ÿWPC> …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ UFð œ6 0JÒ 0T 0^p 0hÎ 0r6 0|¨ 0†$ 0ª 1u: 0d¯U>U6QB)‡DC° AMóU*@ D3jFµ 0@û B;fXоv~HvÓÆ AO™Æè 0D® D/ò B!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ £E¤¥D¦§D¨©Eª«¬Ó€ƒ‰"3|x·((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<à09Z ‹.Courier New RegularSWANNMcFARLANDCRANDALLProffittLippsbiofeedRagan 4th2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial....'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òApril€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔà àThe€Child€Support€Guidelines€became€effective€on€October,€13,Ï1989.€€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€930€S.W.2d€541€(Tenn.1996).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ €Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔà àThis€amount€is€determined€by€taking€Mr.€Rayððs€annual€gross€incomeÏof€$61,344€and€reducing€by€the€annual€withholding€allowance€for€a€selfÏemployed€worker€of€$2550,€his€self„employment€tax€of€$8656,€and€his€income€taxÏof€$12,912€(p.35,€Table€7€of€Circular€E),€resulting€in€an€annual€net€income€ofÏ$39,775.€€This€amount,€multiplied€by€21%€for€child€support€for€one€child€andÏdividing€by€twelve,€works€out€to€$696€per€month€in€child€support.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` Ñ›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ áµ XXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌ̜ـ€ÙßR€(+'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDEBBIE€PROFFITT€RAYà@ àà@ à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌà@ à)à à03A01„9608„CH„00260Ìà àPlaintiff„Appelleeà àà àà@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àv.à àà àà@ à)à àHON.€BILL€SWANN,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ à)à àJUDGEÌà@ à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ à€ÌDAVID€ANTHONY€RAYà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIEDÌà àDefendant„Appellant€à@ à)à àIN€PART;€and€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌTOM€McFARLAND€OF€KINGSTON€and€VIVIAN€CRANDALL€OF€OAK€RIDGE€FORÏAPPELLANTÌÌROBERT€R.€SIMPSON€OF€KNOXVILLE€FOR€APPELLEEÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà à€€òòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€à àà àà à€€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓÔ€$Ôà àà àÔ€%ÔIn€this€post„divorce€proceeding,€David€Anthony€RayÏappeals€the€Knox€County€Circuit€Courtððs€granting€of€DebbieÍProffitt€Rayððs€petition€for€a€modification€of€Mr.€Rayððs€childÏsupport€payments.€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Ray€raises€five€issues€on€appeal,€the€first€three€ofÏwhich€can€be€combined€into€one€issue.€€Mr.€Ray€first€contends€thatÏthe€Trial€Court€erred€by€failing€to€find€that€he€rebutted€theÏpresumption€of€the€application€of€the€Child€Support€GuidelinesÏprovided€for€in€the€Tennessee€Divorce€Statute.€€He€furtherÏcontends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€not€following€the€LocalÏRules€of€Court€for€the€Knox€County€Circuit€Court€which€he€contendsÏrequire€the€obligee€of€child€support€payments€to€submit€financialÏinformation€showing€the€needs€of€the€child.€€Finally,€Mr.€RayÏinsists€that€the€Trial€Court€improperly€determined€his€income€forÏthe€purposes€of€determining€child€support€and€improperly€appliedÏthe€Guidelines.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€were€married€on€June€27,€1978.€€They€wereÏdivorced€by€final€decree€entered€on€March€25,€1985.€€At€the€timeÏof€the€divorce,€the€parties€had€one€minor€child,€a€son€who€wasÏfour€years.€€The€property€settlement,€which€was€incorporated€inÏthe€divorce€decree,€provided€that€Ms.€Ray€would€have€physical€andÏlegal€custody€of€their€son,€and€Mr.€Ray€would€pay€child€support€inÏthe€amount€of€$500.00€per€month.€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Ray€filed€the€petition€presently€on€appeal€to€modifyÏthe€child€support€on€November€29,€1994,€on€the€grounds€that€thereÏwere€substantial€and€material€changes€in€circumstances€warrantingÏa€modification.€€After€a€hearing€before€the€œChild›€œSupport›€Referee,Ïthe€Knox€County€Circuit€Court€granted€Ms.€Rayððs€petition,€appliedÏthe€Child€Support€Guidelines,€and€increased€Mr.€Rayððs€childÏsupport€payments€to€$855.00€per€month.€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Mr.€Ray€was€a€partner€in€aÏdentistry€practice,€earning€$59,460€in€1985.€€However,€hisÏpractice€filed€bankruptcy,€and€he€was€forced€to€open€a€dentistryÏpractice€as€a€sole€practitioner.€€In€1994,€he€filed€a€federalÏincome€tax€form€reporting€$61,344.00€in€gross€income.€€The€TrialÏCourt€added€$8,000€to€his€reported€gross€income€for€application€toÏthe€Child€Support€Guidelines€to€account€for€the€average€amount€ofÏmoney€in€Mr.€Rayððs€bank€account€for€the€year.€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Ray€first€argues,€as€already€noted,€that€the€TrialÏCourt€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€he€adequately€rebutted€theÏpresumption€of€application€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€as€setÏout€in€the€Tennessee€Divorce€Statute.€€T.C.A.€36„5„101(e)(1)Ïstates:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIn€making€its€determination€concerning€the€amount€ofÏsupport€of€any€minor€child€or€children€of€the€parties,Ïthe€court€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€theÏchild€support€guidelines€as€provided€in€this€subsection.€ÏIf€the€court€finds€that€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebutÏthis€presumption,€the€court€shall€make€a€written€findingÏthat€the€application€of€the€child€support€guidelinesÏwould€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€in€that€particularÏcase,€in€order€to€provide€for€the€best€interest€of€theÏchild(œren›)€or€the€equity€between€the€parties.€€FindingsÏthat€the€application€of€the€guidelines€would€be€unjustÏor€inappropriate€shall€state€the€amount€of€support€thatÏwould€have€been€ordered€under€the€child€supportÏguidelines€and€a€justification€for€the€variance€from€theÏguidelines.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌÓÓMr.€Ray€insists€that€he€met€the€burden€of€rebutting€theÏpresumption€of€the€application€of€the€Child€Support€GuidelinesÏsince€the€application€of€the€Guidelines€would€be€unjust,€would€notÏbe€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child,€and€would€not€be€equitableÏto€the€parties.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Ray€makes€a€number€of€arguments€to€support€hisÏposition.€€He€first€asserts€that€it€would€be€unjust€to€require€himÏto€increase€his€child€support€payments€from€$500€per€month€to€$855Ïper€month€when€his€annual€gross€income€had€only€increased€$1,884Ïover€a€ten„year€period.€€He€also€asserts€that€Ms.€Ray€failed€toÏshow€a€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€to€warrantÏa€modification€of€the€payments.€€Mr.€Ray€argues€that€anÍapplication€of€the€Guidelines€would€not€be€in€the€best€interest€ofÏthe€child€since€if€he€were€required€to€pay€the€increase,€he€wouldÏnot€have€the€opportunity€to€spend€money€on€his€son€on€activitiesÏthat€the€son€and€father€participate€in€together.€€He€makes€a€finalÏargument€that€an€application€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€wouldÏbe€inequitable€to€the€parties€since€Mr.€Ray€allegedly€pays€theÏsame€percentage€of€his€net€income€for€the€child€as€Ms.€Ray€does.€ÏMr.€Ray€relies€on€no€case€law€to€support€his€position.ÌÌà àà àIt€would€be€neither€unjust,€nor€inequitable,€œbut,Ïinstead,›€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€for€Mr.€Ray€to€pay€theÏamount€required€by€the€Guidelines€since€he€has€been€paying€anÏamount€much€lower€than€that€required€by€the€Guidelines€for€aÏnumber€of€years€and€since€the€record€supports€Ms.€Rayððs€positionÏthat€there€has€been€a€substantial€change€in€circumstances€sinceÏthe€original€decree€of€1985.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Guidelines€had€not€yet€been€promulgated€in€1985€whenÏthe€parties€entered€into€the€original€divorce€settlement.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Had€theÏGuidelines€been€in€effect€in€1985,€Mr.€Ray€would€have€beenÏrequired€to€pay€approximately€$739.00€per€month,€instead€ofÍ$500.00€per€month,€based€on€his€gross€income€at€that€time.€ÏTherefore,€Mr.€Ray€has€paid€a€substantial€amount€less€than€theÏœafter€adopted€Guidelines›€required.€€It€is€irrelevant€that€Mr.ÏRayððs€income€has€not€substantially€increased€in€the€past€ten€yearsÏsince€he€was€paying€well€below€the€Guidelines€standard€in€theÏfirst€place.€€T.C.A.€36„5„101(a)(1)€states€that€in€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓcases€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€currently€orderedÏunless€the€variance€has€resulted€from€a€previouslyÏcourt„ordered€deviation€from€the€guidelines€and€theÏcircumstances€which€caused€the€deviation€have€notÏchanged.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌÌIn€òòHannah€v.€Lippsóó,€an€unpublished€opinion€filed€in€KnoxvilleÏJanuary€11,€1996,€this€Court€held€that,€absent€an€appropriateÏreason€to€deviate€from€the€Guidelines,€the€Trial€Court€may€modifyÏan€award€of€child€support€and€apply€the€Guidelines€if€theÏpetitioning€party€can€show€that€the€child€support€is€15%€less€thanÏthe€child€support€would€have€been€had€the€Guidelines€been€applied.Ì€Ìà àà àAdditionally,€the€record€supports€Ms.€Rayððs€assertionsÏthat€the€boyððs€food,€transportation,€clothing,€and€recreationalÏneeds€had€increased€since€the€original€divorce€decree.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€unforeseeable€expenses€were€necessary€to€send€theÏchild€to€military€school€and€obtain€the€child€a€tutor€and€biofeedÏback€due€to€the€childððs€learning€disabilities.€€ÌIn€òòRagan€v.€Raganóó,€858€S.W.2d€332,€333€(Tenn.App.1993),€this€CourtÏfaced€a€similar€situation€in€which€the€Trial€Court€determined€thatÏthere€was€a€material€change€in€circumstances€since€the€ð ðchild€woreÏlarger€clothes,€ate€more,€and€participated€in€more€activities.ðð€ÏThis€Court€reasoned€that€the€changes€ð ðtranslate€into€dollarsðð€andÏordered€a€modification€of€the€child€support€payments.€€The€recordÏin€this€case€supports€Ms.€Rayððs€factual€allegation€that€there€wasÏmaterial€change€in€the€circumstances€from€the€time€the€child€wasÏfour€to€the€time€of€this€petition€when€the€child€was€a€teenager€toÏwarrant€a€modification€of€the€payments.ÌÌà àà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€the€trial€courtsÏhave€ð ðlimited€discretion€to€deviate€from€the€guidelines.ðð€€òòJonesÏv.€Jonesóó,€930€S.W.2d€541€(Tenn.1996).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€Trial€Court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€its€modificationÏof€and€application€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€to€set€Mr.ÏRayððs€child€support€payments.€€We€hold€that€Mr.€Ray€failed€toÍcarry€his€burden€of€rebutting€the€presumption€of€the€applicationÏof€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€since€it€would€not€be€unjust€norÏinequitable,€nor€in€the€best€œinterest›€of€the€child€to€deviate€fromÏthe€Child€Support€Guidelines.ÌÌà àà àThe€second€issue€that€Mr.€Ray€raises€on€appeal€is€thatÏthe€Referee€erred€by€not€requiring€Ms.€Ray€to€provide€informationÏof€her€gross€income,€pursuant€to€Rule€9€of€the€4th€Circuit€of€KnoxÏCounty€Rules€of€Court€which€requires€ð ðFinancial€affidavits€ofÏincome,€expenses,€debts,€and€assets€shall€be€filed€by€counsel€atÏor€before€all€hearings€in€which€financial€matters€are€at€issue.ðð€ÏHowever,€the€Referee€relied€on€Rule€8€of€the€Local€Rules€ofÏPractice€of€Knox€County€Referee,€which€only€requires€both€parties,Ïthe€obligor€and€obligee€of€child€support€payments,€to€provideÏfinancial€information€when€there€is€a€dispute€as€to€which€partyÏshould€be€paying€support.€€Rule€8€states:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€party€paying€child€support€is€required€to€provide€aÏfinancial€affidavit€of€current€gross€income€andÏexpenses,€a€tax€return€for€the€preceding€year,€and€aÏcurrent€year„to„date€check€stub€or€income€statement€onÏor€before€the€hearing€date.€€In€hearings€for€œmodifi›„Ïcation€of€previous€child€support€orders,€the€sameÏinformation€must€be€provided€for€the€time€at€which€theÏmost€recent€Order€setting€or€modifying€child€support€wasÏentered.€€If€the€parties€are€disputing€which€of€themÏshould€be€paying€child€support,€then€both€parties€mustÏsubmit€the€financial€information.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€Rules€of€Practice€for€the€Referee€clearly€address€the€issue€ofÏwhich€party€or€parties€should€submit€financial€information€in€aÏmodification€hearing,€the€obligor€of€the€payments.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Ray€relies€on€Rule€2€of€the€Refereeððs€Rules€ofÏPractice€for€Knox€County€for€his€argument€that€the€Circuit€CourtÏRules€of€Court€should€take€precedence€in€this€situation.€€Rule€2Ïstates,€ð ðAdditional€matters€not€addressed€by€any€of€these€or€theÏabove€Order€and€Rules€may€be€addressed€by€the€Local€Rules€of€theÏKnox€County€Chancery€Court€or€the€Local€Rules€of€the€Knox€CountyÏFourth€Circuit€Court.ðð€€Mr.€Ray€argues€that€the€issue€of€whetherÏthe€obligee€of€the€child€support€payments€should€have€to€submitÏfinancial€information€is€not€addressed€in€the€Refereeððs€Rules,€soÏRule€9€of€the€4th€Circuit€Court€should€apply.€€€However,€weÏdisagree€with€Mr.€Rayððs€argument€and€hold€that€Rule€8€of€theÏRefereeððs€Rules€does€address€the€issue€of€who€should€provideÏinformation€in€the€modification€hearing,€the€obligor,€andÏtherefore€Rule€9€of€the€Circuit€Courtððs€Rules€is€inapplicable€inÏthis€situation.€€The€Referee€did€not€err€by€requiring€only€Mr.€RayÏto€provide€financial€information€at€the€modification€hearing.ÌÌà àà àThe€final€issue€that€Mr.€Ray€raises€on€appeal€is€thatÏthe€Trial€Court€improperly€determined€his€annual€gross€income€andÏthen€incorrectly€determined€the€amount€of€support€that€he€wasÏrequired€to€pay€under€the€Guidelines.ÌÌà àà àThe€Child€Support€Guidelines€explicitly€describe€theÏmanner€in€which€the€œtrial›€œcourt›€is€to€determine€the€monthly€childÏsupport.€€The€first€determination€that€the€trial€court€must€makeÏis€the€obligorððs€gross€income.€€The€Guidelines€define€gross€incomeÏas,€ð ðincome€from€any€source€(before€taxes€and€other€deductions),Ïwhether€earned€or€unearned.ðð€€Mr.€Ray€utilizes€a€cash„based€taxÏmethod€for€his€self„employed€dentist€practice.€€On€his€1995€taxÏreturn,€he€reported€a€gross€income€of€$61,344,€and€there€isÏnothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€his€gross€income€wasÏanything€different€from€that€figure.€€However,€the€Trial€CourtÏdetermined€that€his€annual€gross€income€was€$69,344.€€The€TrialÏCourt€added€$8,000€to€Mr.€Rayððs€reported€gross€income€since€heÏheld€a€monthly€average€of€$8,000€in€a€bank€account.€€However,Ïthere€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€this€additionalÏcash€was€additional€income.€€The€mere€fact€that€there€was€money€inÏa€bank€account€does€not€render€it€income.€€Therefore,€we€concludeÏthat€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€determination€that€Mr.€RayððsÏannual€income€was€$69,344.€€The€accurate€reflection€of€Mr.€RayððsÍgross€income€for€the€purposes€of€applying€the€Guidelines€shouldÏhave€been€$61,344.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Ray€next€insists€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€itsÏapplication€of€his€gross€income€to€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€ÏThe€Referee€utilized€the€chart€entitled€ð ðTennessee€Child€SupportÑ€/ÑÇFrom€Monthly€Incomeðð€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€to€determineÏwhat€monthly€child€support€Mr.€Ray€should€pay€based€on€his€grossÏincome.€€However,€the€Referee€should€not€have€used€this€chartÏsince€the€chart€specifically€states€that€it€is€calculated€based€onÏa€FICA€rate€for€employed€persons.€€The€heading€to€the€chartÏstates,€ð ðChild€support€awards€for€the€self„employed€will€have€toÏbe€calculated€separately€as€the€FICA€rate€for€that€group€isÏ15.3%.ðð€€Therefore,€since€Mr.€Ray€is€self„employed,€the€TrialÏCourt€incorrectly€used€this€chart€in€determining€how€much€monthlyÏchild€support€that€he€was€required€to€pay.€€ÌÌà àà àSince€the€chart€that€the€Referee€used€is€inapplicable€toÏMr.€Rayððs€situation€as€a€self„employed€dentist,€the€Trial€CourtÏmust€turn€to€the€Guidelines€themselves€to€set€the€child€supportÏpayments.€€Chapter€1240„2„4„.03€(Amendment€1994)€of€the€ChildÏSupport€Guidelines€provides€that€the€obligorððs€net€income€mustÏfirst€be€determined,€and€a€percentage€of€that€net€income€is€usedÏto€determine€how€much€child€support€is€to€be€paid,€depending€onÏthe€number€of€children.€€For€one€child,€the€obligor€must€pay€21%Ïof€his€net€income€in€child€support.€€The€method€for€determiningÏnet€income€is€stated€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒNet€income€is€calculated€by€subtracting€from€grossÏincome€of€the€obligorððs€FICA€(6.2%€Social€Security€+Ï1.45€%€Medicare€for€regular€wage€earners€and€ò ò12.4%ÏSocial€Security€+€2.9%€Medicare€for€self„employedó ó,€as€of€1991,€or€any€amount€subsequently€set€byÏfederal€law€as€FICA€tax),€the€amount€of€withholding€taxÏdeducted€for€a€single€wage€earner€claiming€oneÏwithholding€allowance€(copies€of€appropriate€table€willÏbe€provided€to€courts€with€guidelines),€and€the€amountÏof€child€support€ordered€pursuant€to€a€previous€order€ofÏchild€support€for€other€children.€€(emphasis€supplied)ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓChild€Support€Guidelines€1240„2„4„.03(4)(Amendment€1994).€ÏFollowing€this€formula€and€using€the€Circular€E,€Employerððs€taxÏguide,€for€withholding€tax€of€a€self„employed€worker€as€advised€byÏthe€chart,€we€determine€that€the€amount€that€Mr.€Ray€is€requiredÏto€pay€under€the€Guidelines€with€a€gross€income€of€$61,344€is€œ$696›Ïper€month.× ƒ0 ××  ×Ô€$ÔÌÌà àà àÔ€%ÔFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€Trial€CourtððsÏgranting€Ms.€Rayððs€petition€for€modification€of€Mr.€Rayððs€childÏsupport€payments€to€follow€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€However,Ïwe€modify€its€determination€as€to€the€amount€and€order€that€Mr.ÏRay€pay€$696€per€month€in€child€support€beginning€on€May€28,€1996,Íthe€date€the€Circuit€Court€confirmed€the€Referee's€œfindings›€andÏrecommendations.ÌÌà àà àThe€cause€is€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€asÏmay€be€necessary€and€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appealÏare€adjudged€one„half€against€Ms.€Ray€and€œone„half›€against€Mr.€RayÏand€his€sureties.ÌœÇÌ›ÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.