as€he€chose.€€He€is€now€of€age,€and€we€areÏconcerned€only€with€his€two€younger€brothers.Ì ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¼$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„4.02(6).Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¼$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlaska€Civ.€R.€90.3;€Maryland€Family€Code€12„102;€Oregon€Ad.€Reg.€137„50„450;€Virginia€Code€Ann.€20„108.2.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(ï(37$¤¤Ý ƒ~Ð!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XjèXXXÔÑ7€jèXXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓÓò òÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßR€#%"A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓó óJANICE€BARTLEY€CASTEEL,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€03A01„9703„CV„00073Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCLIFTON€PHILLIP€CASTEEL,à àà à)òòà àóóHON.€BILL€SWANNòòÌà àà àà àà àà àà àóó)òòà àóóJUDGEòòÌà àóóDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌWilliam€A.€Mynatt,€Jr.€and€Jason€H.€Long,€Knoxville,€for€the€AppellantÌÌDouglas€J.€Toppenberg€and€J.€Elaine€Burke,€Knoxville,€for€the€AppelleeÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeòòÌÌÓÓóóÌ›à àThese€parties€were€divorced€on€September€16,€1994.€€By€agreement,€theyÏwere€awarded€joint€legal€custody€of€three€sons,€who€would€reside€principally€withÏtheir€mother,€hereafter€appellant.Ìà àThe€father,€hereafter€appellee,€was€awarded€ð ðco„parenting€timeðð€with€the€twoÍyounger€sons× ƒ& ××  ×€on€alternating€weeks€from€Wednesday€at€œ6:00›€p.m.€until€Sunday€atÏ8:00€p.m.€and€four€(4)€full€weeks€during€summer.€€Holiday€times€„€Easter,€Christmas,Ïand€Thanksgiving€„€were€evenly€œdivided.Ì›à àPursuant€to€the€approved€plan,€appellant€has€custody€234€days,€whileÏappellee€has€custody€131€days.Ìà àAfter€extended€skirmishing,€the€appelleeððs€support€obligation€for€two€childrenÏwas€determined€to€be€$370.00€per€month.€€Appelleeððs€gross€annual€income€wasÏ$36,696.00.€€The€appellant€earned€about€$43,000.00€annually.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€observed€that€current€law€ð ðgives€a€choice€between€wideÏjudicial€discretion€in€the€departure€[from€the€Guidelines]€and€a€possible€secondÏmathematical€computation€carrying€a€presumption€of€correctness.ðð€€The€decreeÏprovides:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àð ðThe€Court€finds€that€in€the€present€case€the€primary€custodian€motherÏhas€234€days€with€the€children€and€the€father€has€131€days€with€theÏchildren.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€areÏbased€upon€the€primary€custodian€having€285€days€per€year€and€theÏsecondary€parent€having€80€days€per€year.€€The€Court€finds€that€inÏsituations€where€the€income€level€of€the€parents€is€essentially€equalÏthat€the€custodial€parent€is€presumed€to€support€the€child€from€his€orÏher€income€for€182.5€days€per€year€and€that€the€non„custodial€parentÏprovides€support€either€through€child€support€or€in€kind€for€theÏremaining€182.5€days€per€year.€€Thus€in€a€standard€visitation€situationÏwhere€the€non„custodial€parent€has€the€child€for€80€days€per€year€theÏChild€Support€guidelines€are€presumed€to€provide€support€for€theÏremaining€102.5€days€per€year€that€non„custodian€should€beÏsupporting€the€child€but€during€which€time€the€child€is€not€in€his€or€herÏpossession.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court€finds€that€it€is€appropriate€in€situations€of€essentially€equalÍincomes€that€child€support€be€reduced€by€a€ratio€of€the€days€per€yearÏassumed€by€the€Guidelines€and€the€number€of€days€the€non„custodialÏparent€actually€keeps€the€children.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court€finds€that€for€parents€with€equal€income,€and€for€parents€inÏwhich€the€payor€of€child€support€earns€less€than€the€recipient,€aÏmathematical€computation€should€be€imposed,€carrying€a€presumptionÏof€correctness.€€To€wit,€a€fraction€should€be€created€in€which€theÏnumerator€would€be€the€non„custodial€parentððs€actual€co„parentingÏdays€minus€80€and€the€denominator€would€be€the€number€102.5.€€TheÏfraction€should€be€multiplied€by€the€child€support€guidelines€dollarÏamount€and€that€the€result€of€that€calculation€is€the€amount€by€whichÏchild€support€should€be€increased€or€decreased€if€the€payor€isÏexercising€more€than€80€days€per€year,€or€increased€if€less.ÌÌà8 àIt€is€therefore€ORDERED€that€by€following€the€above€formula€in€thisÏmatter,€child€support€should€be€set€at€three€hundred€and€seventyÏdollars€per€month€($370.00/mo.),€with€said€amount€to€be€paidÏbeginning€September€23,€1996.ððÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€dispositive€issue€is€whether€the€peculiar€circumstances€of€this€caseÏjustified€a€downward€deviation€from€the€Guidelines,€in€light€of€the€instructions€ofÏòòJones€v.€Jones,€óó930€S.W.2d€541€(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àAny€deviation€must€be€clearly€articulated.€€òòTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.,€Chóó.€1240„2„4.01(3)€and€1240„2„4.02(7);€òòJones,€supra.óó€€On€the€face€of€it,€the€monthly€grossÏincome€of€the€appellee€required€that€he,€as€the€obligor,€pay€$740.00€monthlyÏsupport€for€his€two€sons;€does€the€fact€that€he€has€custody€for€131€days€each€yearÏjustify€the€reduction€to€$370.00€monthly?Ìà àœÌà àThe›€parties€concede€that€an€allowance€is€factored€into€the€Guidelines€for€theÏ80€days€residency€of€the€children€with€their€father,€and€that€if€the€children€spendÍmore€time€with€the€obligor€than€is€assumed× ƒ' ××  ×€his€child€support€payments€should€beÏreduced.€€òòJones,€supra.Ìà àóóThe€formula€fashioned€by€the€trial€judge€ð ðin€situations€of€essentially€equalÏincomes€that€child€support€be€reduced€by€a€ratio€of€the€days€per€year€assumed€byÏthe€Guidelines€and€the€number€of€days€the€non„custodial€parent€actually€keeps€theÏchildrenðð€is€assailed€by€the€appellant€for€two€reasons.Ìà àFirst,€because€ð ðthe€visitation€time€granted€to€the€appellant€[sic:€appellee]€is€ofÏthe€type€contemplated€by€the€Guidelines€and€therefore€does€not€provide€a€valid€orÏcommon€sense€justification€for€any€downward€œdeviationðð;›€second,€the€trial€courtÏapplied€an€inappropriate€formula€in€its€computation.Ìà àThe€first€reason€assigned€by€the€appellant€is€somewhat€baffling€and€we€willÏnot€further€notice€it.Ìà àWith€respect€to€the€appropriateness€of€the€formula€devised€by€the€trial€court€toÏassist€him€in€the€computation€of€a€downward€deviation€both€parties€ceded€wasÏjustified,€our€concern€is€not€so€much€with€the€formulaic€method€fashioned€by€theÏCourt€as€with€its€elements.€€Income€of€the€custodial€parent€is€generally€not€relevant,Ïand€the€reduction€extrapolates€to€160€days€visitation,€rather€than€131.Ìà àBut€if€the€elaborate€formula€so€painstakingly€fashioned€results€in€an€amountÏof€support€that€the€circumstances€and€best€interests€of€the€children€require€we€seeÏno€reason€to€critique€the€mechanics€employed,€keeping€in€mind€thatòò€Tenn.€Comp.€R.Ï&€Regs.óó€1240„2„4.02(6)€provides€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àð ðIn€situations€where€overnight€time€is€divided€more€equally€betweenÍthe€parents,€the€courts€will€have€to€make€a€òòcase„by„case€determinationóóÏas€to€the€appropriate€amount€of€support.ððÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThus€it€is€that€the€fashioned€formula€cannot€be€applied€mechanically,€withoutÏmore.Ìà àœÌÌÌà àThe›€Guidelines€are€required€to€be€applied€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€in€allÏchild€support€cases.€€If€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption,€the€trialÏcourt€must€make€a€specific€finding€that€the€application€of€the€Guidelines€would€beÏunjust€or€inappropriate.€€Any€such€finding€must€state€the€amount€required€by€theÏGuidelines,€and€must€include€a€justification€for€deviation€which€takes€intoÏconsideration€the€best€interests€of€the€children.òò€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.óó€1240„2„4.02(7).Ìà àThe€appellee€has€62.5€percent€more€visitation€[ððco„parenting,ðð€according€toÏthe€decree]€than€the€Guidelines€presume.€€For€reasons€not€entirely€made€clear,€theÏappellant€argues€that€this€percentage€is€insignificant,€thus€obviating€a€deviation.€ÏWe€would€be€hard„pressed€to€agree€with€this€argument€since€a€variance€of€62.5Ïpercent€is€obviously€not€insignificant.€€A€œthreshold›€amount€of€visitation€by€the€non„custodial€parent€required€as€a€condition€precedent€to€a€downward€deviation€has€notÏbeen€established€in€Tennessee.€€Other€states€have€œestablished€an€amount,›€fromÏAlaska€where€visitation€is€30€percent,€to€Maryland€35€percent,€to€Oregon€35€percent,Íto€Virginia€110€days.× ƒ( ××  ×Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€that€she€has€certain€fixed€expenses€whether€theÏchildren€are€with€her€or€elsewhere.€€This€argument€is€also€applicable€to€theÏappellee.€€One€of€the€major€aims€of€the€Guidelines€is€ð ðto€ensure€that€when€parentsÏlive€separately,€the€economic€impact€on€the€children€is€minimized.ðð€€€€€òòTenn.€Comp.€R.Ï&€Regs.óó€1240„2„4.02(2)(e).€€The€appellee€argues€that€if€he€is€required€to€pay€32Ïpercent€of€his€net€income€as€support€for€the€children,€as€appellant€insists,€whileÏhaving€their€custody€62.5€percent€more€often€than€is€presumed€by€the€Guidelines,Ïthe€economic€impact€on€the€children€will€be€substantial,€and€the€appellant€willÏmerely€have€reaped€an€unwarranted€œwindfall.›Ìà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€a€presumption€that€theÏjudgment€is€correct€unless€the€evidence€otherwise€preponderates.€€òòRuleóó€13(d),€òòT.€R.ÏA.€Póó.;€òòœRidings›€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,€óó914€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.€1996).€€œThisÏpresumption›€does€not€apply€to€questions€of€law,€which€are€reviewed€òòde€novo.€ÏœHillsboro›€Plaza€Enter.€v.€Moon,€óó860€œS.W.›€2d€45€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€AsÏheretofore€stated,€the€award€of€$370.00€monthly€is€a€50€percent€downwardÏdeviation€from€the€Guidelines,€and€if€a€formulaic€method€is€justified,€the€deviationÏshould€not€exceed€$126.00.Ìœà àWe€believe€that€it€is€necessary€to:€ÌÓÓà0 à(1)€€à8 àdetermine€the€annual€amount€of€support€under€the€Guidelines:€à0 àà8 àÌà8 àà0 àà0 àÌà8 àà0 àà0 àòò$740.00€per€month€X€12€months€=€$8,880.00,€or€$24.33Íper€dayóóÌÌà0 à(2)€à8 àdetermine€what€proportion€of€that€annual€amount€is€attributableÏto€the€increased€visitation,€any€amount€over€80€days€per€yearÏbeing€considered€excess:€ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àòò51€days€excess€@€$24.33€per€day€=€$1,240.83€per€year,Ïor€$103.40€per€monthóó€€ÌÌà0 à(3)€à8 àreduce€the€Guideline€amount€by€the€amount€attributable€toÏincreased€visitation:€ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àòò$740.00€„€$103.00€=€$637.00óó€ÌÌÌÓÓà àTherefore,€we€find€that€in€this€case€the€amount€of€support€due€shall€beÏreduced€from€$740.00€per€month€to€$637.00€per€month.€›Ìà àThe€judgment€will€be€modified€to€award€the€appellant€œ$637.00›€per€monthÏchild€support€effective€September€23,€1996.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€partiesÏevenly,€and€the€case€is€remanded.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌœHerschel›€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€œJudge›Ìœ›