WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D  0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>U6B)DC. D3q B AM 0@U*N"xR9v~v  AO+ 0D D/5 BdHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ UDDDӀ~| , 3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd++++'dxd d-)C << G("$    <  9p`(Arial  !#d#&  ..   YYY FILED.X April24,1996CecilCrowson,Jr..AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#&   $       ''ThepetitiondidnotallegethatMr.ReedwasentitledtoreliefunderRule60,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Furthermore,therearenoallegationsinthepetitionthatbringitwithintheambitofthatrule. H !#d#&   $       ''Byagreementoftheparties,Ms.MabryassumedfullresponsibilityforpaymentofthemortgagebeginningJanuary,1995.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &%%Xd&#%%Xd#&  P '\RA'\ћ7XXdd7  ќ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEٜL,/);+'h|z=`  `LߛDAVISA.REED,    )C/ANO.03A019511GS00392      )ROANECOUNTYGENERALSESSIONS  PlaintiffAppellee, )COURT      )      )      )      )v.      )HONORABLETHOMASA.AUSTIN,      )JUDGE      )      )      )      )KATHYL.REED,    )AFFIRMEDINPART      )VACATEDINPART  DefendantAppellant.)REMANDEDCHRISTOPHERVANRIPERofSTUART&VANRIPER,Clinton,forAppellantROBERTW.WILKINSONofBUXTONANDWILKINSON,OakRidge,forAppellee@ OPINION           Susano,J.  Thisisapostdivorcecase.DavisA.Reedfiledapetitionseekinganorderholdinghisformerwife,KathyL.Mabry,Ϝincontempt.Inthesamepetition,healsosoughttomodifythepartiesjudgmentofabsolutedivorce;specifically,heaskedthecourttorelievehimofhisobligationtopayhalfofthemortgagepaymentonthepartiesformermaritalresidence.Ms.Mabryfiledacounterclaimseekinganincreaseinchildsupport.ThetrialcourtfoundMs.Mabryincontempt;orderedhertopayMr.Reed$3,614.50plusaportionofhisattorneysfee;anddeniedherrequestforanincreaseinchildsupport.Ms.Mabryappeals,raisingfourissues: 8 1.WasitappropriateforthetrialcourttofindMs.Mabryincontemptintheabsenceofanallegationinthepetitionthatherconductwaswillful? 8 2.DoesthetrialcourtsfailuretoexpresslystatethatMs.Mabryscontemptuousconductwaswillfulinnatureinvalidatethefindingofcontempt 8  8 3.DidthetrialcourterrinawardingMr.Reedajudgmentagainsthisformerwifefor$3,614.50? 8 4.DidthetrialcourterrinfailingtoincreaseMr.Reedschildsupportobligation?@ I.Facts  ThejudgmentofabsolutedivorcewasenteredJanuary31,1994.Itincorporatedthepartiesagreement.Thejudgmentprovided,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 CustodyoftheminorchildrenChristopherandRogerReedare[sic]awardedtoKathyL.Reed. 8 DavisReedshallhavevisitationatthosetimesandplacesto[sic]agreeduponbytheparties. 8 DavisReedshallpaychildsupportintheamountof$1,238.92permonth,...andthisamountcomplieswiththeapplicableguidelinesestablishedforchildsupportbythelawsoftheStateofTennessee.@ *** 8 Themaritalresidenceofthepartiesshallbesold...@ *** 8 (d)thepaymentsonthemortgageofthemaritalresidenceshallbeequallydividedbythepartiesuntilthemaritalresidenceissold... 8 (e)KathyL.Reedandtheminorchildrenofthepartiesshallbeentitledtooccupythemaritalresidenceuntilthetimeofthesaleandshallhavethirty(30)daysfromthedateofthecontracttosellthemaritalresidencetovacatethesame;provided,however,nothirdpartiesshallbeentitledtoliveinthemaritalresidencepriortothesaleofthesamedescribedherein. 8 (f)Theproceedsofthesaleofthemaritalresidenceshallbeequallydividedbythepartiesaftertheindebtednesssecuredbythesameissatisfied,...ӜWiththepassageoftime,thejudgmentbecamefinal.  Mr.Reedspetition 0   כwasfiledSeptember15,1994,somesevenandahalfmonthsafterthejudgmentwasentered.ItallegedthatMr.Reedsformerwifewas allowinganadultmaletoresideinthemaritalresidenceindirectcontraventionofthejudgment.TheformerMs.Reedrespondedtothisallegationinthefollowingmanner: 8 TheallegationsofParagraph3ofthePetitionaretrue.Defendantwouldaffirmativelyaverthatsufficientreasonsexistrelatingtothebestinterestsofthepartiesminorchildrenforthe adultmaleresidinginthemaritalresidence.DefendantaffirmativelyaversthatParagraph3failstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.TheproofwasundisputedthatMs.MabryspresenthusbandtookupresidenceintheformermaritalresidenceinMay,1994.@ II.LawandAnalysis  Wewillfirstaddresstheappellantsissuespertainingtothetrialcourtsfindingofcontempt.  Thepetitionforcontemptadequatelychargedafailuretoabidebythejudgment.Thatjudgmentclearlystatedthat nothirdpartiesshallbeentitledtoliveinthemaritalresidence.ThepetitionallegedthatMs.MabrywasallowingathirdpartytoϜliveintheresidence.Thiswasasufficientallegationofcontemptuousconductonthepartoftheappellant.ItwasnotϜessentialtoincludetheword willful.Rule8.01,Tenn.R.Civ.P.providesthataclaimforrelief shallcontain...ashortandplainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief.Thistheappelleedid.ItwasuptotheappellanttoallegeandprovethatherconductwasinsomewayϜlegallyjustifiedandthereforenoncontemptuous.Theappellantsfirstissueisfoundtobewithoutmerit.  Thetrialcourtmadeaveryexplicitfindingthattheappellantwasincontemptofcourt.Thedivorcejudgmenthadprohibitedherfrommovingathirdpartyintothemaritalresidence.Shewaswellawareofthisprohibition.Despiteherknowledgeoftheprohibitorylanguageofthejudgment,sheallowedhersoontobehusbandtomoveintotheresidence.Shewillfullyofherownfreewillmadethisdecision.Shewasundernocompulsiontodoso.Itwasimmaterialthatshethoughtshehadagoodreasonforallowinghimtoliveinthehouse.Itwasnotforhertoassessthewisdomofthecourtsjudgmentasappliedtoherthencircumstances;her jobwassimplytoobeythedictatesofthejudgment.Herexplanationthatthechildrenneededamalefigureintheirlifeatthatparticulartimeisnojustificationforherconduct.Thisisnotacasewhereitisbeyondtheabilityofapartytoobeyacourtorder.Cf. Haynesv.Haynes ,904S.W.2d118,120(Tenn.App.1995).Sheclearlyhadtheabilitytocomply.Theappellantssecondissueisalsofoundtobewithoutmerit.  ThetrialcourtwasvestedwiththeauthoritytoimposeanappropriatepunishmentforMs.Mabryscontempt.Itchosenottodoso,explicitlystatingthat itwasnotgoingtopunish[her];however,havingsaidthat,itproceededtoholdthatMs.Mabryshouldreimburseherformerhusband forsevenmonths...whensomebodyelsewaslivingthereinviolationoftheorder.Thejudgmentof$3,614.50representedtheonehalfmortgageϜpaymentmadebyMr.ReedduringthetimeMr.Mabrywaslivinginthehousein1994. 1   לItisapparentthatthejudgmentof$3,614.50wasnotdesignedtorespondtothecontemptpetition.Onthecontrary,itisclearthatthemoneyjudgmentwasinresponsetoMr.Reedspetitiontoberelievedofhismortgagepaymentobligation.Thismeansthatthetrialcourtpurportedtomodifythejudgmentofabsolutedivorce.Thiswaserror.Thedivisionofthepartiespropertyandthecourtsdecreeinthiscasewithrespecttothemortgagepaymentsisapartofthatdivisionwasnotsubjecttomodification. Vanattav.Vanatta ,701S.W.2d824,827(Tenn.App.1985); Townerv.Towner ,858S.W.2d888,89192(Tenn.1993).Thejudgmentprovidedthateachpartywouldpayhalfofthemortgagepayment,andthateachwastoreceivehalfofthenetproceedswhenthepropertywassold.Thiswasapartofthedivisionofpropertyandnotsubjecttomodification.  In Vanatta ,thiscourtaddressedanobligationtomakeamortgagepaymentassetforthinadivorcejudgment: 8 Contrarytotheimportofdefendantsfirstissue,themortgagepaymentswereacontractualobligationvoluntarilyassumedbythehusbandasapartofapropertysettlementagreementandmadeapartofthepropertydivisionprovisionsofthedivorcedecree.Assuch,itwasandisjustasfinalandunchangeableastheawardofphysicalpropertytothewifeortheobligationofthewifetoholdthehusbandharmlessfromliabilityformortgageinstallmentsmaturingmorethan8yearsafterthedecree. 8 Inresponsetodefendantsfirstissue,thedivisionofpropertywasacontractbetweentheparties,butwasmergedintothedivorcedecreewhich,onthissubjectisfinalandunchangeableasanyothercourtjudgment,andnotsubjecttomodificationexceptforfraudandothergroundsuponwhichanyjudgmentmaybeattacked.701S.W.2dat827.Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourterredingrantingMr.Reedajudgmentfor$3,614.50.  ThetrialcourtrefusedtoincreaseMr.Reedschildsupportobligation.Theappellantarguesthattheappelleeisnotexercisingvisitationwithhischildren.Theappelleedoesnotseriouslydisputethiscontention.Itistrue,astheappellantargues,thattheChildSupportGuidelinesassumethattheϜnoncustodialparentisexercisingacertainlevelofvisitationwithhisorherchildren.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.ch.124024.02(6).However,therecordalsoreflectsthattheappelleesϜannualincomehaddecreasedapproximately$8,000$9,000sincethedivorce.Whenthesetwoelementsareweighedtogether,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsdeterminationthattheappellantisnotentitledtoanincreaseinchildsupport.  Allofthetrialcourtsjudgmentexceptthejudgmentfor$3,614.50isaffirmed.Theaforesaidmoneyjudgmentisherebyvacated.Thiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedhalftotheappellantandhalftotheappellee.       ____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:̛̜̜_______________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.̛̜̜_______________________________WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge