ÿWPCƒ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% AM‰ U>Ö B)DC= AM€U*Íî÷v~å BcvÓ€ D3S 0X† AOÞÆ- 0Dó D/7 Bf˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ’D“D”U•U–U—U˜U™VšÓ€¤DÒ 3|x¤2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌNovember€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd(0"ÿÿ$££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  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€õAXXdìdÈ7ÑÓ  Ó›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌRUSSELL€HENRY€HASTINGS,€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óMaury€Equity€No.€90„189Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCAROLYN€LOUISE€HASTINGS,€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9603„CH„00128ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appellant.à àò òà àà à)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MAURY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€COLUMBIA,€TENNESSEEÌœßR€#A1-j|Î` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌMark€A.€Free€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àChristopher€L.€DunnÌColumbia,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àColumbia,€Tennessee€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àIN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€õAXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñœó óà@ àò òOPINIONó óòò›ÌœÌà àóóThis€is€a€divorce€case€in€which€the€wife€seeks€payment€of€anÏasserted€arrearage€in€child€support.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€husbandÏhad€paid€child€support€in€accordance€with€the€order€in€effect€at€that€time,Ïand€dismissed€the€petition€for€arrearage.€€We€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€inÏpart€and€remand.Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,€Russell€Hastings€(Husband),€andÏDefendant/Appellant,€Carolyn€Hastings€(Wife),€were€married€in€1977.€ÏHusband€filed€for€divorce€and€an€order€of€temporary€child€support€for€theÏpartiesðð€two€minor€daughters€was€entered€on€May€31,€1990.€The€May€31,Ï1990€order€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€therefore€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€and€DECREED€that€theÏDefendant€only€pay€temporary€child€support€in€the€amount€ofÏ$694.08€per€month€pursuant€to€State€guidelines.€€Pursuant€toÏsaid€guidelines,€Plaintiff€shall€also€pay€thirty„two€percentÏ(32%)€of€any€net€income€he€receives€under€any€quarterly€costÏof€living€bonus€received€from€his€employer,€with€saidÏpayments€to€be€made€as€they€are€received€by€plaintiff.Ìò òÌÓÓó óSubsequently,›€after€trial,€a€final€order€was€entered€on€November€20,€1990,Ïstating€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àCarolyn€Louise€Hastings€is€awarded€custody€and€control€of€theÏpartiesðð€minor€children€subject€to€reasonable€visitationÏprivileges€for€Russell€Henry€Hastings€from€time€to€time€as€theÏparties€may€agree.€€Husband€is€further€ordered€to€continue€toÏpay€Thirty„Two€(32%)€Percent€of€€his€net€income€as€childÍsupport€in€accordance€with€state€guidelines€in€the€sameÏfashion€as€he€has€been€paying€since€the€entry€of€the€temporaryÏorder€of€support€in€this€case.€ÌÌÓÓHusband€continued€to€pay€$694.08€per€month,€plus€32%€of€any€cost€ofÏliving€bonus,€as€stated€in€the€œMay€1990€Order›€of€temporary€support.€€Ìà àIn€œMarch€1995,›€Wife€filed€a€petition€for€an€increase€in€child€support.€ÏWife€asserted€that€she€had€learned€that€Husband€was€making€substantialÏovertime€income€and€was€not€paying€child€support€based€on€the€overtime.€ÏOn€April€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€stating:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIT€IS€HEREBY€ORDERED€that€the€Plaintiff€be€awarded€theÏsum€of€thirty„two€[percent]€(32%)€of€the€Defendantððs€base€netÏincome€of€$3,283.00€per€month€as€child€support.€€The€DefendantÏshall€pay€the€sum€of€$385.00€per€pay€period,€plus€the€Clerk€andÏMasterððs€five„percent€(5%)€commission,€via€wage€assignment.ÌÌà8 àà àIT€IS€FURTHER€ORDERED€that€the€Plaintiff€will€receiveÏthirty„two€[percent]€(32%)€of€all€additional€net€income€of€theÏDefendant,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€overtime€and€bonusÏpay.ÌÌà8 àà àIT€IS€FURTHER€ORDERED€that€the€Defendant€provide€toÏPlaintiff€each€and€every€pay€period,€a€copy€of€his€payroll€stub.ÌÌÓÓœÇÌ›œÌ›à àWife€also€filed€a€petition€for€arrearage€in€child€support€dating€backÏto€May€œ1990,›€œapproximately€the›€date€of€the€initial€temporary€order€ofÏchild€support.€€At€the€hearing€on€Wifeððs€petition,€Wife€asserted€thatÏHusband€œmisled›€her€into€believing€that€he€was€paying€child€support€thatÏreflected€his€overtime€income,€and€that€when€she€asked€him€for€a€pay€stubÏto€confirm€his€income,€he€refused.€€Husband€denied€misleading€Wife€aboutÏhis€overtime€income,€and€stated€that€he€did€not€provide€her€with€a€copy€ofÏhis€pay€stub€because€he€ð ðdidnððt€feel€it€was€any€of€her€business.ððÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€Husbandððs€gross€income€for€the€years€1991Ïthrough€1994€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à1991€„€$57,054.50Ìà à1992€„€$56,097.44Ìà à1993€„€$92,418.84Ìà à1994€„€$104,852.51ÌÌÓÓœWifeððs›€gross€income€during€this€time€period,€excluding€child€support,€was:ÌÓÓà8 à1991€„€$1,092Ìà à1992€„€$7,312Ìà à1993€„€$9,581Ìà à1994€„€$8,678ÌÌÓÓœWife›€also€applied€for€and€received€food€stamps€for€herself€and€the€partiesððÏtwo€daughters.€Ìà àThe€trial€court€examined€the€language€in€the€May€1990€order€ofÏtemporary€child€support€and€the€language€in€the€November€1990€finalÏorder.€€The€trial€judge€noted€that€the€May€1990€order€required€HusbandÏonly€to€pay€a€designated€amount,€$694.08€per€month,€plus€a€percent€of€hisÏnet€income€from€any€cost€of€living€bonus.€€He€concluded€that€this€clearlyÏdid€not€include€Husbandððs€overtime€income.€€The€trial€judge€then€examinedÏthe€language€in€the€œNovember€1990›€order€and€concluded€that€it€ð ðsays€€theÏsame€thing€it€said€in€the€temporary€orderðð€and€did€not€include€overtimeÏincome.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Wifeððs€petition€forÏarrearage€dating€back€to€May€œ1990.›€€œWife›€now€œappeals€the€dismissal€of€herÏpetition€for€arrearage.›€€Ìà àWife€contends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€interpreting€theÏMay€1990€temporary€order€and€the€November€1990€order€to€excludeÏovertime€income.€€Husband€asserts€on€appeal€that€Wifeððs€claim€ofÏarrearage€should€be€barred€by€the€equitable€defense€of€laches€because€sheÏdid€not€file€the€petition€for€arrearage€until€1995.Ìœ›ÌÌà àThe€pertinent€facts€in€this€case€are€undisputed.€€The€interpretationÏof€the€orders€of€the€trial€court€below€is€a€question€of€œlaw.€€Since›€the€issueÍon€appeal€involves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctnessÏattaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€our€review€on€that€issue€is€ò òòòdeÏnovoó óóó.€€ò òòòSee€Carvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àTennesseeððs€child€support€guidelines€provide:ÌÓӜ̛à8 à(3)€Gross€income.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓÓà8 àà àœ(a)›€Gross€income€shall€include€all€income€from€anyÏsource€(before€taxes€and€Ìà àà àother€deductions),€whether€earned€or€unearned,€and€includes€.€.€.Ïthe€following:Ìà àà àwages,€salaries,€.€.€.€overtime€payments.€.€.€.ÌÓ€ÓÌà@ à*€*€œ*Ì›ÌÓÓà8 à(4)€Net€income€is€calculated€by€subtracting€from€gross€incomeÏof€the€obligor€FICA€.€.€.€[and]€the€amount€of€withholding€taxÏdeducted€for€a€single€wage€earner.€.€.€œ.Ì›ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(a)€and€(4).€€ð ðOvertimeÏpayments,ðð€therefore,€would€be€included€in€ð ðnet€incomeðð€unless€the€orderÏof€child€support€states€otherwise.€Ìà àThe€May€31,€1990€order€of€temporary€child€support€specified€thatÏHusband€was€to€pay€œð ð$694.08›€per€month€pursuant€to€œState›€guidelinesðð€plusÏ32%€of€ð ðnet€income€he€receives€under€any€quarterly€cost€of€living€bonus.€.€.Ï.ðð€€The€order€further€specified€that€the€payments€were€ð ðto€be€made€as€theyÏare€received€by€Plaintiff.ðð€€The€May€1990€order,€then,€sets€forth€aÏdesignated€amount€of€money€to€be€paid,€with€the€percentage€from€theÍguidelines€applicable€only€to€income€from€Husbandððs€quarterly€cost€ofÏliving€bonus.€€Although€the€statement€of€designated€payment€amount€isÏfollowed€by€the€phrase€ð ðpursuant€to€œState›€guidelines,ðð€the€order€as€aÏwhole€does€not€appear€to€include€overtime€payments€as€a€basis€forÏHusbandððs€child€support€payments.€€Accordingly,€the€decision€of€the€trialÏcourt€on€œthe€interpretation€of€the›€May€1990€order€is€affirmed.Ìà àThe€November€20,€1990€order€states€that€Husband€is€ordered:ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€to€continue€to€pay€Thirty„Two€(32%)€Percent€of€his€netÏincome€as€child€support€in€accordance€with€state€guidelines€inÏthe€same€fashion€as€he€has€been€paying€since€the€entry€of€theÏtemporary€order€of€support€in€this€case.€ÌÌÓÓà àHusband€argues€that€the€phrase€ð ðin€the€same€fashion€as€he€has€beenÏpaying€since€the€entry€of€the€temporary€order€of€supportðð€€in€the€NovemberÏ1990€order€means€that€Husband€is€œobliged›€to€pay€œonly€$694.08›€per€monthÏplus€32%€of€any€cost€of€living€bonus,€as€stated€expressly€in€the€May€1990Ïorder.€€Such€an€interpretation€is€inconsistent€with€the€direction€in€theÏNovember€1990€order€to€œÌÌÌpay›€œ32%›€ð ðof€his€net€income€.€.€.€in€accordance€with€state€guidelines€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏRather,€the€reference€to€the€May€1990€temporary€order€appears€to€œbe€anÍallusion›€to€the€phrase€ð ðwith€said€payments€to€be€made€as€they€areÏreceived€by€Plaintiff,ðð€that€is,€a€reference€to€the€manner€of€payment.€€AsÏnoted€above,€the€term€ð ðnet€incomeðð€in€the€child€support€guidelinesÏexpressly€includes€overtime€payments.€€Therefore,€the€November€1990Ïorder€directed€Husband€to€pay€32%€of€his€òòò òentireó óóó€net€income,€includingÏovertime€payments.Ìà àHusband€contends€that€Wifeððs€claim€for€arrearage€should€be€barredÏby€the€doctrine€of€laches,€since€Wife€waited€until€1995€to€file€a€petitionÏfor€the€arrearage.€€The€doctrine€of€laches€is€discussed€in€ò òòòArcher€v.ÏArcheró óóó,€907€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€In€that€case,€this€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àLaches€is€based€on€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel€and€isÏonly€applied€where€the€party€invoking€it€has€been€prejudiced€byÏthe€delay.€€œThe›€essence€of€the€defense€is€that€a€party€hasÏunreasonably€and€prejudicially€delayed€the€asserting€of€aÏclaim.€€Whether€the€defense€of€laches€is€applicable€presents€aÏmixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€€The€facts€must€establishÏnegligence€and€unexcusable€delay€on€the€part€of€the€partyÏasserting€a€claim€and€some€resulting€prejudice€or€injury€to€theÏparty€pleading€laches.€€The€resulting€question€of€law€isÏwhether,€in€view€of€the€facts,€it€would€be€inequitable€or€unjustÏto€the€defendant€to€enforce€the€partyððs€right.€€PrejudiceÏincludes€the€loss€of€evidence,€expenditure€of€money,€change€ofÏvalue,€or€a€change€of€a€partyððs€right.€€œÌ›ÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€416€(citations€omitted).€€The€trial€court€did€not€address€this€issue,Ïsince€the€trial€court€held€that€both€the€May€1990€and€the€November€1990Ïorders€excluded€overtime€payments.€€However,€the€record€in€this€caseÍincludes€no€showing€of€prejudice€to€Husband€caused€by€the€delay,€such€as€aÏloss€of€evidence.€€Consequently,€Wifeððs€claim€for€arrearage€in€childÏsupport€is€not€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€laches.€Ìà àIn€sum,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€the€May€31,€1990€orderÏexcludes€overtime€payments€is€affirmed.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€thatÏthe€November€20,€1990€order€excludes€overtime€payments€is€reversed.€ÏHusband€shall€be€required€to€pay€any€arrearage€on€overtime€paymentsÏwhich€were€excluded€from€his€calculation€of€his€child€support€obligationÏfrom€November€20,€1990€to€the€April€œ7,›€1995€order.€€The€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€determination€of€the€amount€of€arrearage€and€anÏappropriate€payment€schedule.Ìœ›œÇ›à àAffirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Appellee,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€€œJ.ó ó›