WPCO  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\8w@88 0@f: D3: 0J: 0T#; 0^w; 0h; 0r=< 0|< 0+= 0= 1uA>U,> 0d>U,F?U6r?B)?DC? AM@U*a@,@8A~B$mEv~FvH AOM1N 0DN D/;O BjOV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dZ $(G.2$ FT!   ĆXX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   DDUDӀMARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMSTOPPENBERGEdenfieldFlorianEmmettThayerPonteVedraMcLellan VeyNordquistLanthornfacia NashMulleSuttles Deas("$    GGGG'dxd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  WXYZ[\]^ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 djjjj7Border 1ddQkC << G<  9p`(Arial " F!  #d#`i  mm   YYY FILEDmX June11,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.mAppellateCourtClerk  . F!#d#`i  I$i         ThisorderwasenteredonJanuary25,1994,priortotheeffectivedateoftheamendedguidelines. t F!#d#`i  I$i         T.C.A.365101wasamendedin1994.See1994Tenn.Pub.ActsCh.9873(b).Theamendedversionrequiresafindingof"significantvariance"betweenthestatutoryguidelinesandtheamountofsupportcurrentlyorderedinordertoincreasechildsupport.T.C.A.365101.Becausethiscasewasdecidedpriortotheamendment,wewillevaluatethemodificationunderthe"materialchangeincircumstances"test.  F!#d#`i  I$i         Dr.Edenfieldearned$481,936in1992;$403,312in1991;and$346,185in1990.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco QC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . `&hhXd&#hhXd#i    7XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  j u` Llnk;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONJACQUELINES.EDENFIELDFLORIAN@ ) SULLIVANCOUNTY@ ) 03A019406CV00217 PlaintiffAppellant/ @ )̜ Appellee@ )@ ) HON.ROGERE.THAYER,̜@ )@ JUDGE̛ v. @ ) ̀@ )  @ ) HON.JOHNS.McLELLAN,III,MARKEMMETTEDENFIELD@ ) JUDGE@ )  DefendantAppellee/@ @ )  ̜ Appellant@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDDOUGLASJ.TOPPENBERGOFKNOXVILLEFORJACQUELINEEDENFIELDFLORIANJOHNS.BINGHAMOFKINGSPORTFORMARKEMMETTEDENFIELD    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.7XXdXXd7  JacquelineS.EdenfieldFlorianandherformerhusband,MarkEmmettEdenfield,appealordersenteredintheCircuitCourtforSullivanCounty.Theappealsarisefromtwoseparateproceedingsinvolvingtheirminorchild,whichhavebeenconsolidatedinthisCourt.̀  ThefirstappealaroseafterahearingconductedbyJudgeThayerintheSullivanCountyLawCourtuponMrs.FloriansmotiontorelocatewithherminorchildtotheJacksonville,Florida,areaortoNashville,Tennessee.JudgeThayerdeniedherpetitiontorelocate,butincreasedchildsupport,modifiedDr.EdenfieldsvisitationrightsanddeniedMrs.Floriansrequestforattorneyfees.  Whilethefirstappealwaspending,Mrs.Florianfiledanewpetitionrequestingtorelocatewiththeparties'minorchildtoPonteVedra,Florida,andtomodifyvisitation.JudgeJohnMcLellan,intheSullivanCountyLawCourt,grantedMrs.FlorianspetitiontorelocatewiththechildandmodifiedDr.Edenfieldsvisitationaccordingly.Mrs.Floriansrequestforattorneyfeeswasagaindenied.  ThefollowingisasummaryofthefindingsoffactofbothoftheCourtsbelow.Thepartiesweredivorcedin1986.Theycontinuedtocohabitforfiveyears.OnApril22,1991,theyenteredintoanagreedorderwhichprovidedforjointcustodyoftheparties'minorchild,Nathaniel.Dr.EdenfieldwastohavevisitationwithNathanielthreeweekendspermonth,threeofsixThanksgivings,springbreaks,andthefirsthalfofChristmasbreak.Dr.Edenfieldwasalsotopay$1500permonthinchildsupport,maintainmedicalinsuranceforNathaniel,andpayallnecessarymedical,dental,optical,andprescriptiondrugbills.InAugustof1991,thepartiesseparatedandMrs.FlorianandNathanielmovedfromEdenfieldshomeinKingsporttoKnoxvillewhereMrs.Florianwastoattendnursingschool.  OnOctober21,1992,Mrs.FlorianpetitionedtheTrialCourtseekingmodificationoftheagreedorder.Mrs.Floriansoughtsolecustody,increasedchildsupportandareductioninvisitation.ShelateramendedherpetitiononApril1,1993,askingtheTrialCourttoallowhertoremoveNathanieltoNashville.Attrial,Mrs.FlorianrequestedalternativelythatshebepermittedtoremovethechildtoJacksonville,Florida.Mrs.FlorianhadmarriedJamesFlorianinMayof1993.SheclaimedatthefirsttrialthatneithershenorherhusbandcouldfindsatisfactoryemploymentinKnoxville.  Mr.FlorianholdsaBachelorsdegreeinManagement/HumanResourcesfromEastTennesseeStateUniversity.Atthefirsttrial,therewastestimonythatMr.Florianhadfivejobsintheprecedingfouryears.Attrial,Mr.FloriantestifiedthathehadsentresumestoNashvilleandtoJacksonville,buthadreceivednooffersofemploymentfromeitherlocale.Mrs.FlorianhadbeenalicensedpracticalnursepriortoherpregnancywithNathaniel.Atthetimeofbothtrials,hernursinglicensewasnotactive.However,shetestifiedthatshewouldbeabletoreturntoworkasalicensedpracticalnursewitheitherarefreshercourseinNashvilleorthereactivationofherlicenseinJacksonville.  Atthetimeofthefirsttrial,NathanielwasinfourthgradeatBluegrassElementarySchoolinKnoxville.Therewastestimonythathisgradeshadbeenimproving.Duetohisattentiondeficitdisorder,NathanielwasplacedinaSpecialResourcesProgram,whichwasinadditiontothebasicschoolprogram.Healsospentanadditionalonehoureachdaywithateachertohelphiminsubjectswithwhichhewashavingdifficulty.  Dr.EdenfieldisananesthesiologistinKingsport.Hehas24weeksofpaidvacationperyearand,additionally,therearesomeweeksinwhichheisoncallbutdoesnothavetobeintheofficeunlessthereisanemergency.Hehadexercisedonlysomeofthevisitationopportunitiesgrantedbytheagreedorder.However,throughhisincome,hehadtheabilitytotakeNathanielonmanyvacations,thelikesofwhichMrs.Florianisunabletoafford.Also,duringtimesofvisitationheandNathanielengagedinmanyactivitiestogether.  Atthefirsttrial,Mrs.Floriansexpert,Dr.VeyNordquist,testifiedthatinhisopinionsolecustodyshouldbeawardedtoMrs.FlorianandthatneitheroftheproposedrelocationswouldharmNathaniel.Dr.NordquistalsotestifiedthatMrs.FlorianwantedtophysicallydistanceherselffromDr.Edenfield,whoseexpert,Dr.B.WayneLanthornalsogavetestimonythatMrs.FlorianwantedtogetawayfromDr.Edenfieldandthatneitheroftheproposedmoveswouldbeinthebestinterestofthechild.  Basedonafindingthatthepartiescouldnotcommunicatewellenoughtomakethepresentcustodyarrangementwork,theTrialCourtchangedthepartiescustodyarrangementfromjointtosolecustodyinfavorofMrs.Florian.Dr.Edenfieldsvisitationprivilegesweremodifiedaccordingly.Also,Dr.Edenfield'schildsupportobligationswereincreasedfrom$1750to$2300permonth. o   כTheTrialCourtjustifiedthisincreasebyfindingthattheoriginaldecreeinvisionedequaltimespentwitheachparentandMrs.Florianwastopaytuitionforprivateschooingoutoftheincreasedamount.Mrs.FloriansrequesttoremoveNathanielwasdeniedbecauseneithershenorherhusbandhadobtainedemploymentinNashvilleortheJacksonvillearea.Asalreadynoted,bothpartiesappealedthisorder.  InJuneof1994,Mrs.FlorianagainpetitionedtheTrialCourttoallowhertorelocatewithNathaniel.Afterthefirsthearing,Mr.FlorianacceptedemploymentinPonteVedra,whichpaidtwothirdsmorethanhispriorjobinKnoxville.Mrs.Floriantestifiedthatsheanticipatedshewouldbeabletofindemploymentthereaswell.Mrs.FlorianalsotestifiedthattheschoolsysteminPonteVedrawouldprovebeneficialtoNathanielandwouldhelphimwithhisattentiondeficitdisorder.TherewastestimonythatthefamilywouldhavetheopportunitytoliveinmuchnicerhousingthantheycouldaffordinKnoxville.TherewasalsotestimonytotheeffectthatNathanielwasunhappywiththecurrentvisitationarrangement.  TheTrialCourtfoundthatMrs.Florianwouldhaveanincreasedopportunitytoreactivatehernursinglicenseand,thereafter,heremploymentopportunitieswouldbemoreversatile.TheTrialJudgealsofoundthatthemovewouldbeinthebestinterestandwelfareofNathanielandthathewouldbebenefitedbyhavingahappier,moreadjustedparent.Thereafter,theTrialJudgegrantedMrs.FloriansmotiontoremoveNathanieltoPonteVedra,modifiedDr.EdenfieldsvisitationrightsanddeniedMrs.Floriansrequestforattorneyfees.Asalreadynoted,bothpartiesalsoappealedthisorder.̀  Dr.EdenfieldarguesthatJudgeMcLellanerredbyallowingMrs.FloriantoremoveNathanieltoFlorida.Hearguesthattherewasnotasufficientshowingofchangedcircumstancesbetweenthefirstandsecondtrialsandthattheoutcomeofthefirstproceeding,whichdeniedMrs.Floriansmotiontoremove,isresjudicata.However,theTrialJudgefoundthatthefactthatMr.FlorianhadfoundemploymentinPonteVedraintheinterimperiodwasachangeincircumstances.  AsisstatedinTaylorv.Taylor,849S.W.2d319(Tenn.1993),theburdenofproofisuponMrs.Florian,astheϜpetitioningparty,toshowthatremovalfromthejurisdictionisinthechildsbestinterest.Thatburdenisshifteduponaprimafaciashowingofagoodfaithreasonforthemoveandthatthemoveisconsistentwiththechildsbestinterest.Oncetheburdenisshifted,Dr.EdenfieldmustshowbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatremovalisadversetothebestinterestofNathaniel.However,"themotivesofthecustodialparentinmakingthemovemustappeartobevalid,thatis,notintendedtodefeatordetervisitationbythenoncustodialparent."  TherewasproofattrialthatMr.FlorianhadbeenunsuccessfulinfindingsatisfactoryemploymentintheKnoxvillearea.Therecordshowsthatpriortothesecondproceeding,Mr.FloriansecuredemploymentinPonteVedra,which,asalreadynoted,offeredatwothirdsincreaseincompensationfromwhathewasmakinginKnoxville.Mrs.FloriantestifiedthatshewouldhavethepotentialtomakemoremoneyinFloridaandwouldbeabletogetpreferentialworkschedules.Inlightofthisevidence,weagreewiththeTrialCourtthatMrs.FlorianofferedagoodfaithreasonforthemoveandmadeasufficientshowingthatthemovewouldbeinNathanielsbestinterest.SuchashowingbyMrs.FlorianissufficienttocarryherburdenofproofunderTaylor.  Thus,theburdenisshiftedtoDr.EdenfieldtoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthemoveisnotinNathanielsbestinterest.Dr.EdenfielddoesnotassertthatthemovewouldbeadversetothebestinterestofthechildasisrequiredundertheTaylorscheme.Instead,Dr.Edenfieldarguesthatthechangeincircumstanceswas"created"bytheFlorians.Therefore,themotiontoremoveshouldbedisallowed.Here,therewasevidencethatwouldshowthattheFlorianssoughttorelocateinordertofindbetteremploymentopportunities,betterhousing,andbettereducationalopportunities.AlloftheseaspectsoftherelocationwouldenuretothebenefitofNathanielandtheTrialJudgesofound.WithoutmakingafindingastowhethertheFlorianscreatedthechangeincircumstances,Dr.EdenfieldhasnotmethisburdenunderTaylorunlessitisprovedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthemovewillnotbeinNathanielsbestinterest.Byfailingtoshowthatthemovewouldnotbeinthebestinterestofthechild,Dr.EdenfieldhasfailedtocarryhisburdenunderTaylor.Thus,weaffirmJudgeMcLellansfindingsonthisissue.  Next,Dr.Edenfieldappealsthedecisiontoincreasechildsupport,arguingthatJudgeThayererredinincreasingtheamountofchildsupportfrom$1750to$2300.However,Mrs.FlorianassertsthattheTrialCourtinthefirsthearingerredinorderinganincreaseinDr.Edenfieldschildsupportobligationsonlyupto$2300.Mrs.Florianhasindicatedthroughheraffidavitthatsheneeds$3235forNathanielssupport.  Beforeatrialcourtmayincreasechildsupportitmustfindthattherehasbeenasubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstancesthatoccurredsincethedateoftheoriginalorder.T.C.A.365101(a)(1)(1993). p   ׀Dr.EdenfieldarguesthattheTrialJudgeerredinfindingthatasubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstanceshadbeenshown.However,theTrialJudgestatedthatthefactthatcustodyhadbeenchangedfromjointcustodytosolecustodyinfavorofMrs.FlorianwasasignificantchangeincircumstancesbecausetheoriginalordercontemplatedthatthetimespentwithNathanielwouldbesplitequally.  Dr.FloriancorrectlypointsoutthattheoriginalorderprovidedthatNathanielshouldresideprimarilywithhismotherratherthatasplitcustodyarrangement.However,allpriorcustodyagreementsbetweenthepartiesprovidedfor"joint"custodyandthe1993proceeding,fromwhichDr.Edenfieldappeals,changesthatarrangementfromjointcustodytosolecustodyinMrs.Florian.Pursuanttothechangefromjointtosolecustody,theTrialJudgedecreasedDr.Edenfieldsvisitationrights.TheTrialCourtfoundthistobesufficienttofindachangeincircumstances.  WeagreethatthechangeofcustodyfromjointcustodytosolecustodyinfavorofMrs.Florianwasachangeofcircumstanceswhichwassufficientlymaterialtowarrantachangeinthesupportamount.TheTrialJudgefoundthatthefirstdecreeenvisionedarelationshipinwhichcustodywouldbesharedequallybetweenDr.EdenfieldandMrs.Florian.Bythetimeofthefirsttrialthiswasnolongerthecase.Also,theincreaseincludedNathaniel'sprivateschooltuition.TheTrialJudgefoundtheretobeasufficientmaterialchangeincircumstances,andweaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtonthisissue.  Mrs.Florian,ontheotherhand,arguesthatJudgeThayererredbyincreasingDr.Edenfieldssupportobligationsbyonly$550permonth.Mrs.Floriannotesthatthe$2300awardedbyJudgeThayerrepresentslessthansixpercentofDr.Edenfieldsmonthlyincome. q   כMrs.FloriancitesustotheTennesseeChildSupportGuidelinescontainedinTenn.Comp.R.AndRegs.Ch.124024.Theguidelinesprovidethatforonechild,21percentofthenoncustodialparentsnetincomeshouldbedevotedtosupport.Tenn.Comp.R.AndRegs.Ch.124024.03(5).̛  InNashv.Mulle,846S.W.2d803(Tenn.1993),theSupremeCourtaddressedtheappropriateapplicationoftheGuidelineswhenthenoncustodialparentsincomeexceeds$6250.There,theCourtstatedthattheGuidelinespermitanawardofgreaterthan21percentof$6250withoutaspecificshowingofneedbythecustodialparent.TheCourtstatedthatthetrialCourtshouldhavethediscretiontomakeadeterminationofasupportawardwhenthenoncustodialparentsmonthlyincomeexceeds$6250.Suchisthepresentcase.Mrs.FlorianhasnotpointedtoanyabuseofdiscretionbyJudgeThayer.AstheCourtϜstatedinNashv.Mulle,"Twentyonepercentofanenormousmonthlyincomemayprovidefarmoremoneythanmostreasonable,wealthyparentswouldallotforthesupportofonechild."  Mrs.FlorianappealsJudgeMcLellanschangeofvisitation.AftergrantingMrs.FloriansrequesttoremoveNathanieltoFlorida,JudgeMcLellanmodifiedDr.EdenfieldsvisitationrightstoaccountfortheincreasedgeographicseparationandtoinsureanongoingrelationshipbetweenDr.Edenfieldandhisson.Mrs.FlorianarguesthatthevisitationorderedbyJudgeMcLellanwasinappropriateandexcessive.  Thedetailsofvisitationarewithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.Edwardsv.Edwards,501S.W.2d283(Tenn.App.1973).Thedecisionofthetrialcourtregardingvisitationwillnotbedisturbedunlessthereisanabuseofdiscretion.Suttlesv.Suttles,748S.W.2d427(Tenn.1988);Grantv.Grant,39Tenn.App.539,286S.W.2d349(1954)."[R]emovalofthechildfromthejurisdictionmayrequirereschedulingofthenoncustodialparentsvisitation."Taylor,supra.Mrs.FlorianpointstonoclearabuseofdiscretionoftheTrialJudge.Therefore,wearenotpersuadedtoreversethefindingsoftheTrialJudge.  Finally,Mrs.FlorianchargesthattheTrialJudgeinthefirstproceedingerredbyfailingtoawardMrs.FlorianattorneyfeesandcostsafterheawardedhersolecustodyofNathanielandincreasedDr.Edenfieldssupportobligation.ItishercontentionthatTennesseecaselawdictatesthatacustodialparentisentitledtoattorneysfeesandcostsforrepresentationinacustodymodificationproceeding.  AttorneyfeesincustodyandsupportcasesareauthorizedbystatuteinTennessee.T.C.A.365103(c).SeealsoDeasv.Deas,774S.W.2d167(Tenn.1989).However,thestatutealsodirectsthatthedecisiontograntsuchanawardlieswithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt."Intheawardingofattorneysfeesincustodycases,thetrialcourtisgivenwidediscretionandthisCourtwillnotinterfereintheexerciseofthatdiscretionintheabsenceofaclearshowingofabuse."Salisburyv.Salisbury,657S.W.2d761(Tenn.App.1983);Grant,supra.Mrs.FlorianhasfailedtoshowanyabuseofdiscretiononbehalfoftheTrialCourt.Therefore,weaffirmtheTrialCourtontheissueofattorneyfeesandcosts.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentsoftheTrialCourtsareaffirmedandthecausesremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessaryandcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalfagainstMrs.FlorianandonehalfagainstDr.Edenfield.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.