ÿWPC‡ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ U,µ U>á B)DCH AM‹U*Øÿ Bv~vÓœ D3o 0@¢ AOâÆ1 0D÷ D/; Bj˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ LUM N O P QR£STÓ€`;p‚ #I$3|x`2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òApril€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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'\Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌNINA€ALICE€KIMBLE,ó óà à)à àShelby€Law€Ìà à)à àCircuit€Court€No.€137254€R.D.Ì€€€€€Petitioner/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9503„CV„00049ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€"$!;+'h|ž` Å `€€Lß›à à)Ìò òMICHAEL€WAYNE€KIMBLE,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Respondent/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€Kay€S.€Robilio,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌò òMichael€L.€Ageeó ó,ÌAGEE€&€AGEE,€Bartlett,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Respondent/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òKathryn€A.€Kingó ó,ÌSHEA,€KING€&€LANDERS,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Petitioner/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òœAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓ›œà àThe€gravamen€of€this€appeal€is€child€support.€€Nina€Alice€Kimble€and€MichaelÏWayne€Kimble€were€married€in€1985,€divorced€in€1992€and€will€be€referred€to€as€Wife€andÏHusband,€respectively.€€When€they€married,€Wife€had€a€son€from€a€previous€marriage€andÏHusband€a€daughter.€€Husband€adopted€the€son€but€Wife€did€not€adopt€the€daughter.ÌÌà àThe€divorce€decree€incorporated€the€terms€of€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€whichÏprovided€that€Husband€would€pay€child€support€of€$250€monthly€for€24€months.€€It€was€furtherÏagreed€that€at€the€end€of€that€period€it€would€not€be€necessary€for€Wife€to€show€a€material€changeÏof€circumstances€upon€petitioning€for€an€increase€in€child€support€due€to€the€fact€that€Husband€hadÏjust€begun€a€new€business€and€his€income€was€uncertain€at€that€time.ÌÌà àWife€petitioned€for€an€increase€in€child€support€and€the€matter€was€referred€to€aÏreferee.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€referee€ruled€that€the€child€support€be€increased€to€$637€perÏmonth€ð ðwhich€includes€adjustment€for€self„emp.€tax€and€fact€of€no€visitation€and€$37€for€her€costÏof€health€insurance€on€child.ðð€€Wife€was€also€awarded€$1,700€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€refereeððsÏruling€was€presented€to€the€trial€court€which€reached€essentially€the€same€result.€€Husband€appealsÏto€this€Court€where€our€scope€of€review€is€òòò òde€novoóóó ó€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€RuleÏ13(d)€T.R.A.P.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€amount€of€monthly€support€awarded€by€the€trial€court€coincided€withÏthat€awarded€by€the€referee,€the€trial€court€stated€from€the€bench€that€an€additional€$225€wasÏawarded€due€to€the€fact€that€Husband€had€no€visitation€with€his€adopted€son€and,€according€toÏHusbandððs€testimony,€had€virtually€no€contact€with€the€child€whatsoever.€€Husband€argues€thatÍthis€was€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€because€Wife€failed€to€present€any€evidence€of€theÏchildððs€expenses.€€Need€and€ability€to€pay€are€factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€childÏsupport.€€Our€review€of€this€matter€is€hampered€somewhat€by€the€fact€that€the€record€contains€scantÏevidence€of€the€expenses€incurred€by€Wife€as€a€result€of€her€custody€of€Christopher.€€While€itÏappeared€that€Husband€was€testifying€from€a€statement€of€income€and€expenses€before€the€referee,Ïsuch€a€document€does€not€appear€in€this€record.€€Other€than€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Kimble,€theÏevidence€consists€of€his€1993€individual€income€tax€return,€a€corporate€return€and€two€canceledÏchecks.ÌÌà àHe€further€argues€that€$12,108€listed€as€depreciation€on€his€federal€income€taxÏreturn€should€be€deducted€from€his€gross€income.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€contention€as€theÏguidelines€provide€that€ð ð[i]ncome€from€self„employment€includes€income€from€business€operationsÏand€rental€properties,€etc.,€less€reasonable€expenses€necessary€to€produce€such€income.€ÏDepreciation€.€.€.€should€not€be€considered€reasonable€expenses.ðð€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.Ï1240„2„4„.03(3).ÌÌà àWife€argues€that€the€additional€amount€of€$225€per€month€for€non„visitation€isÏproper.€€She€relies€upon€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(6)€which€provides€for€an€upward€deviation€if€the€childÏis€not€staying€overnight€with€the€obligor€for€the€average€visitation€period€of€every€other€weekendÏfrom€Friday€evening€until€Sunday€morning,€two€weeks€during€the€summer€and€two€weeks€duringÏholiday€periods€throughout€the€year.€€She€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€consideringÏthe€fact€that€Husband€is€the€sole€support€of€his€minor€daughter€from€a€previous€marriage€becauseÏthe€child€is€not€included€in€a€decree€of€child€support.€€She€relies€upon€a€portion€of€the€guidelinesÏwhich€provide€the€children€of€the€obligor€who€are€not€included€in€the€decree€of€child€support€shallÏnot€be€considered€for€the€purposes€of€reducing€the€obligorððs€net€income€or€in€calculating€guidelineÏamounts.€€òòò òSeeóóó ó€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(4).€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€intent€of€the€guidelines€was€toÏcover€a€situation€such€as€this,€where€a€sole€surviving€parent€has€sole€custody€of€a€minor€child,€asÍthere€could€not€reasonably€be€expected€to€be€a€support€order€entered€by€a€court€in€theseÏcircumstances.€€Without€doubt€he€is€obligated€to€support€his€minor€daughter.€€The€Child€SupportÏGuidelines€apply€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€in€child€support€cases.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).€ÏThe€guidelines€are€subject€to€deviation€upward€or€downward€when€the€assumptions€on€which€theyÏare€based€do€not€pertain€to€a€particular€situation.€€òòò òNash€v.€Mulleóóó ó,€846€S.W.2d€803,€805€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€Wife€cites€to€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòò òTower€v.€Toweróóó ó,€C.A.€No.€02A01„9407„CV„00170€(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€3,€1995).€€However,€the€father€in€òòò òToweróóó ó€contended€he€was€voluntarilyÏpaying€child€support€for€children€from€a€previous€marriage.€€He€did€not€purport€to€be€the€soleÏsurviving€parent.ÌÌà àWhile€the€trial€court€did€state€from€the€bench€that€$225€per€month€was€being€added€Ïto€the€child€support€due€to€non„visitation,€the€record€before€us€is€not€entirely€clear€as€to€the€formulaÏthe€court€used€in€arriving€at€$637.€€As€noted€in€the€refereeððs€ruling,€$37€represents€the€cost€ofÏhealth€insurance€on€the€child.€€There€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€Mr.€Kimbleððs€net€profit€for€theÏyear€preceding€the€hearing€in€this€matter€was€$33,730.€€Applying€the€guidelines€21%€for€one€childÏresults€in€$589€per€month.€€Considering€that€Husband€exercises€no€visitation€with€Christopher€andÏthe€fact€that€he€is€the€sole€support€of€Lydia,€we€do€not€find€the€evidence€to€preponderate€against€theÏresult€reached€by€the€trial€court€and€affirm€the€award€of€$637€per€month.ÌÌà àHusband€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Wife€attorneyððs€feesÏand€costs.€€The€trial€court€awarded€attorneyððs€fees€and€suit€expenses€of€$1,700€to€be€paid€in€15Ïmonthly€installments.€€It€is€Husbandððs€position€that€the€Wife€failed€to€present€evidence€of€herÏinability€to€pay€her€attorneyððs€fees.€€As€this€Court€said€in€òòò òSherrod€v.€Wixóóó ó,€849€S.W.2d€780,Ï785€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€ÌÌÓÓà8 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,€legalÍremedies.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓWifeððs€attorney€presented€her€affidavit€of€her€charges€and€expenses€totaling€$3,027.€€WhileÏHusband€questions€the€reasonableness€of€the€bill,€he€did€not€do€so€in€the€trial€court€and€did€notÏafford€himself€the€opportunity€to€cross„examine€Wifeððs€attorney€or€present€any€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€affirm.€€We€declineÏWifeððs€request€to€award€her€additional€attorneyððs€fees€for€the€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÏMichael€Wayne€Kimble€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›