ÿWPCü  …# VUNa %¯ 0˜µU<M w@‰ 4É Ý ì UDô 0Ü8 0D 0JX 0T¢ 0^ö 0hT 0r¼ 0|. 0†ª 00 1uÀ 0d5U>™B)×DC AMCU*Žº.Hv~vvÓô D3Ç 0@ú B: AOWƦ 0Dl D/° Bß ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(püƒ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman 1E23E4U5U6D7U8î9:Ó€©U!-„°ÒÑT3|xE8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP Regular(Œ(3`d$¤¤Ý ƒüƒ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ16,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔT.C.A.€24„7„112€(a)(1)€(Supp.€1995).€€ò òTests€to€determine€parentage€„„ÏAdmissibility€in€evidence€„„€Costs.€€„„ó ó€(a)(1)€In€the€trial€court€of€any€civil€orÏcriminal€proceeding€in€which€the€question€of€parentage€arises,€the€court€beforeÏwhom€the€matter€may€be€brought,€upon€the€motion€of€either€party€ò òat€theÏinitial€appearanceó ó,€shall€order€that€all€necessary€parties€submit€to€any€tests€andÏcomparisons€which€have€been€developed€and€adapted€for€purposes€ofÏestablishing€or€disproving€parentage.€(Emphasis€added).€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒKKKK'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€%XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€$&#;+'h|` à. `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òRONALD€HITE,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreenÏLaw€No.€4298NJÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï03A01„9511„CV„00410ÌÌò òCANDY€HITE,ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUITÏCOURT€AT€GREENEVILLEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€BENÏK.€WEXLER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àFrancis€X.€Santore,€Jr.,ÏSantore€and€SantoreÌà@ àof€Greeneville,€For€AppelleeÌÌà@ àRoger€A.€Woolsey€ofÏGreeneville,Ìà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌó óÌÑ  ÑÓÓ›à àThis€case€involves€a€petition€for€increase€of€child€support.€€Respondent,ÏRonald€Hite€(Father),€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€awarding€an€increaseÏin€child€support€and€other€relief€to€petitioner,€Candy€Hite€(Mother).Ìà àMother€filed€a€petition€to€increase€child€support€in€February,€1993.€€TheÏpetition,€as€amended,€alleges€that€the€parties€were€divorced€by€decree€filedÏNovember€9,€1977,€and€that€by€order€entered€January€20,€1982,€Father€wasÏordered€to€pay€$40.00€per€week€child€support.€€The€petition€avers€that€thereÍhas€been€a€substantial€material€change€in€circumstances€which€warrants€aÏmodification€of€the€order€for€child€support€and€seeks€an€increase€to€an€amountÏequal€to€twenty„one€percent€of€the€monthly€income€of€Father€as€provided€byÏthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services€Child€Support€Guidelines.Ìà àAlthough€not€part€of€the€record,€it€appears€from€other€parts€of€theÏtechnical€record€and€the€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€Father€filed€aÏresponse€that€admitted€he€was€paying€child€support€and€had€been€paying€itÏsince€the€date€of€the€1982€order,€but€denies€that€he€is€the€father€of€the€child.€ÏFather€also€apparently€filed€a€counter„petition€seeking€a€blood€test€to€determineÏthat€he€is€not€the€father€of€the€child.€€An€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€JulyÏ30,€1994.€€The€pertinent€facts€developed€from€this€hearing€and€the€technicalÏrecord€are€as€follows.Ìà àIn€1977,€the€Father€filed€a€Complaint€for€divorce€from€Mother,€and€theÏparties€were€divorced€on€May€4,€1977.€€Fatherððs€complaint€alleged€that€the€childÏwas€not€his€and€alleged€that€Mother€had€admitted€to€him€that€the€child€was€notÏhis.€€Father€requested€blood€tests€at€that€time,€but€the€court€denied€FatherððsÏrequest€based€on€the€fact€that€he€could€present€no€evidence€which€would€callÏthe€Motherððs€fidelity€into€question.€€The€court€apparently€decided€that€the€childÍwas€Fatherððs€child,€because€the€divorce€decree€states€that€ð ðone€child€has€beenÏborn€of€this€marriage,€namely€Matthew€Hite,€and€that€custody€of€this€childÏshould€be€awarded€to€counter€plaintiff€(mother).ðð€€No€child€support€wasÏordered€in€the€final€decree.€€Father€claims€that€he€agreed€to€the€divorce€becauseÏno€child€support€was€awarded.Ì€€à àThe€parties€continued€to€live€together€for€about€three€years€after€theÏdivorce€so€Mother€did€not€request€child€support€during€that€time.€€However,Ïthe€parties€eventually€separated€for€good€and,€in€October€1981,€MotherÏpetitioned€the€court€for€child€support.€€In€his€answer,€Father€once€again€claimedÏthat€he€was€not€the€father€and€requested€a€blood€test.€€The€court€recited€theÏ1977€divorce€decree€to€establish€that€the€child€was€born€of€the€marriage€andÏawarded€$40.00€per€week€in€child€support.€€Father€has€paid€that€amount€since.Ìà àIn€the€July€30,€1994€evidentiary€hearing,€Mother€admitted€for€the€firstÏtime€that€she€had€not€been€faithful€during€the€term€of€the€partiesðð€marriage,Ïand€that€she€had€sexual€relations€with€two€different€men€prior€to€the€time€ofÏthe€childððs€birth,€but€did€not€know€the€precise€dates€or€the€number€of€sexualÏencounters.€€Motherððs€sister€testified€at€the€hearing€that€the€childððsÏgrandmother€said€that€the€child€belonged€to€another€man.€€The€sister€furtherÍtestified€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€respond€when€she€was€asked€whom€the€fatherÏwas.€€Mother€also€admitted€that€she€lives€in€Virginia€and€does€not€have€physicalÏcustody€of€the€child,€and€that€the€child€has€lived€with€his€maternal€grandmotherÏfor€his€entire€life.€€Although€the€grandmother€takes€care€of€the€child,€MotherÏhas€legal€custody€and€provides€for€the€support€and€maintenance€of€the€child€andÏuses€the€payments€received€from€Father.€€Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€Opinion€filed€September€6,€1994,€states:€€ð ðIt€wouldÏappear€that€with€these€two€prior€Judgments€that€this€question€of€parentage€hasÏbeen€answered€several€years€ago;€but€it€might€be€said€this€is€the€first€time€theÏhusband€[Father]€has€requested€a€blood€test€to€determine€parentage.ðð€€RelyingÏon€T.C.A.Ô€ Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô24„7„112× ƒ' ××  ×,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€request€for€a€blood€test€wasÏnot€made€at€the€initial€court€appearance€and€was€not€brought€within€aÏreasonable€time.€€The€trial€court,€therefore,€denied€the€defendantððs€request€for€aÏblood€test€and€dismissed€the€counter„petition.€€The€trial€court€then€ordered€anÍincrease€in€child€support€payments€from€$40.00€per€week€to€$125.00€per€week,Ïwhich€is€twenty„one€percent€of€Fatherððs€net€income,€as€required€by€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Human€Services€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€Tenn.ÏComp.€R.€&€Regs.€tit.€10,€ch.€1240„2„4„.01€òòet€seq.€óó(1989,€revised€1994).€€The€trialÏcourt€made€the€increase€effective€January€1,€1994€and€ordered€Father€to€payÏ$3,643.50€in€back€support.€€The€trial€court€also€awarded€$900.00€in€attorneyððsÏfees€to€Mother.Ìà àFather€has€appealed€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€consideration:€Ï(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€Fatherððs€counter„petition€forÏa€blood€test€in€view€of€all€the€facts€and€evidence€in€the€case,€particularly€in€lightÏof€the€fact€that€Mother€had€committed€adultery€with€two€different€men€duringÏher€marriage€to€Father;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€Father€toÏpay€child€support€when€Mother€did€not€have€physical€custody€of€the€child;€(3)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€increasing€Fatherððs€child€support€obligation€andÏrequiring€Father€to€pay€a€child€support€arrearage;€and€finally€(4)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€requiring€Father€to€pay€Motherððs€attorneyððs€fees.€Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€reviewÏthe€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÍfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Ìà àMother€asserts€that€the€issue€of€parentage€and€the€legitimacy€of€the€childÏisòò€res€judicataóó.€€She€argues€that€a€blood€test€should€not€be€allowed€because€theÏissue€of€parentage€has€already€been€decided€in€a€court€of€competentÏjurisdiction.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€counter„petition€and€refused€to€allowÏa€blood€test€based€on€T.C.A.€€ðð€24„7„112.€€Since€neither€the€original€divorceÏcomplaint€nor€the€pleadings€in€the€1982€proceedings€for€child€support€are€aÏpart€of€the€record,€we€cannot€determine€whether€Father€requested€blood€testsÏas€his€testimony€indicates.€€In€any€event,€if€he€did€not€request€blood€tests€onÏthese€occasions,€as€found€by€the€trial€court,€he€is€precluded€from€making€theÏrequest€at€this€time€by€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€24„7„112€(Supp.€1995);€ò òòòSteioffÏv.€Steioffó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€94€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àIf€he€did€request€blood€tests€on€these€occasions€and€the€requests€wereÏdenied€by€the€trial€court€the€record€indicates€that€there€was€no€appeal.€€WeÏagree€with€Motherððs€assertion€that€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€is€determinative€ofÏthis€issue.Ìà àThe€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€bars€a€second€suit€between€the€same€parties€onÍthe€same€cause€of€action€with€respect€to€all€issues€which€were€or€which€couldÏhave€been€litigated€in€the€former€suit.€€ò òòòWall€v.€Wallóóó ó,€907€S.W.2d€829,€832Ï(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Material€facts€or€questions€which€were€in€issue€in€a€formerÏaction€and€were€there€admitted€or€judicially€determined,€are€conclusively€settledÏby€a€judgment€rendered€therein,€and€such€facts€or€questions€becomeòò€res€judicataóóÏand€may€not€again€be€litigated€in€a€subsequent€action€brought€between€theÏsame€parties€or€their€privies.€€ò òòòMedlock€v.€Ferrarió óóó,€602€S.W.2d€241,€246€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1979).€€A€judgment€on€the€merits€exhausts€the€cause€of€action€on€which€itÏwas€based,€and€is€an€absolute€bar€to€a€subsequent€suit€between€the€same€partiesÏand€their€privies€upon€the€same€cause€of€action.€€òòò òBoring€v.€Milleró óóó,€215€Tenn.Ï394,€397,€386€S.W.2d€521,€522€(1965).€€Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€Father€admits€that€he€raised€the€issue€of€theÏlegitimacy€of€the€child€in€the€original€petition€for€divorce€and,€at€that€time,€alsoÏrequested€blood€tests.€€That€prior€litigation€embraced€the€same€issue€and€theÏparties€to€the€prior€litigation€are€identical€to€the€parties€in€the€presentÏlitigation.€€€€The€trial€court€in€the€divorce€action€found€that€Father€was€theÏfather€of€the€child.€€Father€had€the€right€to€appeal€this€judgment,€but€neglectedÏto€pursue€this€right.€€The€correctness€or€incorrectness€of€the€formerÍadjudication€is€not€before€this€Court€and€should€have€been€raised€by€Father€inÏan€appeal.€€€This€issue€has€been€conclusively€settled€and€may€not€be€litigatedÏagain€in€this€action.€€ò òòòSee€also€Madyun€v.€Ballardó óóó,€783€S.W.2d€946€(Tenn.€App.Ï1989).Ìà àFather€contends,€in€his€second€and€third€issues,€that€the€increase€in€theÏamount€of€child€support€payments€was€in€error.€€He€argues€that€any€childÏsupport€is€inappropriate€because€Mother€does€not€have€physical€custody€of€theÏchild.€€We€find€no€merit€to€this€argument€because€the€child€is€entitled€toÏsupport€regardless€of€where€he€lives.€€The€fatherððs€duty€of€support€is€owed€to€theÏchild,€not€to€the€mother.€€ò òòòPickett€v.€Brownó óóó,€462€U.S.€1,€103€S.Ct.€2199,€76ÏL.Ed.2d€372€(1983).€€Mother€and€Father€are€both€responsible€for€the€supportÏand€maintenance€of€the€child.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€34„11„102€(Supp.€1995).€€Father€cannotÏavoid€his€duty€merely€because€the€child€lives€with€his€grandmother.Ìà àFather€next€argues€that€the€modification€of€the€child€support€agreementÏincreasing€the€payment€to€21%€of€his€net€income€and€requiring€back€supportÏwas€also€in€error.€€Child€support€in€Tennessee€is€statutorily€governed€by€T.C.A.Ô€ ÔÏðð€œÔ€Ô36„5„101›€(Supp.€1995).€€Section€36„5„101(e)(1)€provides€that€"[i]n€making€itsÏdetermination€concerning€the€amount€of€support€of€any€minor€child€.€.€.€of€theÍparties,€the€court€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€the€child€supportÏguidelines€as€provided€in€this€subsection."€€Modification€of€an€existing€childÏsupport€order€is€controlled€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1995),€whichÏstates,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€cases€involving€child€support,€upon€application€ofÏeither€party,€the€court€shall€decree€an€increase€orÏdecrease€of€such€allowance€when€there€is€found€to€be€aÏsignificant€variance,€as€defined€in€the€child€supportÏguidelines€established€by€subsection€(e),€between€theÏguidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currentlyÏordered€unless€the€variance€has€resulted€from€aÏpreviously€court„ordered€deviation€from€the€guidelinesÏand€the€circumstances€which€caused€the€deviationÏhave€not€changed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àCurrently,€in€Tennessee€a€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€is€15%.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Comp.ÏR.€&€Regs.€tit.€10,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3);€ò òòòTurner€v.€Turneró óóó,€919€S.W.2d€340,€343Ï(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€In€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€difference€between€what€FatherÏwas€ordered€to€pay€and€the€amount€required€by€the€guidelines€exceeds€fifteenÏpercent.€€There€is€a€significant€variance,€which€under€the€current€state€of€theÏlaw,€requires€an€increase€in€the€amount€of€child€support€payments.Ìà àHowever,€the€amended€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1995),Ïtook€effect€on€July€1,€1994,€after€the€filing€of€the€petition€to€increase€the€childÏsupport.€€The€new€statute€replaced€the€old€ð ðmaterial€change€of€circumstancesððÍtest€with€the€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€test.€€ò òòòTurneró óóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€343.€€TheÏprevious€statute€said€in€pertinent€part,€ð ð[T]he€court€may€decree€an€increase€orÏdecrease€of€such€allowance€only€upon€a€showing€of€a€substantial€and€materialÏchange€of€circumstances.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(1980).€€Under€eitherÏprovision,€the€trial€court€properly€increased€the€support€amount.€€The€evidenceÏshowed€that€the€amount€of€the€child€support€had€not€changed€since€1981,€andÏthat€Fatherððs€salary€had€increased€over€that€period.€€In€addition,€the€childÏobviously€has€grown€which€increases€the€expense€of€support.€€These€facts€show€aÏsubstantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances.€€ò òòòSee€Ragan€v.€Raganó óóó,€858ÏS.W.2d€332,€333€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€The€trial€court€was€correct€in€itsÏjudgment€increasing€the€child€support€payments€to€21%€of€the€defendantððsÏmonthly€income€and€in€awarding€back€support€to€January€1,€1994.Ìà àFinally,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€attorneyððs€feesÏto€Mother.€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(i)€(Supp.€1995),€the€court€may,€inÏits€discretion,€award€the€costs€to€prosecute€or€defend€a€child€support€suit.€€TheÏallowance€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€largely€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€theÏappellate€court€will€not€interfere€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€ò òòòAaron€v.€Aaronó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€411€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€the€case€òòsubÍjudiceóó,€Father€has€not€shown€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appealÏare€assessed€against€the€appellant.€€ò òÌÓÓó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEó óœÔ€Ô