ÿWPCr …UNV %¤ 0(ªw@Ò4&5 0q= 0D® 0Jò 0T< 0^ 0hî 0rV 0|È 0†D 0Ê 1uZ 0dÏ AM3  € U>ŒB)ÊDCó AM6U*ƒ'­v~ÔvÓR B% D3B 0Xu AOÍÆ 0Dâ D/& BU(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ yzÕ{t€„‡ˆÓ€’DÒ ‹6Ti3|x’(+2½Í$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝòòÓ  Ó€€€€€Ú  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌJuly€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝòòÓ  Ó€€€€€Ú  ÚÚ  Úóó€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€it€is€inappropriate€to€decide€cases€without€taking€evidence€orÏreceiving€stipulations.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€error€was€harmless€as€the€parties€are€in€generalÏagreement€as€to€the€facts.€€ò òòòCompareóóó ó€ò òòòBrooks€v.€Brooksó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9607„CV„00312,€1997ÏWL€83664€(Tenn.€App.€26€Feb.€1997)(remand€a€second€circuit€court€decision€for€an€evidentiaryÏhearing).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€¼ÔÑ7€5XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÞ ÞÌMary€Jane€Bohlen€Dugganà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)à à01„A„01„9611„CV„00535Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœDavidson€CircuitÌßR€!A1-j|‚` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€85D„195ÌFrederick€Louis€Bohlen,€III,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)›Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€œNASHVILLEÌ›ÌÌAPPEAL€FOR€THE€SECOND€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€œTENNESSEEÌ›ÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€W.€KIOUSÌ1535€West€Northfield€BoulevardÌ8€Lincoln€SquareÌMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€37216Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌKATHRYN€G.€BRINTONÌ43€Music€Square€WestÌNashville,€Tennessee€37203Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDÌà@ àIN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÇœà@ àÔ€„ÔòòOÔ€¼ÔPINIONóó›ÌÌÓ€Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€petitioner/appellant,€Mary€Jane€Bohlen€Duggan,€fromÏthe€decision€of€the€trial€court€modifying€the€child€support€obligation€ofÏrespondent/appellee,€Frederick€Louis€Bohlen,€III,€and€interpreting€the€partiesððÏmarital€dissolution€agreement€(ð ðMDAðð)€and€a€later€amendment€to€the€MDA.€€TheÏcourt€concluded€Mr.€Bohlen€was€not€in€contempt€and€required€him€to€payÏ$860.00€per€month€for€the€partiesðð€youngest€child,€$250.00€per€month€for€eachÏchild€over€eighteen€and€under€twenty„two€provided€the€child€is€receiving€aÏpostgraduate€education,€and€one„half€of€the€childrenððs€postgraduate€educationÏexpenses.€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€matter€arose€are€as€follows.ÌÌà àMs.€Duggan€and€Mr.€Bohlen€were€divorced€on€9€May€1985.€€The€finalÏdivorce€decree€included€an€MDA.€€The€parties€had€three€children:€€Jennifer€SueÏBohlen,€born€24€September€1974;€Allyson€Reed€Bohlen,€born€20€January€1977;Ïand€Julie€Kay€Bohlen,€born€18€May€1979.€€The€MDA€awarded€custody€of€theÏchildren€to€Ms.€Duggan€and€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àà à2.€€The€father,€Frederick€Louis€Bohlen,€III,€will€pay€untoÏMary€Jane€Bohlen,€the€total€sum€of€$750.00€.€.€.€per€month€as€childÏsupport€.€.€.€.€The€apportioned€share€to€be€reduced€on€the€eighteenthÏbirthday€of€each€child,€unless€the€child€chooses€to€attend€post€highÏschool€education;€then€the€payments€shall€continue€until€age€22.Ìà8 àà à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà à5.€€Each€party€shall€pay€one„half€of€the€expenses€of€post€highÏschool€education€for€each€of€the€children.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓThe€court€entered€an€agreed€order€on€28€January€1991.€€The€order€provided:€Ïð ðThe€parties€are€further€in€agreement€that€an€increase€in€child€support€shouldÏoccur€and€that€the€monthly€amount€of€child€support€should€be€$1,350.00€.€.€.€.ÏThe€setting€of€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$1,350.00€per€month€comports€withÏthe€child€support€guidelines€promulgated€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€HumanÍServices.ððÌÌà àMs.€Duggan€filed€a€petition€for€contempt€and€an€increase€in€child€supportÏin€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€on€23€October€1995.€€Ms.€DugganÏalleged€Mr.€Bohlen€had€been€late€with€his€monthly€payments,€there€had€been€aÏsubstantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€requiring€an€increase€in€support,Ïand€Mr.€Bohlen€had€not€paid€one„half€of€the€childrenððs€postgraduate€educationÏexpenses.€€Mr.€Bohlen€answered€and€filed€a€counter„petition.€€Mr.€BohlenÏclaimed€the€court€should€reduce€the€monthly€support€because€two€of€the€childrenÏhad€reached€the€age€of€majority.ÌÌà àThe€court€held€a€hearing€on€3€June€1996.€€Instead€of€taking€evidence€andÏhearing€formal€testimony,€the€attorneys€simply€presented€the€facts€to€the€court.œ× ƒ& ××  ×›€ÏThe€court€entered€its€final€order€on€19€June€1996€and€found€there€was€noÏcontempt.€€The€court€also€modified€the€child€support€to€conform€with€the€childÏsupport€guidelines;€thus,€the€court€required€Mr.€Bohlen€to€pay€$860.00€perÏmonth€for€Julie€Kay€Bohlen.€€The€court€determined€the€MDA€contained€aÏcontractual€duty€of€support€which€required€Mr.€Bohlen€to€pay€$250.00€per€monthÏfor€each€child€over€eighteen€and€under€twenty„two€provided€the€child€is€receivingÏa€postgraduate€education.€€Moreover,€the€court€concluded€the€1991€agreed€orderÏdid€not€alter€this€contractual€duty.€€Finally,€the€court€held€Mr.€Bohlen€responsibleÏfor€one„half€of€the€childrenððs€postgraduate€education€expenses€including€tuition,Ïactivity€fees,€graduation€fees,€orientation€fees,€and€reasonable€room€and€boardÏexpenses,€but€not€including€sorority€fees€or€transportation€costs.ÌÌà àMs.€Duggan€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal.š€€On€appeal,€Ms.€DugganÏcontends€the€1991€agreed€order€modified€Mr.€Bohlenððs€contractual€supportÏobligation.€€Mr.€Duggan€disagrees€and€raises€two€issues.€€First,€he€argues€theÏMDA€only€required€he€pay€a€total€of€$750.00€per€month€and€he€should€not€haveÏto€pay€any€additional€support€if€his€statutory€obligation€exceeds€$750.00.€€Second,Ïhe€insists€the€court€erred€when€it€required€him€to€pay€room€and€board€expensesÏas€part€of€the€childrenððs€education€expenses.ÌÌà àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€pursuant€to€Rule€13(d)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Thus,€thœe›€trial€courtððs€factual€findingsÏare€presumed€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€ð ðNoÏsuch€presumption€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.ðð€€òòò òJahn€v.€Jahnóóó ó,Ï932€S.W.2d€939,941€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€There€is€no€doubt€and€the€parties€agreeÏthe€MDA€created€both€a€statutory€and€a€contractual€obligation.€€òòò òSee€Penland€v.ÏPenlandóóó ó,€521€S.W.2d€222,€224€(Tenn.€1975).€€Thus,€the€issues€presented€hereÏinvolve€the€extent€of€these€obligations€and€whether€the€parties€or€the€courtÏmodified€the€obligations.ÌÌà àStatutes€and€regulations€control€the€extent€of€œMr.›€Bohlenððs€statutoryÏobligation€while€the€partiesðð€intentions€control€the€extent€of€his€contractualÏobligation.€€This€court€must€ascertain€the€partiesðð€intentions€and€give€them€effect.€Ïòòò òPerry€v.€Sloanóóó ó,€197€Tenn.€630,€642,€277€S.W.2d€355,€360€(Tenn.€1955).€€ð ðInÏgetting€at€this€intention€we€of€course€do€not€determine€what€the€state€of€the€mindÏwas€of€the€parties€at€the€time€the€contract€was€executed€but€rather€what€theirÏintention€was€as€actually€embodied€and€expressed€in€the€instrument€as€written.ðð€Ïòòò òId.óóó ó€€This€determination€is€a€question€of€law€when€the€language€is€plain€andÍunambiguous.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€361.€The€fact€the€partiesðð€disagree€over€the€interpretation€ofÏa€particular€contract€provision€does€not€create€an€ambiguity.€€òòò òCookevilleÏGynecology€&€Obstetrics,€P.C.€v.€Southeastern€Data€Sys.,€Inc.ó óóó,€884ÏS.W.2d€458,€462€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€ð ðððA€contract€is€ambiguous€only€when€it€isÏof€uncertain€meaning€and€may€fairly€be€understood€in€more€ways€than€one.€€AÏstrained€construction€may€not€be€placed€on€the€language€used€to€find€ambiguityÏwhere€œnone›€exists.ðððð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€(quoting€òòò òFarmers„Peoples€Bank€v.€Clemneróóó ó,€519ÏS.W.2d€801,€805€(Tenn.€1975)).€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€languageÏin€both€the€MDA€and€the€1991€agreed€order€is€unambiguous.€€Although€theÏpartiesðð€interpretations€differ,€the€language€may€fairly€be€understood€in€only€oneÏway.€€ÌÌà àThe€MDA€as€originally€drafted€required€the€following€of€Mr.€œBohlen:›€œÏfirst,›€the€statutory€obligation€required€Mr.€Bohlen€to€make€monthly€child€supportÏpayments€of€œ$750.00€and€second,›€€the€contractual€obligation€required€Mr.€BohlenÏto€continue€paying€the€apportioned€share€applicable€to€a€child,€$250.00,€when€aÏchild€reaches€age€eighteen€and€chooses€to€continue€her€education.€€This€obligationÏcontinues€as€long€as€the€child€is€receiving€a€postgraduate€education€and€is€underÏtwenty„two.ÌÌà àIt€is€Ms.€Dugganððs€contention€that€the€1991€agreed€order€modified€bothÏobligations.€€We€disagree.€€Although€the€term€child€support€as€used€in€the€orderÏcould€refer€to€both€obligations,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€use€of€theÏterm€along€with€references€to€the€child€support€guidelines€indicate€the€orderÏapplied€to€the€statutory€obligation€only.€€Moreover,€the€order€does€not€mentionÏor€refer€to€the€contractual€obligation€or€post„majority€support.€€For€these€reason,Ïit€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€1991€agreed€order€modified€only€theÍstatutory€obligation.€€Because€the€contractual€obligation€was€not€modified,€Mr.ÏBohlenððs€contractual€obligation€remains€the€same.ÌÌà àMr.€Bohlen€argues€the€MDA€œobligates›€him€to€pay€at€most€$750.00,€butÏadmits€the€statutory€obligation€could€exceed€this€amount.€€Mr.€Bohlen€then€assertsÏhe€should€only€have€to€pay€$750.00€if€his€statutory€obligation€exceeds€$750.00.€ÏWe€can€not€agree.€€Mr.€Bohlen€relies€on€the€language€ð ðthe€total€sum€of€$750.00"Ïto€support€his€assertion.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€when€this€phrase€isÏread€in€the€context€of€the€entire€paragraph€it€clearly€refers€to€the€amount€to€beÏpaid€for€all€three€of€the€children,€not€a€maximum€amount€of€support.ÌÌà àThe€MDA€did€not€set€a€support€ceiling,€and€the€1991€agreed€order€did€notÏamend€Mr.€Bohlenððs€contractual€obligation.€€Given€the€clear€language€of€theÏMDA,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€theÏissues€relating€to€Mr.€Bohlenððs€statutory€and€contractual€support€obligations.ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€education€expense€issue.€€We€can€not€agree€with€theÏtrial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€phrase€ð ðexpenses€of€post€high€school€educationðð€asÏused€in€this€case€includes€room€and€board.€€Ms.€Duggan€relies€on€òòò òAcosta€v.ÏAcostaó óóó,€No.€03„A„01„9403„CV„00081,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€433€(Tenn.ÏApp.€8€Aug.€1994),€to€support€her€claim€that€the€expenses€include€room€andÏboard.€€The€facts€of€òòò òAcostaóóó ó€are€distinguishable€from€the€instant€case.€€TheÏobligor€in€òòò òAcostaóóó ó€had€not€entered€into€a€contractual€agreement€to€pay€post„majority€support€or€education€expenses.€€Instead,€the€court€ordered€the€obligor€toÏpay€a€portion€of€his€statutory€child€support€into€an€educational€fund.€€The€courtÏthen€restated€the€trial€courtððs€list€of€those€items€to€be€paid€out€of€the€fund€whichÏincluded€room€and€board.€€In€this€case,€Mr.€Duggan€agreed€in€two€separateÍparagraphs€to€pay€both€post„majority€support€and€education€expenses.€€AfterÏreading€these€two€paragraphs€together,€we€must€conclude€the€phrase€ð ðexpenses€ofÏpost€high€school€educationðð€does€not€include€room€and€board.€€Any€other€readingÏwould€be€redundant.ÌÌà àTherefore,€it€follows€that€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€partÏand€reversed€in€part.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€court€for€any€further€necessaryÏproceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€petitioner/appellant,€Mary€JaneÏBohlen€Duggan,€and€respondent/appellee,€Frederick€Louis€Bohlen,€III.ÌÓỚ̜à àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________ÌÔ€XÔà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€œP.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.Ì