ÿWPC±4 U¹Ý_áŠb~, B0A^xݬh.M_žpÒÍvëxµH c–¥X±TæYЧëUÁ–ðÕ·*ØÐ-~ñË©¨¾[Nx‰£‡ÕzÕ9 ájªÒYAÞf)<•[“%ì{ÝJsøüÝ!5‚Œ³Ô†Œ+þøK”3¶sÙó¹ji¶Ì^üVÕP38ÔŽG—Qª2âE…ýºå˜6ÀÃ\K¸fÆ­È{Ú3ü LEÅc:‘¿ûÍ9wPµËÅ)n %’Ìñwç´ôz°”W—«±¢™4Zs<þÄ-Ÿ;|¡<‹P€©¼‘ÃÅ´^=ÇÇSðîVÈUgÇ2¹Ír÷=ú¢Óqpé¶Y‚„ ‚‘8ïåçúóñî¢ÊÕ…Ç+`Áþdã‚‘¤ Œ/”Hå~áӈ빢bùPV ·µÙ­Ã¾ÑKl1‚·?þV¿‘iü*eH‹Þ¡þ÷銳xçÒ폎À«úÞLäô%xÊXŸšç¦ÔHlF¸Ü¾*§tˆ†È~½ð_]]l˜ùqY^÷OÑ ¨ ®»*MþCžDA¨™ö*'ßgðK*vÄY³¥A3—ñP¥™7WÈvu°€P32õÀ$qyÒôc:W°KŒáâ®ÃÔZ¡3æ`# @UNK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL ÝT N1 0P3 ^ ƒ  m‘ :¨ 0 °â 0 D’LÖ¦"È 1‡ÊXQ 1m©UNéd 0cM 0D°LôUN@" AQŽ"Æß"Ê¥#o' 0Dð) 0D4*Éx*LA. D/1 B¼1Ù1 D3Ü2U:3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 0DI3I3I3I3I3I3I3I3 B3 Aª3 D?+4 BGj4˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ æUçDèVéDêëìDíîÓ€ø©yË&tttttt3|xøwaiver- ù- ÓÝ ƒÇŸ$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Y»XXÔ€The€father€also€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€wouldÐ ° Ðrequire€the€trial€court€to€make€a€written€finding€that€ð ðthe€application€of€the€ChildÏSupport€Guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriateðð€in€this€case€before€theÏcourt€can€substitute€potential€income€for€actual€income€due€to€willful€andÏvoluntary€underemployment.€€That€statute,€however,€is€applicable€only€to€theÏsituation€where€a€court€determines€that€sufficient€evidence€exists€to€rebut€theÏpresumption€that€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€are€determinative€of€the€amountÏof€support.€€Because€the€willful€underemployment€situation€involvesÏidentification€of€the€amount€of€income€to€which€the€guidelines€are€to€be€applied,Ïthe€statute€propounded€by€the€father€is€simply€not€relevant€to€this€situation.((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d ÔJe'ˆÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 0Ñ#€º€»ÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ(`(2ÇŸ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑÑà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó BÝ ƒÇŸ$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€¼¿»XXÔA€finding€that€an€obligor€has€the€potential€or€capability€to€produce€greaterÐ ° Ðincome€has€been€treated€as€the€functional€equivalent€of,€or€an€implicit€finding€of,Ð Â £ Ðwillful€and€voluntary€unemployment€or€underemployment.€òòSeeóó€òò€Anderson,€óó€1998Ð ° ÐWL€44947;€òòBeem€v.€Beemóó,€No.€02A01„9511„CV„00252,€1996€WL€636491òòÐ Â Ðóó(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€5,€1996)€(no€Tenn.R.App.P.€11€application€filed)òò;óó€òòRiley€v.Ð Ô$ ÐRileyóó,€No.€03A01„9480„CH„00268,€1995€WL€311331€(Tenn.€App.€May€22,Ð æ6 Ð1995)€€(no€Tenn.R.App.P.€11€application€filed). œÝ ƒÇŸ$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Y»XXÔ€€The€parties€executed€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€which€recognizedÐ ° Ðhusbandððs€unemployment,€and€the€appeal€involved€the€initial€setting€of€the€childÏsupport€obligation€as€part€of€the€final€divorce€order. øÝ ƒÇŸ$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Y»XXÔ€€In€òòHerreraóó,€it€was€undisputed€that€the€fatherððs€income€from€his€medicalÐ ° Ðpractice€had€significantly€decreased,€because,€at€least€in€part,€of€a€reduction€inÏreferrals€and€Medicare€reimbursements.€€The€trial€court€stated€it€was€setting€childÏsupport€based€on€the€ð ðtrue€income€capabilityðð€of€the€father,€taking€intoÏconsideration€the€factors€which€may€have€contributed€to€the€decrease€in€hisÏincome,€but€it€made€no€express€determination€of€that€potential€income€orÏexplanation€of€the€specific€basis€for€its€decision.€òò€See€id.óó€at€387òò.óó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.  €IONE GOODLETTSVILLE IoneobligorBurchfield RegsMcAlisterGoodeMcCollumrebuttables]alariesHerreraDevorak M.Sobligeedegreed BeemGarfinkles]uchNarusEubankGarettGutknechtGutknectRenickSeatonHydenMcGafficCresonobligors#.*jxÓ` `€€@EÇÜ` 8ttxPÿÌð  tßñøñÌó óÌBARRY€SHAWN€RALSTONà 8 àà  à)Ð ê: Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð  Z Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01A01„9804„CV„00222Ð  j Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð * z Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àDavidson€CircuitÐ :Š  ÐGINA€IONE€HOLLOWAYà  à)à  àNo.€€96D„2621Ð Jš  ÐRALSTON€Ô#†X¦!X¼¼L6G#ÔÔ‡¼L6¼XX¦!Ôà  à)Ð Zª  Ðà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à  à)Ð jº  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÔ#†X¦!X¼¼L6Ï#ÔÔ‡»Ì5»XX¦!ÔÓ  ÓÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÌFOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON€PRESIDING€ÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓROBERT€L.€JACKSONÌW.€SCOTT€ROSENBERGÌ214€2òòndóó€AVENUE,€NORTH/SUITE€103Ð :Š ÐNASHVILLE,€TENNESSEE€37201ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ#†X¦!X»»Ì5#ÔÔ‡¼L6¼XX¦!ÔATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÐ j"º ÐÌÌROSEMARY€E.€PHILLIPSÌ429€CHURCH€STREETÌP.O.€BOX€590ÌGOODLETTSVILLE,€TENNESSEE€37070„0590ÌÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÓ  Óò òVACATED€AND€REMANDEDó ó€Ð  -Z(& ÐÓ  ÓÌÌà Ø àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELLÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌCANTRELL,€J.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÐ  ¾8419 ÐÑüšÑâ âÑ7€Ì5»»dXXdì7ÑÑ€ Ñâ âÑ  ÑÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X¦!X¼¼L6#ÔÔ‡°‘9°XX¦!ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X¦!X°°‘9Æ #ÔÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼L6¼XX¦!Ôà  àThis€appeal€arose€after€the€trial€court€rejected€Appellant€Barry€ShawnÐ T¤ ÐRalston's€("the€father")€petition€to€reduce€child€support€on€the€basis€of€his€reducedÏactual€income.€€In€his€sole€issue€on€appeal,€the€father€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏmisapplied€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€36„5„101€(a)€(1),€which€he€claims€mandated€theÏmodification€of€child€support€on€a€showing€of€a€significant€variance€between€theÏamount€of€child€support€required€by€application€of€the€Child€Support€GuidelinesÏto€his€current€actual€income€and€the€previously„ordered€support€obligation.ÏAppellee€Gina€Ione€Holloway€Ralston€("the€mother")€responds€that€the€fatherÏremains€intentionally€underemployed€and€that€the€trial€court€properly€consideredÏthe€fatherððs€potential€income€in€denying€the€requested€reduction.€For€the€€reasonsÏset€out€herein,€we€vacate€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ìà  àWhen€the€parties€divorced€in€April€1997,€they€stipulated€to€the€grounds.€ÏAt€the€time,€they€had€two€minor€children.€€The€final€decree€of€divorce,€whichÏreflected€the€parties'€settlement€agreement,€awarded€the€mother€primary€physicalÏcustody€of€the€children€and€ordered€the€father,€òòinter€aliaóó,€to€pay€monthly€childÐ &d! Ðsupport€in€the€amount€of€$1,540,€which,€according€to€the€decree,€was€inÏaccordance€with€the€€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€Ìà  àIn€August€1997,€the€father€filed€a€Petition€to€reduce€child€support,Ïalleging€that€he€had€lost€his€job€earning€over€$82,000€as€a€director€of€sales€andÏmarketing€and€was€presently€earning€a€yearly€salary€of€€$35,000.€€The€mother€filed€Ïmotions€€seeking€payment€of€€his€child€support€arrearage€and€for€attorney€feesÏincurred€in€bringing€that€motion.€€After€an€August€hearing,€the€trial€court€orderedÏthe€father€to€pay€the€child€support€arrearage€and€$250€in€attorney€fees.€€Ìà  àIn€December€1997,€the€mother€filed€an€Answer€and€Counter„petitionÐ 49„40 Ðseeking€contempt€sanctions€for€the€father's€purported€failure€to€pay€child€supportÏin€November€or€December.€€This€matter€and€the€father's€request€for€modificationÏof€the€child€support€were€heard€in€February€1998.€€At€the€hearing,€the€fatherÏtestified€that€his€job€was€eliminated€after€his€company€downsized€due€to€aÏChapter€11€proceeding.€€He€then€formed€a€partnership,€Primary€Care€Consultants,ÏLtd.,€with€his€brother,€a€general€contractor.€The€father€testified€that€he€hadÏborrowed€money€from€his€family€to€pay€the€child€support€arrearage.Ìà  àAfter€the€hearing€concluded,€the€court€denied€the€father's€request€forÏmodification€of€the€child€support.€€It€found€that€the€father€had€been€in€arrears€onÏhis€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$3,850,€but€had€paid€that€sum€current€on€theÏdate€of€the€hearing.€€The€hearing€on€the€petition€was€not€transcribed,€and€the€caseÏis€before€this€court€on€a€Statement€of€the€Evidence€as€contemplated€by€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€24€(c).€€ÌÓL€ 5h(3LÓÒS€ÒÓ  ÓI.ÌÓÔÓà × àThe€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€theÏstandard€for€modification€of€a€prior€support€order.€The€proper€standard€forÏdetermining€whether€an€existing€child€support€order€should€be€modified€is€theÏ"significant€variance€test"€which€the€General€Assembly€adopted€in€1994.€€òòTurnerÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðv.€Turner,€óó919€S.W.2d€340,€342„343€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€This€legislationÐ \-¬(& Ðprovides€that:ÌÓÓà8 × àà8@× × Ð × Ð àIn€cases€involving€child€support,€upon€application€of€eitherÏparty,€the€court€shall€decree€an€increase€or€decrease€of€suchÏallowance€when€there€is€found€to€be€a€significant€variance,€asÏdefined€in€the€child€support€guidelines€.€€.€€.€between€theÏguidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currently€ordered€unlessÏthe€variance€has€resulted€from€a€previously€court„orderedÏdeviation€from€the€guidelines€and€the€circumstances€whichÏcaused€the€deviation€have€not€changed.Ð"9r41× Ð × Ð  ÐÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101€(a)€(1)€(Supp.€1998).€€Under€the€guidelines,€theÏamount€of€support€is€formulaic,€unless€special€circumstances€are€found,€and€isÏbased€on€a€flat€percentage€of€the€obligorððs€net€income.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,Ïch.€1240„2„4„.03(2)(1994).€€The€party€seeking€the€modification€bears€the€burdenÏof€showing€the€necessary€significant€variance.€òòSee€Seal€v.€Seal,€óó802€S.W.2d€617,Ð @  Ð620€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€òòTurneróó,€919€S.W.2d€at€345.Ð d´  Ðà × àA€significant€variance€between€the€guideline€amount€and€the€currentÏsupport€order€is€defined€as€ð ðat€least€15%€if€the€current€support€is€one€hundredÏdollars€($100.00)€or€greater€per€monthðð,€and€€ð ð[s]uch€variance€would€justify€theÏmodification€of€a€child€support€order€unless,€in€situations€where€a€downwardÏmodification€is€sought,€the€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€orÏunderemployed.ðð€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3)(1994)ÌÓÓÓÓà × àThe€significant€variance€test€requires€that€the€court€first€determine€theÏobligorððs€income€to€which€the€guidelinesðð€formula€will€be€applied.€€ÌÓÐÓà8 × àà8@× × Ð × Ð àDetermining€the€amount€of€the€non„custodial€parentððs€incomeÏis€the€most€important€element€of€proof€in€a€proceeding€to€setÏchild€support€[citations€omitted.]€€This€is€the€case€whenÏsetting€initial€support€and€when€considering€requests€forÏmodification€of€an€existing€support€obligation.€€The€non„¼custodial€parentððs€income€is,€in€fact,€doubly€important€in€aÏmodification€proceeding€because€the€child€support€guidelinesÏrequire€the€courts€to€examine€the€basis€for€the€current€supportÏorder€and€the€non„custodial€parentððs€current€income.€€Ð × Ð × Ð  ÐÌòòTurneróó,€919€S.W.2d€at€344.Ð \-¬(& ÐÌÓÓà × àIn€this€case,€the€father€sought€reduction€of€his€support€obligation€on€theÏbasis€of€his€reduced€actual€earnings.€€However,€courts€may€use€the€obligorÏparentððs€potential,€rather€than€actual,€income€where€that€parent€is€willfully€andÏvoluntarily€unemployed€or€underemployed.ÌÓÓà8 × àIf€an€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€orÏunderemployed,€child€support€shall€be€calculated€based€uponÐ "9r41 Ða€determination€of€potential€income,€as€evidenced€byÏeducational€level€and/or€previous€work€experience.Ð × Ð × Ð  ÐÌ€ñìñ€ñìñTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(d)(1994).ÌÌÓÓà × àIn€other€words,€where€a€lower€income€is€due€to€willful׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€voluntaryÐ  Z Ðunemployment€or€underemployment,€the€courts€must€determine€the€potentialÏincome€of€the€obligor€parent,€instead€of€using€the€actual€income,€before€aÏdetermination€of€the€amount€due€under€the€guidelines€can€be€made.ÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓc%Óà × àThe€issue€of€willful€and€voluntary€underemployment€can€arise€in€theÏinitial€setting€of€child€support€as€well€as€in€modification€proceedings.€€It€can€ariseÏwhere€the€obligee€parent€seeks€an€upward€modification,€as€well€as€where€theÏobligor€spouse€seeks€a€reduction.€The€determination€of€whether€a€particularÏparent€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€or€underemployed€is€fact„¼dependent,€and€can€only€be€made€after€consideration€of€all€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€that€parentððs€past€and€present€employment€or€business€activities.Ìà × àOur€courts€will€consider€the€reasonableness€of€the€obligor€parentððsÏoccupational€choices€in€light€of€surrounding€circumstances.€€òòSee€Narus€v.€Narusóó,€Ð Þ%.! ÐNo.€03A01„9804„CV„00126,€1998€WL€959839€at€*€2€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€31,€1998)€Ï(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(obligor€not€willfully€and€voluntarilyÏunemployed€or€underemployed€where€obligor€chose€ð ðto€retire€at€a€reasonable€age,Ð J,š'% Ðfor€legitimate€reasons,€and€otherwise€under€reasonable€circumstances.ðð).€€TheÏtrial€court€must€consider€whether€the€choice€to€take€a€lower€paying€job€is€madeÏin€good€faith€and€whether€some€or€all€of€the€unrealized€earning€capacity€shouldÏbe€included€as€imputed€income.Ìà × àHowever,€obligor€parents€will€not€be€allowed€to€avoid€or€lessen€theirÏobligations€to€their€children€simply€so€that€the€parents€can€choose€not€to€work€orÏto€work€at€lower„paying€jobs.€€òòSee€Garfinkle€v.€Garfinkleóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€744Ð ˆØ  Ð(Tenn.€App.€1996)€€(rejecting€the€Masters„degreed€obligorððs€argument€that€hisÏactual€income€from€his€management€of€his€rental€properties€should€be€used€toÏcompute€child€support€because€he€had€a€fundamental€right€to€choose€to€be€self„¼employed€and€because€he€had€been€so€self„employed€prior€to€and€during€hisÏmarriage).€€The€reason€for€the€obligor€parentððs€decision€to€take€a€lower€paying€jobÏor€reduce€income„producing€activities€is€relevant.€€In€òòMcGaffic€v.€McGafficóó,€No.Ð `° Ð03A01„9707„CV„00286,€1997€WL€772899€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€9,€1997)€(no€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€the€prior€work€history€of€the€father€as€well€asÏtestimony€at€the€hearing€supported€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€father€wasÏunderemployed€because€he€took€a€lower„paying€job€where€his€employer€allowedÏhim€to€be€off€from€work€to€pursue€his€hobby€of€drag€racing.ñéññáñ)ñáññéñ€€However,€in€òòCresonÐ )d$" Ðv.€Creson,€óóNo.€02A01„9801„CH„00002,€1999€WL€65055€at€*€5€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.Ð 8+ˆ&$ Ð12,€1999)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€this€court€determined€thatÏan€obligorððs€decision€to€reduce€the€number€of€clients€he€serviced€in€his€lawn€careÏbusiness€did€not€constitute€willful€underemployment€in€view€of€his€other€full€timeÏemployment.€€Additionally,€an€obligorððs€testimony€that€he€was€capable€of€earningÏa€greater€incomeñëññíñ׃'×ñíññíñ׃×ñíññëññëñ׃×ñëñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€has€been€found€to€constitute€evidence€of€willful€unemploymentÐ ì5<1. Ðor€underemployment.€€òòSee€Gutknecht€v.€Gutknechtóó,€No.€01„A„01„9101„CH„00015,Ð ° Ð1991€WL€79560€at€*€1€(Tenn.€App.€May€17,€1991)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).Ì€à × à€Generally,€where€a€reduced€actual€income€is€involved,€the€fact€patternsÐ  l Ðdiffer€on€whether€the€leaving€of€previous€employment€or€other€income€producingÏactivity€was€òòvoluntaryóó,€òòsee,€e.g.,€Ford€v.€Fordóó,€No.€02A01„9507„CH„00153,€1996Ð d´  ÐWL€560258€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.€3,€1996)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)Ï(finding€35„year€old€obligor€who€chose€to€discontinue€working€wasÏunderemployed);€òòRiley€v.€Rileyóó,€No.€03A01„9480„CH„00268,€1995€WL€311331Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€App.€May€22,€1995)€€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(affirmingÏimplicit€finding€of€underemployment€where€college„degreed€obligor€voluntarilyÏleft€his€employment€with€county€school€board€to€try€to€earn€a€living€farming);ÏòòBrooks€v.€Brooksóó,€€992€S.W.2d€403,€407€(Tenn.€1999)€(obligor€who€soldÐ `° Ðsuccessful€business€and€began€cattle€breeding€operation€was€underemployed),€orÐ „ Ô Ðòòinvoluntaryóó,€òòsee,€e.g.,€Beem€v.€Beemóó,€No.€02A01„9511„CV„00252,€1996€WLÐ ¨"ø Ð636491òò€óó(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€5,€1996)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)Ð Ì$  Ð(reversing€implicit€finding€of€underemployment€where€obligor's€job€wasÏeliminated€prior€to€parties€entering€into€MDA);€òòMarcus€v.€Marcusóó,€No.€02A01„Ð )d$" Ð9611„CV„000286,€1998€WL€29645€(Tenn.€App.€Jan.€28,€1998)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€11€application€filed)€(no€finding€of€underemployment€where€obligorððsÏemployment€was€terminated).Ìà × àWhere€a€parent€with€child€support€obligations€voluntarily€leaves€theÐ ¤1ô,* Ðemployment€or€business€activity€which€provided€the€resources€to€maintain€thatÏsupport€and€chooses€to€cease€working€or€to€begin€an€activity€which€providesÏsignificantly€less€income,€the€courts€are€more€inclined€to€find€willful€and€Ïvoluntary€unemployment€or€underemployment.€€òòSee€Brooks€v.€Brooks,€óó€992Ð  l ÐS.W.2d€at€407;€€òòFord€v.€Ford,€óó1996€WL€560258€at€3.Ð @  Ðà × àThe€fact€that€an€obligor€parentððs€loss€of€former€employment€was€notÏvoluntary€does€not,€however,€end€the€inquiry€as€to€whether€that€parent€is€willfullyÏand€voluntarily€underemployed.€€The€term€ð ðwillfully€and€voluntarilyðð€implies€aÏchoice.€€While€the€initial€loss€of€employment€may€have€been€involuntary,€anÏobligorððs€course€of€action€and€decision„making€after€termination€can€demonstrateÏwillful€and€voluntary€underemployment.€Ìà × àThree€cases€are€particularly€relevant€here€because€they€involve€obligorsÏwho€lost€or€left€lucrative€positions€and€then€began€their€own€businesses.€In€òòBeemÐ `° Ðv.€Beemóó,€1996€WL€636491,€the€Court€of€Appeals€found€there€was€no€evidence€inÐ „ Ô Ðthe€record€that€the€obligor€spouse€was€willfully€and€voluntarily€underemployed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¨"ø ÐIn€that€case,€the€obligorððs€$55,000€per€year€job€was€eliminated,€and€he€started€hisÏown€consulting€business€which,€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€was€providing€himÏwith€$2970€per€month€income.€€The€obligor€testified€he€anticipated€that€incomeÏto€increase€to€$3500€per€month€for€the€rest€of€the€year.€€The€record€indicated€thatÏthe€obligor€had,€in€addition€to€starting€his€own€business,€sought€employment€fromÏvarious€companies€and€had€provided€his€resume€to€a€number€of€employmentÏsearch€firms.€€He€also€actively€solicited€business€for€his€new€company.Ìà × àIn€òòMarcus€v.€Marcusóó,€1998€WL€29645,€this€Court€found€that€the€recordÐ È3/, Ðdid€not€contain€evidence€that€would€support€a€finding€that€the€obligor€parent€wasÏwillfully€and€voluntarily€underemployed€and,€consequently,€reversed€the€trialÏcourtððs€setting€of€child€support€on€the€basis€of€the€parentððs€earning€potential.€€InÐ øH ÐòòMarcusóó,€the€Fatherððs€vice€president€position€was€eliminated.€After€searching€forÐ  l Ðemployment,€he€formed€his€own€Internet€business€approximately€two€years€beforeÏthe€divorce€hearing.Ìà × àIn€òòAnderson€v.€Andersonóó,€No.€01A01„9704„CH„00186,€1998€WL€44947Ð ˆØ  Ð(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€6,€1998)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€the€obligorÏfather,€after€notice€that€his€employer,€the€Tennessee€Valley€Authority,€planned€toÏreduce€its€workforce€significantly€in€his€department,€accepted€an€advantageousÏearly„out€offer,€and€ended€his€employment.€€Rather€than€looking€for€a€comparableÏposition€with€another€entity,€the€obligor€decided€to€start€his€own€computerÏbusiness,€which€was€not,€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€financially€successful.€€TheÏobligor€testified€he€eventually€intended€to€seek€outside€employment€if€hisÏbusiness€did€not€become€profitable€within€the€next€year.€€Based€upon€evidenceÏthat€Mr.€Anderson€had€been€earning€more€than€$50,000€when€he€left€TVA,€thatÏhe€could€have€earned€at€least€$40,000€if€he€had€found€a€position€with€anotherÏemployer,€and€could€possibly€have€earned€more€than€he€was€making€at€TVA,€theÏcourt€found€his€self„employment,€which€he€claimed€produced€only€$12,000€inÏincome,€constituted€willful€underemployment.€Ìà × àBoth€òòMarcus€óóandòò€Beem€óóinvolve€situations€where€a€formerly„heldÐ €/Ð*( Ðposition€was€eliminated€and€the€obligor€subsequently€started€his€own€businessÏwhich€produced€considerably€less€income€than€the€previous€employment.€€TheÏrecords€in€both€cases,€however,€included€evidence€of€efforts€by€the€obligor€to€findÏother€employment€before,€or€in€addition€to,€the€obligorððs€decision€to€start€his€ownÐ 8`30 Ðbusiness.€€In€òòAndersonóó,€on€the€other€hand,€the€obligorððs€job€was€not€actuallyÐ ° Ðabolished€and,€rather€than€look€for€employment€at€a€comparable€salary,€theÏobligor€elected€to€start€his€own€company.€€Thus,€the€obligorððs€efforts€to€replaceÏthe€lost€salary€can€be€determinative€of€the€issue€of€voluntary€underemployment.Ìà × àThis€review€of€prior€decisions€is€intended€primarily€to€demonstrate€thatÏthe€determination€of€whether€an€obligor€parent€is€willfully€and€voluntarilyÏunderemployed€is€one€which€is€dependent€upon€the€complete€factual€backgroundÏof€the€obligorððs€situation.€€We€believe€this€is€especially€true€where€the€initial€lossÏof€employment€was€not€due€to€the€obligor€parentððs€decision€to€voluntarilyÏterminate€his€or€her€employment.€€In€such€situations,€the€obligor€parentððs€attemptsÏto€find€employment€at€a€comparable€salary,€the€availability€of€comparable€or€anyÏemployment,€and€the€reasonableness€of€the€employment€choice€under€all€theÏcircumstances,€including€the€support€obligation,€should€be€considered.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `° Ðà × àà@AA,ÓàIII.ˆÌà × àIf€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€the€obligor€parent€seeking€theÏmodification€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€or€underemployed,€then€theÏcourt€is€required€to€use€that€parentððs€potential€income,€rather€than€actual€income,Ïin€setting€the€child€support€obligation.€€Thus,€the€courtððs€next€task€is€to€determineÏthe€potential€income,€taking€into€consideration€the€obligorððs€educational€levelÏand/or€previous€work€experience.€òòSee€Garfinkle,óó€945€S.W.2d€at€€747.€€In€someÐ \-¬(& Ðcases,€the€underemployed€parentððs€statements€about€his€earning€potential€haveÏalso€served€as€the€measure€of€potential€income.€€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€òòGutknecht,óó€1991€WLÐ Ô$ Ð79560€(unemployed€obligor€conceded€he€was€capable€of€earning€about€$25,000Ïannually,€a€figure€comparable€to€his€earlier€salaries,€and€court€used€that€figure€asÏpotential€income).Ìà × àOur€courts€have€in€some€cases€determined€that€the€previous€income€ofÏthe€obligor€is€an€accurate€measure€of€potential€income.€€This€approach€is€mostÏapplicable€when€an€obligor€parent€has€voluntarily€discontinued€his€priorÏemployment€or€other€income„producing€activity,€because,€without€the€consciousÏdecision€to€cease€the€activity,€the€actual€income€would€have€continued.€€InÏòòBrooks,óó€our€Supreme€Court€recently€examined€the€potential€income€of€a€fatherÐ h Ðwho€was€found€to€be€underemployed.€€òòBrooks,€óó992€S.W.2d€at€407.€The€father€inÐ <Œ Ðthat€case€had€sold€a€successful€retail€business€to€undertake€cattle€farming.€€TheÏCourt€found,€ð ðthe€earnings€he€derived€from€the€Conoco€store€were€the€bestÏevidence€of€his€earning€capacity€at€or€near€the€time€the€petition€for€an€increase€inÏsupport€was€filed.€€One€year€prior€to€the€hearing,€the€store€generated€profits€ofÏ$102,087.€€.€€.€€.€Accordingly,€we€impute€Mr.€Brooksðð€income€for€child€supportÏpurposes€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€to€be€$102,087.ðð€€òòBrooks,€óó992€S.W.2d€at€407.Ð )d$" Ðà × àWhere€there€is€an€explicit€finding,€supported€by€evidence€in€the€record,Ïthat€an€obligor€parent€is€willfully€unemployed€or€underemployed,€or€a€similarlyÏsupported€finding€that€the€obligorððs€earning€capacity€is€greater€than€the€currentÏincome,€the€appellate€courts€have€sometimes€affirmed€a€trial€courtððs€decision€toÏdeny€a€requested€reduction,€resulting€in€the€conclusion€that€the€obligorððs€potentialÏincome€is€the€same€as€his€or€her€prior€income.€€òòAndersonóó,€€1998€WL€44947;Ð ì5<1. ÐòòSeaton€v.€Reynoldsóó,€No.€02A01„9810„JV„00290,€1999€WL€20790€(Tenn.€App.Ð 8`30 ÐJan.€20,€1999)€(no€Tenn.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).Ìà × àIn€that€situation,€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€a€request€to€reduce€childÏsupport€has€been€determined€to€include€an€implicit,€if€not€express,€finding€that€theÏobligorððs€potential€income€has€not€decreased€from€the€amount€he€or€she€wasÏactually€earning€at€the€time€of€the€last€order€setting€the€amount€of€support.€€€òòSeeÐ @  ÐAndersonóó,€€1998€WL€44947;òò€see€alsoóó€òòRileyóó,€1995€WL€311331.Ð d´  Ðà × àIn€òòFordóó,€1996€WL€560258,€this€court€remanded€the€case€to€the€trialÐ ˆØ  Ðcourt€for€a€determination€of€the€husbandððs€potential€income,€specifically€directingÏthe€court€to€consider€his€previous€work€experience€(he€earned€$650€per€weekÏprior€to€his€decision€to€discontinue€working)€and€his€educational€background.€TheÏtrial€court€had€found€husband€not€willfully€underemployed€and,€consequently,Ïmade€no€finding€regarding€his€potential€income.Ìà × àIn€òòHerrera€v.€Herreraóó,€944€S.W.2d€379€(Tenn.€App.€1996),€this€CourtÐ `° Ðfound€that€the€trial€court€was€required€to€make€an€express€determination€of€theÏobligorððs€potential€earnings€before€it€could€set€the€amount€of€child€support€andÏremanded€for€such€purpose.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòHerrera,€óó944€S.W.2d€at€387.€€While€this€holdingÐ Ì$  Ðwas€made€in€the€context€of€an€initial€award€of€child€support€as€part€of€the€finalÏdivorce€order,€we€think€it€has€application€where,€as€here,€the€obligor€involuntarilyÏloses€his€employment.€€The€obligorððs€ability€find€employment€at€a€comparableÏsalary,€or€at€any€salary,€is€a€relevant€factual€inquiry.€€The€court€must€determineÏwhether€some€or€all€of€the€unrealized€earning€capacity€should€be€included€asÐ €/Ð*( Ðimputed€income.€òò€Ð ° ÐóóÓ  ÓIV.Ð Ô$ ÐÓ_Ó€à × àThe€father€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€make€an€explicitÐ øH Ðfinding€that€he€was€willfully€and€voluntarily€underemployed€precludes€the€courtÏfrom€using€any€amount€other€than€his€actual€income€in€determining€whether€aÏsubstantial€variance€exists.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Where€a€trial€court€finds€that€a€child€support€obligorÐ d´  Ðis€willfully€and€voluntarily€underemployed,€this€Court€will€review€that€findingÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness€and€will€not€overturn€that€finding€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€it.€€òòMarcusóó,€1998€WL€29645€at€*€1.€€Where,Ð Ð  Ðhowever,€the€trial€court€does€not€make€a€specific€finding€of€willful€and€voluntaryÏunderemployment,׃#D ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€this€Court€may€review€the€record€and€determine€that€issueÐ h Ðitself,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòBrooksóó,€992€S.W.2d€at€404.Ð <Œ Ðà × àOrdinarily,€our€review€of€a€trial€court's€decision€is€òòde€novoóó€with€aÐ `° Ðpresumption€that€its€findings€of€fact€are€correct.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d).€€Where,Ïhowever,€the€trial€court€makes€no€findings€of€fact,€there€is€nothing€in€the€recordÏto€which€the€presumption€can€attach,€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€without€aÐ Ì$  Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòSee€Kelly€v.€Kellyóó,€679€S.W.2d€458,€460€€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐApp.€1984).Ìà × àThe€Order€in€this€matter€makes€no€finding€that€the€father€is€willfully€andÏvoluntarily€underemployed€or€that€the€father€has€the€potential€or€capacity€to€earnÏa€greater€income.€€Similarly,€there€is€no€finding€as€to€the€courtððs€basis€forÏdetermining€the€fatherððs€potential€income.€€The€Statement€of€the€EvidenceÏprepared€by€the€trial€court€includes€the€observation€that,€ð ðsalaries€were€set€by€heÏ[the€father]€and€his€partner€knowing€his€obligation€and€support€under€the€finalÏdecree.ðð׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Similarly,€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€reduce€the€support€obligationÐ Ð  Ðindicates€that€the€court€was€of€the€€opinion€that€the€fatherððs€potential€income€wasÏat€least€the€amount€the€guidelines€indicate€would€be€needed€for€the€child€supportÏñäñsetñäñ€herein,€$82,200.Ìà × à€Here,€the€record€shows€that€the€father€had€a€high€school€education€andÏtwo€years€of€college.€€When€his€monthly€child€support€payment€of€$1550€wasÏinitially€calculated,€he€was€earning€a€yearly€salary€of€$82,500.€€At€the€time€of€theÏmodification€hearing,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€father's€actual€income€was€reducedÏto€approximately€$35,000.Ìà × àThe€trial€court€herein€may€have€relied€upon€the€reasoning€in€cases€suchÐ )d$" Ðas€òòSeatonóó,€1999€WL€20790,€wherein€the€lack€of€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ° Ðdemonstrating€the€involuntary€loss€of€income€and€attempts€to€find€comparable€orÏother€employment€were€found€to€constitute€a€failure€of€the€obligor€parent€to€carryÏthe€burden€of€proving€that€a€downward€modification€of€support€was€warranted.€ÏInòò€Seatonóó,€the€obligor€parentððs€contract€as€instructor€with€a€university€was€notÐ @  Ðrenewed,€but€no€evidence€of€the€reason€for€non„renewal€appeared€in€the€record,Ïand€the€obligor€enrolled€in€ñêña€ñêñdoctoral€program€and€sought€reduction€in€childÏsupport.Ìà × àIn€this€case,€however,€it€is€undisputed€that€Mr.€Ralstonððs€loss€ofÏemployment€was€involuntary.€€Consequently,€we€think€this€courtððs€approach€inÐ ôD ÐòòHall€v.€Polkóó,€No.€01„A„01„9106„CV„00232,€1991€WL€226914€(Tenn.€App.€Nov.Ð h Ð6,€1991)€€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€is€more€applicable.€€In€òòHallóó,Ð <Œ Ðthis€court€determined€that€the€obligor€parent€made€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€in€hisÐ `° Ðpetition€to€reduce€child€support€by€proving€that€his€former€employment€wasÏterminated€because€his€employer€company€closed.€€ð ðThere€is€no€showing€that€heÏis€voluntarily€underemployed€or€that€the€unfortunate€circumstances€he€now€findsÏhimself€in€were€of€his€own€making.ðð€òòHallóó,€1991€WL€226914€at€*€1.€€This€courtÐ ð&@"  Ðreversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€hearing€on€the€modification€request.€€òòId.óóÐ )d$" Ðà × àIn€this€appeal,€the€mother€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€statement€that€theÏfatherððs€salary€was€set€by€the€father€and€his€brother€was€a€specific€finding€that€theÏfather€made€a€voluntary€decision€to€enter€into€a€business€relationship€that€wouldÏnot€allow€him€to€comply€with€his€child€support€obligations.€€The€mother€does€notÏcontend€that€the€fatherððs€loss€of€his€previous€job€was€voluntary.€€Rather,€sheÏargues€that€his€decision€to€start€a€new€business€with€his€brother,€when€he€lackedÏthe€assets€to€do€so,€was€willful€and€voluntary€underemployment€in€view€of€hisÐ 8`30 Ðskills€and€prior€work€experience.€€She€maintains€he€did€not€seek€otherÏemployment€in€his€field.€She€also€argues€that€his€prior€salary,€$82,500,€is€the€bestÏevidence€of€his€potential€earnings.Ìà × àOn€the€other€hand,€the€father€argues€that€he€sought€to€remedy€hisÏunemployment€by€using€his€skills€and€experience€to€open€his€own€company€withÏhis€brother€who€was€supplying€the€initial€funding.€€The€father€does€not€allege€thatÏhe€sought€other€employment€before€entering€into€the€partnership€with€his€brother.€ÏTo€the€contrary,€in€his€brief€he€states€that€he€ð ðimmediatelyðð€took€steps€to€remedyÏhis€unemployment€by€starting€his€own€company.Ìà × àDespite€theñåñseñåñ€arguments€in€the€briefs,€the€record€simply€contains€noÏevidence€regarding€the€fatherððs€effort,€or€lack€thereof,€to€find€employment€at€aÏsalary€which€would€allow€him€to€meet€his€support€obligations,€or€to€find€anyÏother€employment.€€The€record€also€contains€no€information€regarding€availableÏpositions€and€salaries€in€his€field.€€If€the€father€made€a€voluntary€choice€to€startÏa€business€where€his€salary€is€set€at€less€than€half€of€his€previous€income€withoutÏexploring€the€possibility€of€employment€at€a€higher€salary,€such€action€could,€asÏthe€mother€asserts,€demonstrate€willful€underemployment€in€disregard€of€hisÏsupport€obligations.€€Without€such€evidence,€we€are€unable€to€make€a€findingÏregarding€his€underemployment.Ìà × àEven€if€this€Court€were€able€to€sustain€an€implicit€finding€that€the€fatherÏwas€willfully€and€voluntarily€underemployed,€the€issue€of€his€potential€earningsÏis€even€more€problematic.€€An€obligorððs€potential€income€is€a€question€of€factÏwhich€this€court€is€unable€to€review€absent€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record.€ÏòòRenick€v.€Renickóó,€No.€01„A„01„9007„CV„00263,€1991€WL€99514€at€€*€6€(Tenn.Ð ì5<1. ÐApp.€June€12,€1991)€(permission€to€appeal€denied€Nov.€4,€1991).€Ð 8`30 Ðà × àBecause€the€fatherððs€job€loss€was€€not€a€result€of€a€voluntary€action€orÏconscious€decision€on€his€part,€we€are€unwilling€to€assume€that€the€father€could€Ïhave€gotten€another€job€making€$82,500€or€to€assume€the€opposite.€Similarly,€weÏare€unable€to€conclude€that€he€could€not€have€gotten€a€job€in€the€open€marketÏwhich€paid€significantly€more€than€$35,000.€€The€record,€such€as€it€is,€providesÏno€basis€for€our€independent€determination€of€€what€€the€father's€potential€incomeÏmight€be.Ìà × àThus,€the€record€prevents€us€from€conducting€an€independent€review€toÏascertain€the€propriety€of€the€trial€court's€decision€to€reject€€the€father's€request€forÏmodification€of€child€support.€€Accordingly,€this€case€must€be€remanded€forÏfurther€fact€finding.€€òòSee€Herreraóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€394;€€òòDevorak€v.€Pattersonóó,€907Ð h ÐS.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ìà × àBecause€these€determinations€are€very€fact„specific,€it€is€incumbentÏupon€the€parties€to€present€to€the€trial€court€the€full€factual€background€of€aÏparticular€situation.€€We€agree€that€ð ðthe€judicial€system€should€look€with€theÏgravest€disfavor€upon€parents€who€through€their€fault€or€design€becomeÏunderemployed€in€an€effort€to€evade€their€legal,€natural€obligation€to€support€theirÏchildren.ðð€òòAnderson€v.€Andersonóó,€€No.€01A01„9603„CV„0018,€1996€WL€465242Ð )d$" Ðat€*€1€(Aug.€16,€1996)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€However,€weÏare€simply€unable,€on€the€basis€of€the€record€before€us,€to€draw€such€conclusions.Ìà × àThis€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Pending€such€further€proceedings€the€amount€of€child€support€shall€ñæñÌñæññçñÐ  È3/, ÐñçññèñÐ  È3/, Ðñèñremain€unmodified.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€Appellant€andÏAppellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌà0 × àà0× T$× T$à_____________________________Ð T$T$ Ðà × àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€(M.S.)ÌÌÌÌ________________________________________ÌÓ?SÏû× »“Xÿÿ°,X°4ì“X?ÓWILLIAM€C.€KOCH€JR.,€JUDGEÌ