ÿWPCu …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ w@ 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1u¨ U, 0dI U,­ U>Ù B)DC@ AMƒU*Ðõúv~ï BmvÓŠ D3] 0@ AOÐÆ 0Då D/) BX˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡nnG 3|x‡ u vPw xPy£z£{|Ó€†‡2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ëÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMarch€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌJANET€K.€FLORENCE,ó óà à)à àCoffee€County€Chancery€Court€Ìà à)à àNo.€85„272Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€01A01„9507„CH„00283Ìà à)ÌÙ€€Ùò òßL€!# ;+'h|ÿo` ç `€€LßDAVID€G.€FLORENCE,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Coffee€County€at€Manchester.Ìò òHonorable€John€W.€Rollins,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òH.€Thomas€Parsonsó ó,ÌPARSONS,€NICHOLS€&€JOHNSON,€Manchester,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òAlbert€F.€Moore,€ó óÌNEAL€&€HARWELL,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òWILLIAMS,€Sp.€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` Ü` p”X Óà àThis€is€a€modification€of€child€support€case€involving€a€noncustodial€parent€whoseÏnet€monthly€income€exceeds€$6,250.€€Appellant,€Janet€K.€Florence,€and€Appellee,€David€G.ÏFlorence,€are€the€parents€of€four€daughters€who€were€ages€17,€15,€13€and€10€at€the€time€of€trial.€ÏThe€final€divorce€decree,€entered€in€November€1993,€awarded€custody€of€the€children€to€Ms.ÏFlorence€and€ordered€Dr.€Florence€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$2,500€per€month.€€InÏApril€1994,€Ms.€Florence€filed€a€petition€to€increase€the€support€as€"commensurate€with€the€DHSÏGuidelines€of€45%€of€[Dr.€Florence's]€earnings."€€She€also€requested€an€award€of€attorney's€fees.€ÏDr.€Florence€answered€and€asserted,€òòò òinter€aliaóóó ó,€the€inapplicability€of€the€guidelines€in€light€of€theÏsupreme€court's€decision€in€òòò òNash€v.€Mulleóóó ó,€846€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€matter€wasÏheard€on€November€10,€1994€with€the€trial€court€concluding€that€Dr.€Florence's€child€supportÏobligation€should€be€increased€to€$3,600€per€month.€€Of€that€amount,€$1,600€was€to€be€paidÏdirectly€to€Ms.€Florence,€with€the€remaining€balance€deposited€into€an€educational€trust€fund€for€theÏchildren's€benefit.€€An€order€was€entered€relative€thereto€on€February€2,€1995.€€By€separate€order,Ïthe€court€awarded€Ms.€Florence€one„half€of€her€attorney's€fees€in€the€amount€of€$2,187.50.ÌÌà àThe€court€made€the€following€findings€of€fact:ÌÌÓ#` Ü` hp”X#ÓÓÓà8 àà àThe€evidence€.€.€.€established€that€[Dr.€Florence]€voluntarilyÏincreased€the€child€support€payment€a€small€amount€after€entry€of€theÏFinal€Decree€of€Divorce€and€the€parties€worked€out€someÏarrangements€between€themselves€for€[Ms.€Florence]€to€reimburseÏ[Dr.€Florence]€$100.00€per€month€for€coverage€under€his€medicalÏinsurance€policy.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€the€Court€finds€that€there€has€been€a€significant€increaseÏin€the€income€of€.€.€.€[Dr.€Florence],€since€the€entry€of€the€FinalÏDecree€of€Divorce€and€in€1993,€Dr.€Florence€had€an€adjusted€grossÏincome€of€$137,504.00.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€Dr.€Florence's€management€of€his€personal€financialÍaffairs€has€been€nothing€short€of€disastrous,€leaving€a€significantÏdebt€to€the€IRS€as€well€as€to€the€educational€trust€fund€that€assistedÏhim€in€obtaining€his€medical€degree.€€There€was€no€proof€presentedÏat€trial€that€the€needs€of€the€parties'€minor€daughters,€.€.€.€were€notÏbeing€met€by€both€parents€and€in€fact€it€appeared€that€Dr.€FlorenceÏhas€been€somewhat€indulgent€of€his€children€in€vacations,Ïautomobiles€and€spending€money.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€[Ms.€Florence],€is€an€honors€college€graduate€with€aÏbachelor€of€science€degree€and€is€a€licensed€registered€nurse€in€theÏstates€of€Tennessee€and€Missouri,€who€has€since€the€entry€of€theÏFinal€Decree€of€Divorce€been€consistently€underemployed,€workingÏpart„time€at€a€high€school,€playing€the€piano€at€church,€and€workingÏless€than€part„time€in€recent€years€as€a€home€health€nurse.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€€The€parties€in€the€instant€case,€disregarding€priorÏorders€of€the€Court,€have€made€their€own€allocations€of€the€fundsÏheretofore€decreed€as€child€support€with€the€net€effect€that€Janet€KayÏFlorence€is€receiving€the€sum€of€approximately€$1,473.00€perÏmonth,€which€is€considerably€less€than€the€$2,500.00€per€monthÏpreviously€decreed€by€the€Court.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€reasoned€the€foregoing€amount€of€child€support€appropriate€when€"[c]onsidering€theÏdirectives€of€our€Appellate€Courts€in€matters€concerning€incomes€in€excess€of€guideline€figures€andÏlooking€at€this€case€on€its€individual€merits,€.€.€.€[including]€the€current€perilous€financial€conditionÏof€[Dr.€Florence],€most€of€which€is€his€own€making,€.€.€.€.€"€€ÌÌà àAppellant€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Did€the€Trial€Court€err€in€allotting€a€large€portion€of€theÏappropriate€guideline€percentage€of€the€first€$6,250€of€obligor'sÏmonthly€net€income€to€a€trust€fund?ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Did€the€Trial€Court€err€in€failing€to€apply€the€appropriateÏguideline€percentage€to€obligor's€entire€monthly€income€in€settingÏchild€support?ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Did€the€Trial€Court€err€in€failing€to€make€written€findingsÏwhen€he€deviates€from€the€guidelines'€presumptive€percentage€ofÏboth€the€first€$6,250€and€the€balance€of€obligor's€net€monthlyÏincome?ÌÌà8 àà à4.€€The€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€when€he€failed€toÏorder€the€respondent/non„custodial€parent€to€pay€the€petitioner'sÏattorney€fees€in€full.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€parties€do€not€dispute€the€underlying€facts€of€this€case,€but€merely€question€theÏapplicability€of€the€child€support€guidelines.€€Appellant€first€argues€that€under€the€guidelines,€46%Ïof€the€first€$6,250€of€Dr.€Florence's€net€monthly€income€must€be€awarded€directly€to€her,€absent€aÏwritten€finding€justifying€any€deviation.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€deviated€from€the€guidelines€whenÏawarding€only€$1,600€of€the€requisite€percentage€of€the€first€$6,250€to€her,€but€failed€to€justifyÏsuch€deviation€with€a€written€finding.€€She€further€contends€that€allotting€any€portion€of€theÏrequisite€percentage€of€the€first€$6,250€of€Dr.€Florence's€net€monthly€income€into€a€trust€fund€is€aÏdeviation€from€the€guidelines€which€must€be€accompanied€by€a€written€finding.€€Appellee€countersÏthat€in€cases€involving€an€obligor€parent€whose€net€monthly€income€exceeds€$6,250,€the€guidelinesÏdo€not€apply€and€the€trial€court€is€to€determine€an€appropriate€and€equitable€amount€of€support€on€aÏ"case„by„case€basis."€€Appellee€reasons€that€since€the€guidelines€do€not€apply€to€that€level€ofÏincome,€there€is€no€deviation€therefrom€and€thus,€no€requirement€for€a€written€finding.€ÌÌà àMs.€Florence€additionally€points€out€to€the€court,€and€correctly€so,€that€theÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€has,€since€the€hearing€on€this€matter,€amended€the€child€supportÏguidelines€to€read:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€court€must€order€child€support€based€upon€theÏappropriate€percentage€of€all€net€income€of€the€obligor€as€definedÏaccording€to€1240„2„4„.03€of€this€rule€but€alternative€paymentÏarrangements€may€be€made€for€the€award€from€that€portion€of€netÏincome€which€exceeds€$6,250.€€When€the€net€income€of€the€obligorÏexceeds€$6,250€per€month,€the€court€may€establish€educational€orÏother€trust€funds€for€the€benefit€of€the€child(ren)€or€make€otherÏprovisions€in€the€child(ren)'s€best€interest;€however,€all€of€theÏsupport€award€amount€based€on€net€income€up€through€$6,250€mustÏbe€paid€to€the€custodial€parent.ÌÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Comp.€R.€and€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.04(3).€€In€light€of€the€amendment,€which€becameÏeffective€December€14,€1994,€Appellant€requests€this€Court€to€remand€with€instructions€that€theÍtrial€court€apply€the€amended€guidelines€or€alternatively,€she€requests€this€Court€to€consider€theÏnew€guidelines€"as€a€tool€in€interpreting€the€former€guidelines."ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€issues€raised€pertaining€to€child€support€are€readily€resolved€byÏapplication€of€the€current€regulations.€€Although€the€new€guidelines€were€not€in€effect€at€the€time€ofÏthe€hearing€on€this€matter,€nor€were€they€raised€at€any€time€at€the€trial€level,€they€were€effectiveÏprior€to€the€trial€court's€entry€of€its€final€judgment.€€We,€therefore,€find€that€their€application€isÏwarranted.€ÌÌà àThis€case€is€procedurally€analogous€to€òòò òFleming€v.€Flemingóóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„9504„CV„00178€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.€19,€1995),€wherein€the€court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€aÏcustodial€parent€could€claim€the€benefit€of€changes€in€the€child€support€guidelines€that€becameÏeffective€after€a€trial€on€the€petition€for€increase€in€support,€but€prior€to€entry€of€the€trial€court'sÏfinal€order.€€There,€the€appellant€custodial€parent€had€argued€that€if€the€appellate€court€affirmed€theÏtrial€court's€decision,€she€would€simply€file€a€new€petition€for€modification,€necessitatingÏapplication€of€the€new€guidelines.€€Indeed,€Ms.€Florence€alludes€to€this€fact€in€her€appellate€brief€asÏwell.€€òòò òFlemingó óóó€remanded€the€cause€in€the€interests€of€"judicial€economy."€€We,€likewise,Ïconclude€that€this€matter€should€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€consideration€of€the€newÏregulations.€€The€parties€are€to€be€allowed€to€present€new€or€additional€evidence€relating€thereto.€ÌÌà àAs€to€the€issue€of€attorney's€fees,€the€trial€court€awarded€Ms.€Florence€one„half€ofÏthose€she€incurred€or€$2,187.50.€€The€awarding€of€attorney's€fees€in€matters€of€child€custody€andÏsupport€is,€by€statute,€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„103(c);€òòò òDeas€v.ÏDeasóóó ó,€774€S.W.2d€167,€169€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€general€rule€is€that€such€fees€incurred€on€behalfÏof€minors,€are€recoverable€"when€shown€to€be€reasonable€and€appropriate."€€òòò òDeasóóó ó,€774€S.W.2d€atÏ169.€€There€is,€however,€no€absolute€right€to€recover€such€fees.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€170.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€Ms.€Florence's€contention€that€she€should€be€awarded€the€entire€amount€of€herÏattorney's€fees.€€She€cites€òòò òMcCarty€v.€McCartyóóó ó,€863€S.W.2d€716€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€whereinÏthis€Court€held€that€the€wife,€who€had€petitioned€for€an€increase€in€child€support€after€husband'sÏpetition€for€termination€of€his€alimony€obligations,€was€entitled€to€an€award€of€reasonableÏattorney's€fees.€€òòò òMcCartyóóó ó,€863€S.W.2d€€at€722.€€òòò òMcCartyóóó ó€reasoned€that€"[wife]€should€not€haveÏto€pay€the€cost€of€defending€her€entitlement€to€alimony€and€asserting€her€child's€right€to€increasedÏsupport€payments€out€of€her€employment€income€which,€when€combined€with€the€supportÏpayments,€still€does€not€provide€the€standard€of€living€to€which€she€was€accustomed€during€theÏparties'€marriage."€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€The€wife€in€òòò òMcCartyóóó ó€worked€as€a€full„time€pharmacist€earningÏapproximately€$43,000€annually.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€720.€€As€found€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case,€Ms.ÏFlorence€has€been€"consistently€underemployed."€€Thus,€if€Ms.€Florence€enjoys€a€differentÏstandard€of€living€than€that€to€which€she€was€accustomed€during€the€marriage,€it€is€to€some€extentÏof€her€own€making.€€Also,€unlike€the€trial€court€in€òòò òMcCartyóóó ó,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€has,€in€itsÏdiscretion,€seen€fit€to€award€Ms.€Florence€one„half€of€her€attorney's€fees€as€reasonable.€€"WhereÏthe€services€of€a€parent's€attorney€inures€to€the€benefit€of€a€minor€child€or€children,€the€award€ofÏreasonable€attorney's€fees€is€in€order."€€òòò òDalton€v.€Daltonóóó ó,€858€S.W.2d€324,€327€(Tenn.€App.Ï1993).€€We€find€the€award€of€one„half€of€Wife's€attorney's€fees€in€this€case€reasonable€andÏconclude€that€there€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part€and€remandedÏwith€instructions€to€the€trial€court€to€consider€the€current€child€support€guidelines.€€Costs€areÏassessed€equally€against€Janet€K.€Florence€and€David€G.€Florence,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à___________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAMS,€Sp.€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` Ü` ˜XÓ