ÿWPCX ŠR)g §ÓQ›¤€•â“]LSb57—~Ú-„‡B†LÓÔ«š½Â‹}bÿs_ÎyÐbIs¿y#%%ˆÅèîÆëº¨R7šåÖ x8÷ÓòаšTüR^ þ‚hýÆHBmY¶›pô¢È`à Ñ-{º—‹@\ʪk«©Á#r1 ¢÷=obÉ5ݹk¶DzS̾U©÷È™ú÷åŽkûÏÂVÁXÑ-p‘ø÷j†UÄ6§xŠ“ú௹ÔÁ‡×–›§Ï“]ä‰i~²Pñ—¡Î¯ÿ^ƒ-S:õhë ¹!‰Ñ­ö•}¨?MyV¦UÂG¬ÀP6~Á¾4b Þ¯€‚g m –ü¢ê. ,¥-È"Ûb‡xgáXYé½Í8ó3£ãf[ŠG ¤— >h¦‚9>yºÓÎ@Z£EÙ‡Q•½–2x+õ˜¿Â‘ƒ…n\Q~e9öçüÓ`âzPmLh×¾°m† å5¼{o½B;ïZ´ºOãB2$zY&’­Êj§Ä‚ÞJtW4YÐé7éYJ92ÆAGý7ï*“]>õ®_¶ƒÀæ9¢:]ø › %⥗„ ü²|ýÌüûù(ÌÜÓä}œ¹ ûQÅ€ 5P¶ȹª\ô¢Ù‚G×7ÛÖÓ¯’…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ Ù UN÷ U:E  U: UB× %           B     D3< < < 0Do o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o AO³ Æ 0DÈ D/  B;ýhµ&ÔøÔô3|x-($¡¡ DDDDÓ€+ Ô€Xo|XXXÔÔ€îi•îXXo|ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Wƒîîi•ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€28,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô˜ôWƒÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€ Xo|XXXÔÔ€ îi•îX Xo|ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ Wƒî îi•ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€25,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô˜ô WƒÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýññ›ññѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€*EXXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X0zXXXÔÔ€Š³ŠXX0zÔñ+ñññßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñññ+ññ+ñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ+ñññ›ññ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌÌÌJOHN€CLARENCE€HOWARD,€JR.,à ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9811„CV„00374Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à < àà ” àà ì à)€HAMILTON€CIRCUITÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€L.€MARIE€WILLIAMS,Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÌLINDA€JOYCE€KEATON€HOWARD,à ì à)Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED€AND›Ìà 4 àDefendant„Appellee.à ” àà ì àœ)€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌÌROBERT€P.€RAYBURN,€Chattanooga,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌJOHN€M.€HIGGASON,€JR.,€Chattanooga,€for€Defendant„Appellee.Ìà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ   ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€ongoing€dispute€over€child€support,€the€father€appeals€from€theÏTrial€Courtððs€Order€establishing€child€support€at€$1,413.02€per€month€for€theÏremaining€minor€child,€œand€questions€the›€Courtððs€finding€that€the€father€was€inÏcontempt€of€court€for€failing€to€pay€medical€bills€and€make€timely€support€payment,Ïand€œthe›€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€the€mother.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€parties€were€divorced€on€March€22,€1990,€and€child€support€wasÏawarded€for€the€partiesðð€two€minor€children.€€The€Trial€Court€heard€œmatters€broughtÏbefore€the€Court€by€petitions€on›€June€8,€1998.€€At€trial,€the€father€testified€extensivelyÏabout€his€income.€€He€testified€that€his€adjusted€gross€income€for€1997,€as€reflected€byÏhis€federal€income€tax€return,€was€$57,304.00.€€This€amount€reflected€income€as€anÏemployee€of€Allstate€Insurance€Company€in€the€amount€of€$89,365.00,€taxable€interestÐ :þ23ýG Ðof€$417.00,€rental€income€of€$62.00,€and€assigned€risk€income€of€$222.00,€less€aÏbusiness€loss€of€$32,762.00.€€The€business€loss€was€from€his€sole€proprietorship€calledÏJ.C.H.€Enterprises,€which€the€father€testified€was€his€sports€card€business.€€The€grossÏreceipts€for€that€business€were€$1,140,866,€and€the€cost€of€goods€sold€was€$1,092.556,Ïwhich€left€a€gross€profit€of€$48,310.00.€€The€father€then€subtracted€expenses€ofÏ$81,072.00€from€that€gross€income,€leaving€a€loss€of€$32,762.00.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àññœœññœThe›€father€testified€that€his€wife,€Bethany€Howard,€is€an€employee€ofÏJ.C.H.€Enterprises,€and€that€the€œbusiness›€expense€œitem€of€$29,713.00€was›€a€portion€ofÏher€salary.€€He€further€testified€that€he€runs€his€sports€card€business€out€of€the€sameÏoffice€with€his€insurance€business,€and€that€his€wife€works€for€both€businesses.€TheÏwife€did€not€testify,€and€there€was€no€testimony€about€the€wifeððs€labor€for€the€sportsÏcard€business.€€The€father€testified€in€detail€about€what€his€wife€did€on€his€behalf€forÏAllstate.€€He€testified€that€he€needs€a€support€staff€because€his€office€is€open€from€9Ïa.m.€to€5€p.m.,€Monday€through€Friday,€and€Saturday€by€appointment.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€needs€someone€in€the€office€while€he€is€not,€and€that€his€wife€has€beenÏfulfilling€this€role€for€the€past€seven€years,€although€she€was€not€getting€paid€untilÏ1997.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Judge€refused€to€deduct€the€business€loss€œfrom€the€fatherððs€netÏincome.€€The€Court€ordered›€child€support€obligations€for€œthe€adult›€child€œterminated,›Ïand€œthen›€determined€that€the€guideline€amount€for€the€remaining€child€œfrom›€theÏincome€as€found€by€the€Court€would€be€$1,159.00€per€month,€but€having€foundÏcriteria€for€upward€deviation,€i.e.,€the€father€not€exercising€standard€visitation€with€theÏchild,€the€Court€ordered€an€upward€deviation€from€the€child€support€guidelines€in€theÏamount€of€$255.00€per€month,€for€a€total€support€obligation€of€$1,413.02.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Court€then€found€the€father€in€contempt€for€failure€to€pay€certainÏmedical€bills€and€for€failure€to€make€timely€child€support€payments,€and€also€orderedÐ 922 Ðthe€father€to€pay€the€$3,000.00€attorneyððs€fee€incurred€by€the€mother.Ìà 4 àà Œ àOur€standard€of€review€in€cases€tried€by€the€Court€without€a€jury€is€òòdeÐ   Ðnovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€Trial€Court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctnessÐ   Ðof€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€T.R.A.P.ÏRule€13(d).€€òòHass€v.€Knightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€App.€1983).Ð (  Ðò òà 4 àà Œ àó óð ðDetermining€the€amount€of€the€non„custodial€parentððs€income€is€theÐ 0(  Ðmost€important€element€of€proof€in€a€proceeding€to€set€child€support.€€This€is€the€caseÏboth€when€setting€initial€support€and€when€considering€requests€for€modification€of€anÏexisting€support€obligation.ðð€€òòTurner€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€App.Ð H@ Ð1995).€€The€child€support€guidelines€define€gross€income€as:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà8Œ 4(#4(#àall€income€from€any€source€(before€taxes€and€other€deductions),Ïwhether€earned€or€unearned,€and€includes€but€is€not€limited€to€theÏfollowing:€wages,€salaries,€commissions,€bonuses,€overtimeÏpayments,€dividends,€severance€pay,€pensions,€interest,€trustÏincome,€annuities,€capital€gains,€benefits€received€from€the€SocialÏSecurity€Administration,€i.e.,€Title€II€Social€Security€benefits,Ïworkers€compensation€benefits€whether€temporary€or€permanent,Ïjudgments€recovered€for€personal€injuries,€unemploymentÏinsurance€benefits,€gifts,€prizes,€lottery€winnings,€alimony€orÏmaintenance,€and€income€from€self„employment.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(a).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€guidelines€then€provide:€€ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àIncome€from€self„employment€includes€income€from€businessÏoperations€and€rental€properties,€etc.,€less€reasonable€expensesÏnecessary€to€produce€such€income.€€Depreciation,€home€offices,Ïexcessive€promotional,€excessive€travel,€excessive€car€expenses,Ïor€excessive€personal€expenses,€etc.,€should€not€be€consideredÏreasonable€œexpenses.ññÐ Œ Ð Œ Ð  Ðññ›œññÌññ›œññà0 4 àññ›œññà0Œ 4(#4(#àññ›œññòòññññId.ññññóóññ›Ð°1¨**Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓKÓœòòññId..ññóóññ›€ññññ›ññññ€ññOnce›€gross€income€is€determined,€the€trial€court€must€then€determine€net€income€andÐ ¸3°,, Ðany€grounds€for€deviation,€and€set€the€child€support€accordingly.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Comp.€R.Ð À5¸.. Ð&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„4„.03(4),€(5)€and€Ch.€1240„2„4„.04.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€determined€the€fatherððs€gross€income€from€AllstateÐ Ð9È22 ÐInsurance€Company€as€reflected€on€his€W„2€form€to€be€$94,011.52.€€This€amountÏadded€to€the€fatherððs€other€taxable€income,€brought€the€total€to€$94,717.52.€€The€TrialÏCourt€then€found€that€the€father€realized€no€income€as€a€self„employed€individual,Ïbecause€his€claimed€expenses€exceeded€his€income€from€the€business.€€In€reaching€thisÏresult,€the€Court€said€ð ðThe€Court€has€insufficient€proof€to€determine€whether€theÏvarious€expenses€claimed€were€reasonable€or€not.ðð€€Under€the€guidelines,€where€theÏobligor€has€income€from€self„employment,€the€burden€is€upon€the€obligor€to€show€thatÏany€expenses€he€deducts€from€that€income€is€a€reasonable€expense€necessary€toÏproduce€the€income.€€We€agree€with€the€Trial€Judge€that€œññtññhe›€œññfather€ññhas›€not€carried€thatÏburden€as€to€the€reasonableness€of€the€expenses€œclaimññsññññedññ.›€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€the€father€insists€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€ordering€an€upwardÏdeviation€in€his€child€support€obligation,€œññand›€argues›€thatñññ ñbecauseñ ñ›€this€issue€was€not€explicitly€raised€inÏthe€pleadings.Ìà 4 àà Œ àœñ ñð ðñ ñIn›€determining€whether€or€not€a€judgment€is€beyond€the€scope€of€theÏpleadings,€œthñ ñoñ ññ ñeñ ñse›€pleadings€must€be€given€a€liberal€construction€with€all€reasonableÏintendments€taken€in€favor€of€the€judgment.€€The€policy€underlying€the€rule€seems€toÏbe€that€since€the€purpose€of€pleadings€is€to€give€notice€to€all€concerned€regarding€whatÏmay€be€adjudicated,€a€judgment€beyond€the€scope€of€the€pleadings€is€beyond€theÏnotice€given€the€parties€and€thus€should€not€be€enforced.ðð€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€281Ð ˜+$$ ÐS.W.2d,€492,€497.€€In€this€case€the€fatherððs€Petition€to€Modify€contained€the€followingÏœlanguage:ÓÓ€Ìà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àThe›€œPetitioner›€avers€that€since€the€entry€of€œthe€Courtððs›€œOrder›Ïdated€June€6,€1997,€there€has€been€a€substantial,€significant€and€materialÏchange€or€variance€in€the€Petitionerððs€income€of€more€than€fifteenÏ(15%),€which€justifies€a€decrease€in€guideline€child€support€pursuant€toÏTCA€36„5„101.€€Accordingly,€the€Petitioner€prays€for€an€order€from€thisÏCourt€modifying€this€obligation€for€guideline€child€support€to€comportÏwith€his€present€level€of€income.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓU'Óà 4 àà Œ àBased€on€the€fatherððs€pleading,€the€parties€had€notice€that€the€œñ ñissue€›ofñ ñññamount€ofÐ Ì8Ä11 Ðchild€support€was€in€disputeññññ›€whether›€a›€significant›€variance›€existed,›€justifying›€a›€decrease›€in›€child›€supportññ›€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ36„5„101ññ,›€would›€be›€tried›€by›€the›€Trial›€Courtññ.›€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€provides€in€relevant€part:€ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àIn€cases€involving€child€support,€upon€application€of€either€party,Ïthe€court€shall€decree€an€increase€or€decrease€of€such€allowanceÏwhen€there€is€found€to€be€a€significant€variance,€as€defined€in€theÏchild€support€guidelines€.€.€.€,€between€the€guidelines€and€theÏamount€of€support€currently€ordered€unless€the€variance€hasÏresulted€from€a€previously€court„ordered€deviation€from€theÏguidelines€and€the€circumstances€which€caused€the€deviationÏhave€not€changed.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓ^+Óà 4 àà Œ àThe€child€support€guidelines€then€state€that€they€ð ðshall€be€applicable€inÏany€action€brought€to€establish€or€modify€child€support,ðð€and€define€a€significantÏvariance€as€a€15%€difference€between€the€guideline€support€and€the€current€supportÏorder.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3).€€The€guidelines€define€gross€andÏnet€income,€then€give€the€percentages€of€net€income€that€should€be€paid€in€childÏsupport,€depending€on€the€number€of€children.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„¼4„.03.€€After€listing€the€percentages,€the€guidelines€state,€ð ðAfter€this€calculation€isÏmade,€if€there€are€no€changes€to€be€made€pursuant€to€paragraph€1240„2„4„.04€below,Ïthen€this€is€the€amount€of€the€child€support€award.ðð€€The€paragraph€referred€to€statesÏin€relevant€part:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(1)€Since€these€percentage€amounts€are€minimums,€the€court€shallÏincrease€the€award€calculated€in€Rule€1240„2„4„.03€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ à.€.€.€Ìñ ñœñ ñœà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä à(b)›€If€the€child(ren)€is/are€not€staying€overnight€with€the€œobligor›Ïfor€the€average€visitation€period€of€every€other€weekend€from€FridayÏevening€to€Sunday€evening,€two€weeks€during€the€summer€and€twoÏweeks€during€holiday€periods€throughout€the€year,€then€an€amount€shallÏbe€added€to€the€percentage€calculated€in€the€above€rule€to€compensateÏthe€obligee€for€the€cost€of€providing€care€for€the€child(ren)€for€theÏamount€of€time€during€the€average€visitation€period€that€the€child(ren)Ïis/are€not€with€the€obligor€[reference€1240„2„4„.02(6)].Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓ¬0Óœññà 4 àà Œ àññTenn.›€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„4„.04(1).€€œññÌà 4 àà Œ àññThus,›€determining€the€proper€amount€of€support€under€the€guidelinesÏrequires€an€examination€of€the€criteria€for€deviation€in€Ch.€1240„2„4„.04,€whichÐ Ð9È22 Ðcriteria€include€less€than€average€visitation.€€The€father€œññhad€ññasked›€the€Court€toÏdetermine€the€proper€amount€of€support€under€the€guidelines€based€on€his€currentÏincome.€€That€request€of€necessity€required€the€Court€to€look€at€the€criteria€forÏdeviation€to€determine€that€proper€amount€of€support.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÏmerit.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€record€establishes€that€the€father€has€not€visited€with€his€children€inÏthree€or€four€years,€and€we€affirm€the€Trial€Judge€ordering€a€deviation€to€compensateÏfor€that€lack€of€visitation.€òòSeeóó€òòDwight€v.€Dwightóó,€936€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð @8 Ð1996).Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Judge€properly€found€the€husband€in€contempt€for€failing€toÏpay€medical€bills€and€make€timely€support€payments,€which€was€in€the€Trial€CourtððsÏdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòSherrod€v.€Wix,€óó849€S.W.2d€780,€786€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€We€find€noÐ `X Ðabuse€of€discretion,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€JudgeððsÏfactual€findings€to€support€contempt.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€in€the€decree€ordered€the€father€to€pay€the€reasonableÏattorneyððs€fees€incurred€by€the€mother,€and€directed€her€attorney€to€file€an€affidavitÏwith€the€Court,€which€he€did,€detailing€the€hours€spent€on€the€case.€€The€Trial€JudgeÏthen€set€the€fee€at€$3,000.00€in€a€subsequent€order.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€father€contends€there€is€no€statutory€basis€to€award€these€fees,€andÏthat€he€was€not€afforded€the€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€other€attorney,€and€toÏpresent€proof€on€the€issue.€€We€do€not€find€any€motion€or€request€in€the€record€that€theÏTrial€Court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€issue€of€attorneyððs€fees,€and€basedÏupon€this€record,€the€amount€awarded€is€reasonable.€€œññÌà 4 àà Œ àññAttorneyððs›€fees€are€appropriate€in€œaññnyññ›€case€to€enforce€a€child€supportÏdecree.€€We€have€applied€this€rule,€whether€the€party€requesting€such€fees€is€bringingÏthe€action€or€successfully€defending€the€action.€€We€said€in€œòòSherrodññ€v.›€Wixññóó,›€849€S.W.2d€œññ780,›€ññ785ññ›ññññ:ññ›€œññ(Tenn.›Ð Ð9È22 ÐApp.›Ð Ð9È22 Ð1992):ññ›Ð Ð9È22 Ðà0 4 àÓÓà8Œ 4(#4(#à[T]rial€courts€may€award€attorneyððs€fees€without€proof€that€theÏrequesting€party€is€unable€to€pay€them€as€long€as€the€award€is€justÏand€equitable€under€the€facts€of€the€case.€€The€purpose€of€theseÏawards€is€to€protect€the€childrenððs,€not€the€custodial€parentððs,Ïlegal€remedies.€€Accordingly,€requiring€parents€who€precipitateÏcustody€or€support€proceedings€to€underwrite€the€costs€if€theirÏclaims€are€ultimately€found€to€be€unwarranted€is€appropriate€as€aÏmatter€of€policy.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓH>Óà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€case,€the€mother€successfully€defended€the€fatherððs€petition€toÏœññmodify›Ïññññdecrease€child€support€ññwhich›€was€the€second€time€the€mother€came€to€court€to€defend.€ÏShe€was€also€successful€in€enforcing€the€child€support€award€under€the€œguidelinesññ.€Ïññññ,›Ïand›ÏwññññWññe›€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€awarding€the€mother€her€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€cost€of€the€appeal€is€assessed€to€the€appellant,€and€the€causeÏremanded.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÐ h` Ðóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð l d Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHon.€H.€David€Cate,€Sp.J.