ÿWPC ‹Š{ER„Íhâþ\X\]ÔÌÓÆÂ£Eþ=í4š¦ôƒ@q­AÛIk8TÖŠÊE†bPýýqE¶F`ÝÆµ;Ï€ñ¯“d¸f a+^çb&“„v»~òÑCãÃ`áéøîq1–'©ìš· ê S$¼2þS ìaÐ_>dùïÙµ%DïßÃBí™4å†3G™»¯ë¯öýÛ¼ÞùuÎÍ} WväßràœôòïO,/ b¢Q|åŠý‚TO ˆ(Û×¾¸ØºÖqú…¨ÃÕ—÷E!¼D F¤âZåyäYŸíÕRý\gŠiQÿQ@or§@f¿LÜ'À‹o–°äâ6mçŸt¼õçQ€y™ÇbíŸCá»—^‘dÐ]èHßpã4#fžôÞ‚D$ÕUÂÀB·ç2§ƒ^O’º³Òc­A³ Å1le‹pä÷qþ;g꾌P°ÇGiK¨|w¹ØRPcä\æ6ŠW›6¶ÄU[fÁ„pÎE¶Õ%›™Y±ûG0ž¾KYˆúV®'-Ì€Byz¾KËë!Z£ˆÏ«øDX·ÅbnFÍdŸÁöEîrB=èôW”Zà\Þ|ö9p¢nô­J}„µÜ¡FÑå  iéY”[‚Ì-.~áçJ5`ê¢ãÎh`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T U:Ž 0PÈ  U:— 0¹Ñ 0cŠ í lUNrUNÀ AQ_U:aUN››››››› BéÆ 0DÌÌ 0D D/TT Bƒ D3                                            0DÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ A D?– BGÕ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ •–D—D˜U›œUžDŸÓ€©s~Á&tttttt3|x©waiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô uÝ ƒÉ$ÝÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X$å XXXÔÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€XfBX X X$åÔ"[A]€significant€variance€shall€be€at€least€15%€if€the€current€support€is€one€hundredÐ ° Ðdollars€($100.00)€or€greater€per€month."€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€r.€1240-2-4-.02(3)Ï(1994).€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(i(2V$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XtáXXXÔÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("t¼$Ô‡ X“ÿXXXØ‚ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó uÝ ƒÉ$ÝÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XT—XXXÔÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Xf`XX XT—Ô"[A]€significant€variance€shall€be€at€least€15%€if€the€current€support€is€one€hundredÐ ° Ðdollars€($100.00)€or€greater€per€month."€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€r.€1240-2-4-.02(3)Ï(1994).€H(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ øÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XtáXXXÔÔ€PuXXtáÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XtáXPuÔÐ  ÐÌJune€11,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼,V¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœÓ'€Ð‡XDè“X°œX'Óñ©ññŸñßr€)<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñŸññ©ññ©ññ©ñKATHERINE€THERESA€DeVAULT,à D à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà D à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚XD˜‘X€Ð‡XDè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à D à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà D à)à  à01„A„01„9806„CV„00270Ð à0 Ðñ©ñßt€)>.*jx]` `€€@ELõ ` 8ttxP„- ( È tßñ©ñv.à Ø àà D à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà D à)à  àDavidson€CircuitÐ  P ÐJAMES€CANON€DeVAULT,€JR.,€à D à)à  àNo.€93D„3363Ð  ` Ðà Ø àà D à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à D à)à  àÐ 0 € Ðà Ø àà D à)ÌÌÌÔ#†X†X¼¼,V8#ÔÔ‡»¬U»XX†ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ pÀ  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€ÌDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHSVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚XD˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓLEW€CONNERÌJAMES€H.€DRESCHERÌStokers€&€Bartholomew,€P.A.Ì424€Church€Street,€Suite€2800€€ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ÌÔ#†X†X»»¬UÖ#ÔÔ‡¼,V¼XX†Ôà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÐ À'#! ÐÌÌKARLA€C.€HEWITTÌHatchett€&€HewittÌ211€Donelson€Pike,€Suite€4ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37214Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌAND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌÌñŸñÑ foÑÑ7€†XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñŸñÌñŸñÑ foÑÑ7€†XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñŸñà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:0639 ÐÑ foÑÑ7€†XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñŸñÑ foÑÑ7€f`XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñŸñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X†X¼¼,Vú#ÔÔ‡°q°XX†ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X†X°°qº #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼,V¼XX†Ôà  àThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€over€child€support€for€the€parties'€twoÐ T¤ Ðminor€children.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Father's€petition€to€modify€the€supportÏas€it€had€been€set€in€the€final€decree.€€In€addition,€the€court€placed€a€lien€on€twoÏof€the€Father's€properties€and€awarded€fees€to€the€Mother's€attorney.€€On€appeal,Ïwe€affirm€the€court's€decision€with€regard€to€child€support€and€attorney€fees.€ÏHowever,€regarding€the€lien,€we€modify€the€trial€court's€decision€such€that€a€lienÏremains€on€only€one€of€the€Father's€properties.€€Accordingly,€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.Ð ¬ü Ðó óÌÓ1Óà  àJames€Canon€DeVault,€Jr.€("the€Father")€and€Katherine€Theresa€DeVaultÏ("the€Mother")€were€divorced€by€final€decree€filed€April€13,€1995.€€The€finalÏdecree€ordered€that€custody€of€the€parties'€two€children,€twin€boys,€be€joint€andÏthat€the€Mother€be€the€primary€physical€custodian.€€With€regard€to€child€support,Ïthe€court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓ€ÓÌà8  àThe€court€finds€this€an€appropriate€situation€in€which€toÏdeviate€from€the€Guidelines€with€regard€to€child€support.€ÏBoth€parents€have€their€own€successful€businesses.€€Each€hasÏthe€ability€to€earn€a€substantial€income€for€the€support€ofÏthemselves€and€the€support€of€their€children.€€From€[theÏFather's]€testimony€he€is€not€working€like€he€has€in€the€past,Ïbut€the€Court€senses€that€he€is€going€to€start€up.€€[The€Father]Ïis€currently€underemployed.€€Child€support€is€hereby€set€atÏ$800.00€per€month.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ÌÓÌà  àBoth€parties€appealed€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€variousÏissues€one€of€the€Father's€being€the€award€of€$800€per€month€in€child€support.€ÏThe€court€of€appeals€found€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€from€which€theÏtrial€court€could€have€determined€that€the€Father€was€underemployed€andÏremanded€the€cause€for€determination€of€child€support.€€ÌÓ€Óà8  àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏin€favor€of€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€defendant€isÏunderemployed.€€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àñ—ñà ¼ àñ—ññ˜ñÐ194; Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àñ˜ñThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€as€to€child€support€is€reversedÏand€remanded.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€shall€hear€evidenceÏon€the€amount€of€the€defendant's€income€as€defined€in€theÏguidelines€and€determine€the€correct€net€income€amount.€ÏThereafter,€the€court€shall€enter€an€order€requiring€defendantÏto€pay€child€support€equal€to€thirty„two€percent€of€this€netÏincome€as€required€by€the€guidelines.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ZÓÌòòDeVault€v.€DeVaultóó,€No.€01-A-01-9601-CV00012,€1996€WL€482968,€at€*7€(Tenn.Ð ¸   ÐApp.€1996).€€The€Father€did€not€pursue€this€issue€on€remand€to€the€trial€court.€ÏInstead,€he€paid€$800€per€month€in€child€support€pursuant€to€the€final€decree€forÏover€a€year€until€the€time€that€he€filed€this€petition€to€modify.ÌÌà  àOn€November€4,€1997,€the€Father€initiated€the€instant€proceedings€byÏfiling€a€petition€to€modify€which€alleged€that€he€had€experienced€a€"drasticÏdecrease€in€income"€since€the€time€of€the€final€decree.€€He€asserted€that€he€wasÏemployed€in€the€same€capacity€as€he€had€been,€a€free€lance€photographer.€ÏHowever,€he€claimed€that€by€no€voluntary€action€of€his€own,€he€had€earnedÏapproximately€$12,000€in€1997€and€that€"he€desperately€need[ed]€a€reduction€inÏchild€support€payments€for€a€period€of€approximately€twelve€months."€€ÌÌà  àAt€the€March€26,€1998€hearing,€the€Mother€offered€no€evidence€and€theÏFather's€only€witnesses€were€himself,€his€current€wife€and€his€accountant.€€TheÏFather€testified€that€he€is€a€self„employed€professional€photographer€doingÏbusiness€as€DeVault€Photography.€€The€Father€claimed€that€as€of€1997,€he€couldÏno€longer€pay€his€living€expenses€plus€child€support€without€borrowing€from€hisÏparents,€credit€card€companies€and€mortgage€companies.€€He€testified€that€hisÏincome€had€been€reduced€due€to€various€factors€within€the€industry€though€he€hadÏtaken€numerous€steps€to€increase€his€business.€€He€presented€a€written€statementÏindicating€that€his€gross€income€through€November€30,€1997€was€$45,766€but€hisÏnet€was€only€$9,475.€€The€Father€offered€no€evidence€of€his€gross€income€from€hisÏphotography€business€for€December€1997€nor€did€he€offer€any€financialÏinformation€for€the€first€three€months€of€1998€prior€to€the€trial.€ÌÌà  àThe€Father's€other€source€of€income€is€a€piece€of€property€with€sevenÏrental€units.€€He€presented€a€written€statement€for€this€rental€property€whichÐ À84? Ðitemized€the€income€and€expenses€for€1997€through€November€30,€1997.€€TheÏstatement€showed€an€almost€$500€loss.€€The€Father€claimed€that€this€propertyÏrequired€significant€expenses€and€that,€due€to€an€unusual€amount€of€refurbishingÏin€1997,€it€was€showing€this€loss.€€ÌÌà  àAt€the€hearing€when€asked€what€property€he€owned,€the€FatherÏanswered,€"I€own€the€apartment€building€with€my€wife€Pamela€and€we€own€ourÏown€home."€€However,€the€Father€indicated€that€he€was€solely€responsible€for€theÏdebt€on€the€apartment€building.€€He€testified€that€he€owed€in€excess€of€$340,000Ïto€creditors.€€He€stated€that,€other€than€sharing€financial€responsibility€for€hisÏhome€with€his€current€wife,€he€was€solely€responsible€for€all€this€debt.€€HeÏtestified€that€his€home€was€worth€approximately€$200,000€with€a€mortgage€ofÏ$125,000€and€his€rental€property€was€worth€$300,000€with€a€mortgage€balance€ofÏ$116,000.€€The€Father€did€acknowledge€that€he€had€spent€money€fixing€up€hisÏhouse€as€recently€as€December€1997.€€ÌÌà  àThe€Father's€final€witness€was€Jim€Harper,€a€certified€public€accountantÏwho€had€kept€the€Father's€books€since€the€late€1970's.€€He€testified€that€he€hadÏprepared€the€written€statement€showing€a€$9,475.20€net€income€for€DeVaultÏPhotography€as€of€November€1997€as€well€as€the€statement€showing€a€$489.25Ïloss€for€the€Father's€rental€property.€€He€stated€that€the€Father€had€given€him€theÏcheck€stubs€and€bank€statements€and€receipts€and€he€had€categorized€them.€€TheÏcourt€clarified€that€the€accountant€was€not€guaranteeing€the€truth€of€theÏinformation€upon€which€he€was€relying.€€Later,€when€the€Father's€attorney€askedÏthe€witness€if€he€believed€that€the€information€given€to€him€by€the€Father€wasÏtruthful,€the€Mother's€attorney€objected.€€The€trial€judge€sustained€the€objection.Ìò òÌÓ?€ü(€ ¼Q@’X°,X°4ì“X?Óà  àó óFollowing€the€hearing,€the€court€issued€a€final€order:€€"The€petition€toÐ µ/+6 Ðmodify€child€support€is€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€canÏbe€granted€and€due€to€the€failure€of€the€petitioner€to€establish€facts€upon€which€thisÏ[c]ourt€would€be€empowered€to€reduce€said€support."€€The€court€found€that€theÏcurrent€amount€of€child€support€was€consistent€with€a€gross€income€ofÏapproximately€$40,000€per€year€which€is€consistent€with€the€amount€the€Father€isÏable€to€earn.€€The€court€further€found€that€the€Father€owns€certain€valuable€assetsÐ E9•4B Ðthat€can€be€used€to€secure€his€obligation€to€pay€child€support€including€equity€inÏhis€home€and€rental€property.€€The€court€thus€placed€liens€on€both€pieces€ofÏproperty€and€ordered€that€they€remain€until€the€children€reach€the€age€of€majority.€ÏFinally,€the€court€ordered€the€Father€to€pay€the€Mother's€attorney€the€sum€of€$2500Ïfor€the€attorney€fees€and€expenses€and€the€court€ordered€the€Father€to€pay€courtÏcosts.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÐ Ø(  ÐÌÓL'Óà  àInitially,€we€point€out€that€this€was€not€a€dismissal€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏRule€of€Civil€Procedure€12.02(6)€for€the€failure€to€state€a€claim€for€relief.€€TheÏpurpose€of€this€rule€is€to€test€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€and€it€isÏconsequently€based€upon€the€pleadings€alone.€€òòMerriman€v.€Smithóó,€599€S.W.2dÐ Í Ð548,€560€(Tenn.€App.€1979);€òòJacox€v.€Memphis€City€Bd.€of€Ed.óó,€604€S.W.2d€872,Ð eµ Ð873€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€Both€in€its€final€order€and€in€its€ruling€from€the€bench,Ïthe€trial€court€used€language€indicative€of€Rule€12.02(6).€€However,€the€court'sÏorder€followed€a€hearing€during€which€the€Father€presented€proof€to€support€hisÏpetition€for€modification.€€In€addition€to€the€Rule€12.02(6)€language,€the€courtÏstated€in€the€final€order€that€the€dismissal€was€"due€to€the€failure€of€the€petitionerÏto€establish€facts€upon€which€this€Court€would€be€empowered€to€reduce€saidÏsupport."€€Moreover,€from€the€bench,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€"[t]here€was€veryÏlittle€proof€today.€€A€lot€talked€about€but€nothing€really€that€would€substantiate€aÏpetition€to€reduce€the€child€support€as€set."€€It€is€clear€that€the€court€misused€theÏ12.02(6)€language€and€that€its€decision€was€based€upon€its€review€of€the€evidenceÏproduced€at€the€hearing.€ÌÌà  àTurning€to€the€substantive€issue€of€child€support,€these€decisions€areÏentrusted€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€which€is€guided€by€the€child€supportÏguidelines€promulgated€by€the€Department€of€Human€Services€pursuant€to€theÏTennessee€code.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(e)(2)€(Supp.1994).€€The€guidelinesÏapply€to€modifications€of€support€as€well€as€to€the€original€decrees.€€òòSee€Jones€v.Ð }4Í/< ÐJonesóó,€870€S.W.2d€281,€282€(Tenn.€1994).€€Appellate€review€of€child€supportÐ 6e1> Ðdecisions€is€in€accordance€with€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure.€€Thus,€we€afford€the€trial€court's€factual€findings€a€presumption€ofÐ E9•4B Ðcorrectness€but€do€not€extend€that€presumption€to€the€trial€court's€legalÏconstruction€of€the€guidelines.€€òòTurner€v.€Turneróó,€No.€01A01„9506„CV„00255,Ð H˜ Ð1997€WL€136448,€at€*6€(Tenn.€App.€1997).ÌÌà  àWith€regard€to€child€support€modification,€the€code€provides€that€"uponÏapplication€of€either€party,€the€court€shall€decree€an€increase€or€decrease€of€suchÏallowance€when€there€is€found€to€be€a€significant€variance,€as€defined€in€the€childÏsupport€guidelinesñ›ñ׃×ñ›ññ›ñ׃×ñ›ñÝ ƒt¼ÝÔ€¼Ï}¼¼¼ŒmÔÔ€ ¼ý ¼¼¼Ï}ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô€¼Œm¼ ¼ ¼ýÔestablished€by€subsection€(e),€between€the€guidelines€and€theÐ Ø(  Ðamount€of€support€currently€ordered€unless€the€variance€has€resulted€from€aÏpreviously€court-ordered€deviation€from€the€guidelines€and€the€circumstancesÏwhich€caused€the€deviation€have€not€changed."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(a)(1)Ï(Supp.€1998).€€The€guidelines€state€that€a€variance€justifies€"the€modification€ofÏa€child€support€order€unless,€in€situations€where€a€downward€modification€isÏsought,€the€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€or€underemployed."€ÏTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.€r.€1240„2„4„.02(3)€(1994).€€ÌÌà  àTo€reiterate,€the€court€found€in€its€final€decree€that€the€Father€wasÏunderemployed.€€The€court€then€set€support€at€$800€per€month€without€making€aÏdetermination€as€to€the€Father's€potential€income€as€required€by€the€guidelines.€Ð `!°$ ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€r.€1240-2-4-.03(3)(d)€(1994);€òòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,Ð ø"H& Ð944€S.W.2d€379,€387€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€The€court€of€appeals€reversed€the€trialÏcourt€both€as€to€the€finding€that€the€Father€was€underemployed€and€as€to€theÏamount€of€child€support€stating€that€"it€is€impossible€to€make€the€determinationsÏnecessary€to€deviate€from€the€guidelines€based€on€the€information€in€the€record€ofÏthis€case."€€òòDeVault€v.€DeVaultóó,€No.€01A01-9601-CV„00012,€1996€WL€482968,Ð ð*@&0 Ðat€*6€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€This€court€remanded€the€case€for€the€trial€court€to€hearÏevidence€on€the€amount€of€the€Father's€income.€€However,€the€Father€did€not€seekÏrelief€on€remand.€€Instead,€he€paid€$800€per€month€for€over€a€year€until€he€filedÏthe€instant€petition€to€modify.€ÌÌñœñÐ €4Ð/< Ðñœñà  àIn€the€instant€proceeding,€the€court€noted€from€the€bench€that€childÏsupport€as€set€by€the€final€decree€"does€reflect€approximately€$40,000€a€year"€inÏincome€which€was€"pretty€much€in€keeping€with€[the€Father's]€ability€to€earn."€ÏLikewise,€in€its€final€order,€the€court€stated€"[c]hild€support€as€currently€set€isÏconsistent€with€a€gross€income€of€approximately€$40,000€per€year€and€that€amountÏis€consistent€with€[the€Father's]€ability€to€earn."€€It€is€clear€that€the€trial€court'sÏfinding€with€regard€to€the€$40,000€figure€was€based€upon€the€$800€per€monthÏchild€support€that€it€had€set€in€the€final€decree;€in€other€words,€the€trial€court'sÏreasoning€was€that€$40,000€is€the€amount€of€income€that€corresponds€to€an€$800Ïmonthly€child€support€award€such€that€if€child€support€was€set€at€$800€a€monthÏthen€the€Father€must€have€been€able€to€make€$40,000€per€year.€€It€was€necessaryÏfor€the€trial€court€in€this€case€to€engage€in€such€reverse€reasoning€since€it€hadÏfailed€to€make€a€factual€determination€of€the€Father's€income€at€the€time€of€theÏfinal€decree€and€since€the€Father€had€failed€to€obtain€such€a€determination€fromÏthe€trial€court€once€the€court's€initial€error€was€reversed€and€remanded.ÌÌà  àOn€appeal€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€Father€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€failing€to€determine€his€current€income€based€upon€the€proof€presented€at€trialÏas€required€by€the€child€support€guidelines.€€He€claims€that€the€court€based€itsÏaward€on€the€Father's€earning€potential€rather€than€his€actual€income.€€It€is€theÏFather's€position€that€the€court€erred€by€basing€the€award€upon€earning€potentialÏwhen€it€never€found€that€the€Father€was€voluntarily€unemployed€orÏunderemployed€as€required€by€the€Guidelines.€€The€Father€also€contends€that€sinceÏthe€trial€court€never€ascertained€the€Father's€current€income,€it€never€reached€theÏpoint€where€it€could€make€a€"significant€variance"€determination.ÌÌà  àWe€find€that€the€court's€ruling€was€a€based€upon€its€finding€that€theÏFather€failed€to€show€his€income€was€less€than€it€was€at€the€time€of€the€originalÏsupport€order€and€thus€failed€to€show€a€significant€variance.€€In€both€the€benchÏruling€and€the€final€order,€the€court€expressed€its€opinion€that€the€Father€had€theÐ è28.: Ðòòabilityóó€to€earn€more€income€than€he€was€showing.€€The€court's€conclusion€seemedÐ €4Ð/< Ðto€be€based€upon€its€finding€that€the€Father€was€manipulating€his€deductions€toÏshow€a€much€smaller€net€income€than€he€actually€was€receiving.€€During€theÏhearing€the€court€commented€to€the€Father,€"your€testimony€now€is€that€you€can'tÐ H9˜4B Ðcommand€that€income€[that€you€previously€enjoyed],€so€how€do€you€pay€yourÏexpenses?€€It€doesn't€jive.€€In€other€words,€the€same€story€today€that€you€had€lastÏtime€you€came€in€here,€manipulation€of€expenses,€so€you€want€to€try€to€explainÏthat?"ÌÌà  àWe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€court'sÏfinding€that€the€Father€failed€to€show€he€was€making€less€than€$40,000.€€ThereÏwas€evidence€that€the€Father€had€put€money€into€renovating€his€rental€property€inÏ1997€and€into€fixing€up€his€own€home€as€recently€as€December€of€1997.€€TheÏcourt€noted€that€the€Father€obviously€had€the€"wherewithal"€for€such€expendituresÏand€that€"maybe€that€should€be€dealt€with€by€scaling€it€down€instead€of€trying€toÏscale€down€his€child€support."€€Furthermore,€the€Father€presented€scanty€evidenceÏon€his€own€behalf.€€He€only€presented€income€and€expense€figures€for€1997Ïthrough€November€of€1997€despite€the€fact€that€the€hearing€was€held€in€March€ofÏ1998.€€He€did€not€enter€into€evidence€any€tax€returns€but€only€written€statementsÏcreated€by€his€accountant€showing€net€business€income€from€DeVaultÏPhotography€and€net€loss€from€the€rental€property.ÌÌà  àAs€stated,€the€trial€court€determined€the€$40,000€figure€representing€theÏFather's€potential€income€from€the€monthly€amount€of€child€support,€$800,€as€setÏby€the€final€decree.€€The€guidelines€provide€that€"[i]f€an€obligor€is€willfully€andÏvoluntarily€unemployed€or€underemployed,€child€support€shall€be€calculated€basedÏon€a€determination€of€potential€income,€as€evidenced€by€educational€level€and/orÏprevious€work€experience."€€Tenn.€€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€r.€1240-2-4-.03(3)(d)Ï(1994).€€It€is€clear€from€the€previous€reversal€of€the€$800€amount€on€appeal€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€properly€make€this€determination.€€However,€the€FatherÏfailed€to€pursue€the€relief€that€was€available€to€him€after€this€court€reversed€theÏfinal€decree.€€His€only€relief€now€is€to€show€a€significant€variance€from€theÏ$40,000€by€showing€that€he€is€making€15%€less€than€$40,000.€€The€Father€has€notÏcarried€his€burden€of€proof€with€regard€to€showing€a€significant€variance€and€thusÏhe€is€not€due€a€modification€of€ññchild€supportñññžñalimonyñžñ.€€òòSee€McCarty€v.€McCartyóó,€863Ð €4Ð/< ÐS.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(establishing€that€the€party€seekingÏmodification€in€alimony€or€child€support€has€the€burden€of€proof€under€the€priorÏstandard€of€"substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances").€€Ð H9˜4B ЇÓ  Óò òIII.Ð ° Ðó óÌÓíLÓà  àThe€Father€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏawarding€the€Mother€a€lien€against€all€of€the€Father's€real€property.€ò ò€ó óThe€courtÐ u Å Ðimposed€a€lien€against€both€the€Father's€home€as€well€as€his€rental€property€"inÏorder€to€secure€[the€Father's]€obligations€to€pay€child€support."€Section€36„5„103Ïof€the€code€authorizes€the€imposition€of€such€liens€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€court€may€enforce€its€orders€and€decrees€by€sequesteringÏthe€rents€and€profits€of€the€real€estate€of€the€obligor€againstÏwhom€such€order€or€decree€was€issued,€if€such€obligor€hasÏany,€and€such€obligor's€personal€estate€and€choses€in€action,Ïand€by€appointing€a€receiver€thereof,€and€from€time€to€timeÏcausing€the€same€to€be€applied€to€the€use€of€the€obligee€andÏthe€children,€or€by€such€other€lawful€means€the€court€deemsÏnecessary€to€assure€compliance€with€its€orders,€including,€butÏnot€limited€to,€the€imposition€of€a€lien€against€the€real€andÏpersonal€property€of€the€obligor.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÉNÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-103(a)(2)(Supp.€1998).€€ÌÌà  àWhile€we€find€that€the€trial€court's€decision€to€impose€a€lien€was€withinÏits€discretion,€we€agree€with€the€Father€that€an€abuse€of€discretion€exists€in€theÏcourt's€decision€to€encumber€both€of€the€Father's€pieces€of€real€property€with€liens.€ÏAccording€to€the€Father's€proof,€the€two€Ô% € Ôproperties€had€a€combined€equity€ofÏ$260,000.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€the€twin€boys€were€nine€years€old.€€Assuming€childÏsupport€remains€fixed€at€$800€per€month,€this€amounts€to€$9,600€per€year€whichÏtotals€approximately€$86,000€in€child€support€by€the€time€the€children€reach€theÏage€of€majority.€€We€find€that€$260,000€worth€of€property€is€an€excessive€amountÏwith€which€to€secure€a€projected€$86,000€obligation.€€We€therefore€modify€theÏtrial€court's€ruling€such€that€a€lien€remains€only€upon€the€Father's€rental€propertyÏwhich,€representing€$185,000€in€equity,€should€adequately€secure€the€Father'sÏchild€support€obligation.ò òÐ C0“+3 Ðó óÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÐ s3Ã.7 ÐÓVUÓÌà  àIn€his€next€issue,€the€Father€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏexcluding€testimony€from€Jim€Harper€relating€to€the€truthfulness€of€the€Father'sÏfinancial€records.€€When€asked€how€he€arrived€at€the€figures€representing€theÐ Ð9 5? ÐFather's€income,€Mr.€Harper€testified€that€the€Father€"gave€[him]€the€check€stubsÏand€some€bank€statements€and€receipts€to€indicate€what€the€income€items€andÏexpense€items€were€and€[he]€just€categorized€them."€€The€trial€judge€then€askedÏMr.€Harper,€"[s]o€you're€not€guaranteeing€the€reliability€of€these?€€Only€you€saidÏyou€did€these€from€the€information€supplied€by€your€client?"€€Mr.€HarperÏresponded€that€this€was€correct€but€later€he€answered€that€he€had€no€reason€toÏbelieve€the€information€was€incomplete.€€When€asked€whether€Mr.€Harper€felt€thatÏthe€information€was€truthful,€the€Mother's€attorney€objected€saying€that€thisÏquestion€called€for€an€opinion.€€The€court€sustained€the€objection€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àWell,€you€know,€he€can€tell€he's€truthful,€but€this€is€ofÏabsolutely€no€advantage€to€me€because,€you€know,€he's€theÏaccountant€and€it's€not€an€audited€thing.€€He's€going€to€justÏrely€and€make€a€list€and€maybe€file€the€tax€return€based€solelyÏon€the€representation€made€by€his€client.€€That's€all€he€canÏtestify€because€he's€not€guaranteeing€it.€€Ó€]YÓÐ  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Father€argues€on€appeal€that€the€court€took€a€role€in€cross„¼examining€Mr.€Harper€by€noting€that€he€relied€on€a€statement€which€was€notÏaudited€and€that€this€called€into€question€the€credibility€of€the€Father.€€It€is€theÏFather's€position€that€the€court's€questions€imposed€a€duty€upon€the€Father'sÏcounsel€to€present€information€as€to€the€Father's€truthfulness€pursuant€to€RuleÏ608(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€We€disagree€finding€that€the€court'sÏline€of€questioning€did€not€effect€an€"attack"€on€the€Father's€character€forÏtruthfulness.€€The€court€was€merely€clarifying€the€source€of€the€specific€financialÏinformation€upon€which€Mr.€Harper€relied€to€form€his€testimony.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓV.Ð x+È&/ ÐÌÓÄ]Óó óà  àIn€the€Father's€final€issue,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€itsÐ ¢.ò)3 Ðaward€of€attorney€fees€to€the€Mother.€€The€Father€argues€that€there€is€no€statutoryÏauthority€for€an€award€of€attorney€fees€in€this€case.€€The€code€provides€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,Ïand€ò òthe€spouse€or€other€person€to€whom€the€custody€of€theÐ z4Ê/: Ðchild,€or€children,€is€awarded€may€recover€from€the€otherÏspouse€reasonable€attorney€fees€incurred€in€enforcing€anyÏdecree€for€alimony€and/or€child€supportó ó,€or€in€regard€to€anyÐ ª7ú2= Ðsuit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudication€of€the€custody€or€theÏchange€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€of€the€parties,Ð Î95? Ðboth€upon€the€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequentÏhearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixed€and€allowed€by€the€court,Ïbefore€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€theÏdiscretion€of€such€court.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€_ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-103(c)€(Supp.1998)€(emphasis€added).€€The€FatherÏsubmits€that€this€section€in€inapplicable€to€the€instant€case€as€it€only€authorizesÏfees€incurred€in€enforcing€a€decree€and€enforcing€a€decree€for€child€support€doesÏnot€include€defending€an€award€of€child€support.€€The€Mother€filed€an€answer€toÏthe€Father's€petition€to€modify;€however,€she€did€not€counter„petition€to€enforceÏthe€decree.€€It€is€the€Father's€position€that€the€purpose€of€this€statute€was€to€awardÏattorney€fees€to€those€litigants€who€were€required€to€come€into€court€purelyÏbecause€the€obligor€parent€was€not€meeting€his€or€her€support€obligation.ÌÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€Father's€interpretation€of€section€36-5-103(c)€Ïfinding€that€this€statute€encompasses€the€attorney€fees€incurred€by€a€custodialÏparent€in€defending€the€obligor€parent's€unsuccessful€suit€to€decrease€attorney€fees.€Ï€In€a€similar€factual€situation,€this€court€has€stated€that€"[i]t€is€well€established€thatÏa€non-custodial€parent€may€be€held€liable€for€legal€expenses€incurred€by€theÏcustodial€parent€in€protecting€the€right€of€children€to€support."€€òòBeck€v.€Beckóó,€No.Ð P  ! Ð01A01-9710-CV-00547,€1998€WL€136130,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€1998)€(upholdingÏaward€of€attorney€fees€to€custodial€mother€in€her€defense€against€the€father'sÏattempts€to€reduce€child€support);€òòsee€also€Lindberg€v.€Lindbergóó,€No.Ð %h ' Ð02A01-9407-CV-00169,€1995€WL€607557€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(upholding€the€trialÏcourt's€award€of€partial€attorney€fees€to€the€custodial€parent€when€the€non„¼custodial€parent€petitioned€for€a€decrease€in€child€support).ÌÌà  àThe€Father€also€contends€that€the€court€abused€its€discretion€in€makingÏthis€particular€award.€€The€courts€have€wide€discretion€in€awarding€attorney€fees,Ïand€this€court€will€not€interfere€in€the€exercise€of€that€discretion€in€the€absence€ofÏa€clear€showing€of€abuse.€€òòSalisbury€v.€Salisburyóó,€657€S.W.2d€761,€770€(Tenn.Ð Ø1(-7 ÐApp.€1983).€€The€trial€court's€award€with€regard€to€attorney€fees€need€only€be€justÏand€equitable€under€the€circumstances.€€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€785Ð 5X0; Ð(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€Mother's€attorney€submitted€an€affidavit€showing€hisÏtotal€fees€and€expenses€to€be€$5426.81€and€there€was€neither€proof€nor€allegationÏthat€this€figure€was€inaccurate.€€The€court€ordered€the€Father€to€pay€to€theÐ Ð9 5A ÐMother's€attorney€$2500€of€these€fees€and€expenses.€€We€find€that€the€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€awarding€the€Mother's€attorney€one€half€of€the€fees€andÏexpenses€that€were€incurred€in€representing€the€Mother.ÌÌà  àFinally,€we€address€the€Mother's€request€that€she€be€awarded€her€feesÏand€expenses€incurred€on€appeal.€€In€light€of€our€conclusion€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€not€have€placed€a€lien€on€both€of€the€Father's€properties,€we€do€not€findÏthat€the€Father€has€pursued€an€unnecessary€appeal.€€Since€the€Father's€appeal€wasÏ"partially€successful,"€òòsee€Young€v.€Youngóó,€971€S.W.2d€386,€393€(Tenn.€App.Ð pÀ  Ð1997),€we€deny€the€Mother's€request€for€an€award€of€her€attorney€fees€and€costsÏon€appeal.€€òòSee€Ford€v.€Fordóó,€No.€01A01-9611-CV-00536,€1998€WL€730201,€atÐ  ð Ð*6€(Tenn.€App.€1998)€(denying€the€mother/appellee€attorney€fees€and€costs€onÏappeal€where€the€father/appellant€was€partially€successful€in€his€appeal).ÌÌÓ  ÓVI.ÌÓboÓÌà  àIn€conclusion,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€to€disallow€aÏdecrease€in€child€support.€€While€we€agree€with€the€court's€decision€that€theÏFather's€support€obligation€be€secured€by€a€lien,€we€find€that€the€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€encumbering€both€the€Father's€home€and€rental€property€for€thisÏpurpose.€€Accordingly,€we€modify€the€court's€decision€such€that€a€lien€remainsÏonly€upon€the€rental€property.€€The€trial€court's€decisions€with€regard€to€theÏtestimony€of€the€witness,€Mr.€Harper,€and€with€regard€to€the€award€of€attorneyÏfees€are€affirmed.€€Finally,€the€Mother's€request€for€fees€on€appeal€is€denied.ÌÌÌÓ€ÓÓB€ü(€ ÀQ@’X€ü(€ ¼Q@’XBÓà  àà À à_______________________________________Ìà  àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌñ–ñññÌñññ–ñCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌPATRICIA€ñ“ññ’ñAñ’ññ“ññ”ñJñ”ñ.€COñ•ñTTRELL,€JUDGEñ•ñœÔ†ÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô