WPC # VU:a % 0(wb 4  0J 0TZ 0^ 0h 0rt 0| 0b 0 1ux 0d U*Q B){ DC AM 4v~0v B D3 0@ AO` 0D& D/j BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX($Ӏ - -D dddj#3|x 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd-C << G !  #d#     YYY FILEDXDecember20,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  d%%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .   7XXdd7        \RA'\ BRENDAF.SANDUSKY,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019605CH00209VS.      )      ) WayneChancery      ) No.7900R !A1-j|T`  `@RDANNYJ.SANDUSKY,   )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFWAYNECOUNTYATWAYNESBORO,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEJIMT.HAMILTON,JUDGEW.C.KEATONLAURAE.METCALFKEATON,TURNER&SPITZERP.O.Box789102NorthCourtStreetHohenwald,Tennessee38462 AttorneysforPlaintiff/AppelleeJAMESY.ROSSP.O.Box246106PublicSquareNorthWaynesboro,Tennessee38485 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellant@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.LEWIS,J.  @ OPINION X  Thispostdivorceproceedinginvolvesquestionsofthechildsupportarrearagesdueunderamaritaldissolutionagreement,thefathersincomeforpurposesofsettingtheamountofchildsupport,whetherthehusbandisduereimbursementforanincometaxpayment,andwhetherthewifeisentitledtoattorneysfees.Weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialjudge.@ I.   Ina1988divorcethepartiesexecutedamaritaldissolutionagreementwhichthecourtincorporatedinthedivorcedecree.Theagreementgavethehusbandallthestockinhisbusiness,SanduskyTruckingCompany,gavethewifecustodyofthepartiestwochildren,andprovidedforchildsupportasfollows: 0   0   15. Thehusbandagreesthathepayalltheexpensesassociatedwiththereasonablecomfort,support,maintenance,healthandeducationofeachoftheparties[sic]childrenuntileachofthesaidChildrenreachestheageofeighteen(18)yearsofageorsoonerdies.TheWifewillprovidethehusbandwithcopiesofreceipts,invoices,cancelledchecks,orstatementsevidencingexpendituresmadeasobligationsincurredbytheWifeonbehalfofeachchildorbothChildren....         Inadditiontheagreementprovidedthatthepartieswouldbejointlyliableforanypotentialtaxliabilitythataroseduringthemarriage.  InJanuaryof1994Mrs.Sanduskyfiledapetitionforcontemptandmodificationofthedivorcedecree,allegingthatthehusbandhadfailedtoreimburseherforover$15,000inreasonablechildcareexpenses.AfterahearingthecourtorderedMr.SanduskytoreimburseMrs.Sandusky$10,000inbackchildsupport,setfuturechildsupportat$2,667.67permonth,anddismissedthehusbandsclaimthatthewifeowedanythingonabacktaxliability.Thecourtalsoorderedthehusbandtopay$6,614.90towardthewifesattorneysfees.@ II.   Mr.Sanduskycontendsthatthetrialjudgeerredinfindinga$10,000arrearageinchildsupport.Inhisbriefandatoralargumenthearguedthattheprovisionforchildsupportinthemaritaldissolutionagreementshouldbeconstruedagainstthewifeandthattheexpensesprovedbythewifewerenotreasonableornecessary.Hecitesfamiliarauthoritiestotheeffectthatacontractshouldbeconstruedmoststronglyagainsttheonewhodrewit.  Wefailtosee,however,howthatruleisinvokedinthiscase.Thepartiesagreementsimplyprovidedthatthefatherwould payalltheexpensesassociatedwiththereasonablecomfort,support,maintenance,health,andeducationofhischildren.Theonlyinterpretationrequirediswhetherthevariousexpensesincurredbythemotherwerereasonable.  Withrespecttothereasonablenessquestion,thehusbandsbriefisnotspecificaboutwhichofthebilledchargesheconsideredunreasonable.ThereissometestimonyintherecordaboutvacationtripstoHawaiiandtheBahamas,butthebriefdoesnotspecifytheamountorcitewhereintherecordtheamountsmaybefound.Evenifweweretodisallowthevacationcosts,however,therecorddoesshowthatthetrialjudgealsodisallowed$5,287.83oftheamountclaimedbythewife.Whetherthatdisallowancecorrespondstoanyofthechargesthehusbandclaimstobeunreasonabledoesnotappearintherecord.Wearepersuaded,therefore,thatthehusbandhasfailedtoshowhowtheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialjudgesfindingofa$10,000arrearageinchildsupport.@ III.   Themaritaldissolutionagreementalsoprovidedthateachpartywouldberesponsibleforonehalfofanybacktaxesthataccruedduringthemarriage.Mr.SanduskyclaimsthatMrs.Sanduskystillowesacertainamountforherhalfofthebacktaxes.Mrs.Sanduskysaysshepaidwhatheaskedhertopay.  ThetrialjudgefoundthatMrs.Sanduskyhad paidtothedefendantallportionsoftheFederalincometaxesthatwereduetobepaidbyher.Wedonotthinktheevidencepreponderatesagainstthatfinding.Again,wearehandicappedbythefactthattheevidenceintherecordisnotspecificabouthowmuchofthebacktaxespaidbyMr.Sanduskyrelatetotheyearswhenthepartiesweremarried.Mrs.Sanduskytestifiedthatshepaid$8,798.50onceandonehalfof$13,795anothertime.Basedonthisrecordwecannotsaythatsheowesanythingelse.@ IV.   IncalculatingtheamountofchildsupportMr.Sanduskyshouldpay,thetrialjudgeincludedtheincomeofSanduskyTruckingCompany,whichMr.Sanduskyhadallegedlysoldtohisfather.Mr.Sanduskycontendsthatthesalewasabonafidetransaction.  TheproofshowedthatthecorporationwasawardedtoMr.Sanduskyinthedivisionofthemaritalpropertyatthetimeofthedivorce.ShortlyafterreceivingaletterfromMrs.Sanduskyslawyerdemandingpaymentoftheamountsclaimedaschildsupport,Mr.Sanduskytransferredhisinteresttohisfatherfor$1,000andtheassumptionofthecorporatedebts.Heexplainedthetransferasanattempttoshieldhimselffromanyliabilitythatmightarisefromthecorporateoperation.  Theevidenceshowedthatthecorporationhadasubstantialnetworth.Inaprenuptialagreementsignedin1990Mr.Sanduskylistedtheworthofthecorporationat$329,193.The1992taxreturnshowedthestockholderequitytobe$545,596.ThecorporationhadconsistentlypaidMr.Sanduskyasalaryof$40,000to$50,000eachyear,andin1992itreportedataxableincomeof$83,810.  AconveyancemadeundersuchcircumstancesandonsuchinadequateconsiderationwouldbeconsideredvoidastoMr.Sanduskyscreditors.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.663101;Boweryv.Vines,178Tenn.98,156S.W.2d395(1941).Weknowofnoreasonwhyadifferentruleshouldapplywheretheoneattackingtheconveyancedoessoonbehalfofthetransferorschildrenratherthanhiscreditors.Whilewedonotsetthetransactionaside(Mr.Sanduskysfatherwasnotapartytothisaction),wethinkthetrialjudgewasjustifiedinattributingthecorporationsincometoMr.Sandusky.SeeMyersv.Myers,No.03A019411GS00395(Tenn.App.1995).@ V.   Finally,Mr.SanduskyattacksthetrialcourtsawardoffeestoMrs.Sanduskysattorneys.InTenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)thelegislaturegavethecourtstheauthoritytoawardreasonableattorneysfeestoaplaintiffspousewhosuestoenforceadecreeforchildsupport.Theamountoftheawardiswithinthecourtsdiscretionandtheabilityofthepetitioningspousetopayisnotthecontrollingconsideration.SeeSherrodv.Wix,849S.W.2d780(Tenn.App.1992).Wethinkthefeesawardedwerereasonable.  ThelowercourtsjudgmentisaffirmedinallrespectsandthecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofWayneCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsthatmaybecomenecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.      _____________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  %